The Impact of Path-Goal Leadership Styles on Work Group Effectiveness and Turnover Intention

摘要: Globalization and the demand for a skilled, educated, expeditious workforce pressure organizations to leverage their diverse workforces gain competitive advantage (Harris, 1996). Throughout next decade, U.S. is forecasted become even more diverse, with 75 percent of immigrant population arriving in United States from Asia Latin America, only five coming Canada Europe. Women minorities were projected represent 70 U.S.'s 2008 (Lockwood, 2005). To maintain financial competitiveness this landscape, organizational leaders must embrace leadership styles that are most effective motivating groups which many employees work. Diversity work can generate significant benefits organizations, including enhanced innovation, creativity, productivity (Valentine, 2001). Capturing these takes right type style skills (Jung Sosik, 2002; Silverthorne, 2001; Waldman et al., Kim Organ, 1986; House, 1971; Fiedler, 1967). Despite recognition an appropriate leader enhance group's performance, increase group members' job satisfaction, reduce turnover intentions, there scant research assessing impact specific on effectiveness intention (Duemer 2004). help fill gap, we analyze relationships among three Path-Goal styles, diversity, intention. The following section discusses important literature about groups, effectiveness, intention, styles. Then, methods results our data collection analysis presented. Finally, conclusions implications study's findings fields management explained. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Work Groups Group comprised individuals who interdependent and/ or interact each other complete tasks projects contribute productivity, creativity. exchange information know-how members as they achieve common goals generates social bonds organizations' performance (Gil 2005; Blanchard Miller, Beck 1999; Anakwe Greenhaus, Nonaka Takeuchi, 1995). Diverse exist when individual attributes differ (Mannix Neale, Hobman 2004, 2003). Researchers often focus two dimensions member diversity. first "visible dissimilarity," includes explicit characteristics such age, race/ethnicity, gender, second "value/informational relative functional background, educational seniority (Hobman 2003; Chattopadhyay, Chatman Flynn, Williams O'Reilly, 1998). When people whom perceive different, tend classify themselves those into categories (Cox Nkomo, 1990). Research has found that, early life group, visible aspects diversity age. As interact, redirect attention non-visible features personality, education, expertise, values, communication (Cunningham Sagas, 2004; Salomon Schork, Richard Caudron, 1994). Employees perceived value/informational dissimilarity be less satisfied them have weaker attachment high similarity (Lankau al. …