The Path-Goal Leadership questionnaire comprises a list of questions covering different characteristics of an effective leader as described by Robert House in his Path-Goal theory of leadership. The purpose of the questionnaire is to determine what leadership behaviors a person employs that are valuable to motivation, performance, and satisfaction of subjects. Results obtained after filling out the questions produces results that are subject to interpretations using predetermined guidelines. This is a unique and surprising aspect of the tool. Depending on the results, a person can be a directive, supportive, participative, or achievement oriented leader.
In my opinion, the questionnaire strongly resonates with my personal leadership philosophy in the sense that it incorporates specific questions that assess particular attributes of my most admirable leadership style. I believe in the participative leadership style compared to the rest of the styles as depicted in the questionnaire results that are consistent with my beliefs and advocacy for effective leadership. However, the questionnaire suggests that every leader possesses all the four qualities and tend to lean on one than the other three as opposed to the belief that a person can only have one leadership style (House & Mitchell, 1974). The score provides information on what leadership style an individual tends to heavily rely on those that are less employed.
The entire Path-Goal theory and the questionnaire are valuable to gaining a perspective understanding of the concept of effective leadership. The model postulates that performance, motivation, and level of satisfaction of followers is dependent on the leadership style adopted by their leader (House & Mitchell, 1974). On this account, the theory, as the questionnaire emphasizes, points to four different styles of effective leadership and from the way they are outlined, it helps a leader know how to maneuver through the styles when necessary.
House, R.J., & Mitchell, T.R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business. 3: l–97.