Situational Leadership Assessment and Path-Goal Leadership Questionnaire

Angelina Spaulding
OGL 300: Theory Practice of Leadership
College of Letters and Sciences
Arizona State University

Situational Leadership Assessment and Path-Goal Leadership Questionnaire

The two self-assessments that were completed were the Situational Leadership
Questionnaire (Northouse, 2015, pp. 109 - 111) and the Path-Goal Leadership Questionnaire
(Northouse, 2015, pp. 133 - 134). Both survives examined the common leadership styles that
are associated with each respective theory. Some of the results were a surprise, specifically the
Situational Leadership styles, and other analyses information from the Path-Goal assessment
were not a surprise. The following information is a review of the results.
The first questionnaire that will be examined is the Situational Leadership Questionnaire.
This was the more difficult of the two assessments. Most of the difficulty came when
determining the personal approach of the moment. When it came to identifying the
developmental levels of the employees it was slightly easier, than determining the correct
response. For example situation one, I easily identified the individual employee at a D4 level,
as highly competent, but failed to utilize the supporting approach rather than a delegating
leadership approach. Situation one feels very sensitive, because of the need for downsizing
and the ripple effect that it would cause throughout the department. That is why I assigned the
task to her, but then wanted to provide support and encouragement with the task due to the fact
that people would be losing jobs. This is a situation that I personally may not have delegated,
due to the delicate nature of the overall task.
The situational approach to leadership equates a specific leadership style with a specific
developmental level. There is a disconnect here, because it does not always feel as if the
developmental level and the leadership style approach always go hand in hand. This
perspective of the situational leadership approach makes it difficult to want to apply this
theoretical approach. It seems to cut and dry, and leaves no room for ambiguity. Prior to
starting this course the situational approach was a style that I used often. However, as I learn

about different approaches, such as the Path-Goal approach, the application of this theory is not
being used as much.
The second self-assessment completed, the Path-Goal Leadership Questionnaire, was
much more straightforward in regards to the results. According to the test my use of a directive
style approach is on the cusp of common and high. My supportive approach towards leadership
was on the cusp of low to common. My participative and achievement-oriented approaches to
leadership were both considered high. I was surprised that the participative was marked as
high, and not surprised at all that I scored high for achievement-oriented. I was the most
unaware of my lack of support that is used as a leader. I really thought that I tried to be a
supportive leader. However, it seems that I misinterpreted my leadership style as supportive,
where I should have viewed it more as participative leadership. I did not believe that I was
participative, as the questionnaire had revealed.
The two self-assignments that were taken this week, for Situational Leadership and
Path-Goal Leadership styles, helped to reveal some new information in regards to my
leadership approach. Some aspects were affirmed by the questionnaires. I would like to utilize
a more supportive approach to leadership, because I am apparently not doing so as much as I
believed. Also, my use of the situational approach is much more refined in regards to
recognizing developmental levels, and not so well when determining the correct leadership style
approach for the moment. Both questionnaires have helped me to have better understanding of
my leadership strengths and have helped me to better understand my leadership areas of
opportunity.

Reference:
Northouse, P.G. (2015). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th Ed.). Washington, D.C.: Sage
Publications, Inc.