Conceptual Weaknesses of Path goal theory Path goal theory has been criticized for relying too much

h on expectancy theory. Expectancy theory attempts to explain motivation primarily in terms of cognitive (rational) processes, and does not give any attention to emotional factors (does not consider emotional bonds or affection between leader and follower, and the influence of such emotions on employee behavior and performance). Expectancy theory does not take into account emotional reactions to decision dilemmas, such as denial or distortion of relevant information about expectancies and valences. Also, the theory limits the explanation of leadership influence to changes in subordinate perceptions about the likely outcomes of different actions. Another conceptual limitation is the reliance on broad categories of leader behavior that does not correspond closely to the mediating processes. It is easier to make a link between leader behavior and subordinate motivation by using specific behaviors such as clarifying role expectations, recognizing accomplishments, giving contingent rewards, modeling appropriate behaviors for subordinates to imitate, and communicating high expectations about subordinate performance. Another limitation of path-goal theory is that, each type of leadership behavior is considered separately. The theory says that directive leadership will be beneficial when the task is unstructured, but directive leadership may not be beneficial for an unstructured task if there is another situational determinant of subordinate role clarity, such as a high level of professional training and experience. Ambiguous (unstructured) and complex jobs do not always create ambiguity, stress or anxiety among employees, requiring directive (task oriented) leadership. For example, highly trained, professionals (research scientists) may not require (nor welcome) directive leadership. Clearly, there are limitations to the path-goal theory of leadership.