| Course | BU 530 Business Leadership Foundations |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 5 |
| Paper type | Theory comparison |
| Length | About 980 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for BU 530 Unit 5
Stay on the Roof or Clear the Path: Path-Goal Theory and Situational Leadership Compared on One Journeyman's First Hospital Roof in a New Membrane System
Student Name
Business, Herzing University
BU 530: Business Leadership Foundations
Instructor Name
February 9, 2026
Stay on the Roof or Clear the Path: Path-Goal Theory and Situational Leadership Compared on One Journeyman's First Hospital Roof in a New Membrane System
The Two Models
This paper compares two contingency models on one situation to find where they would tell me to do different things. Path-goal theory, proposed by House (1971) and reformulated by House (1996), holds that a leader's job is to make the path to work goals clearer and easier, and that which behavior helps depends on the followers and on the task environment. Situational leadership, developed by Hersey and Blanchard and set out in its current form by Hersey et al. (2013), holds that a leader should match the amount of direction and support to the follower's readiness, meaning their ability and willingness to do a particular task. In one sentence each: path-goal treats the source of effective leadership as removing what stands between followers and their goals, and situational leadership treats it as fitting style to the follower's readiness for the task in hand.
The Situation
A hospital in the East Valley has hired my company to replace the roof over its surgical wing with a polyvinyl chloride membrane from a manufacturer we have not installed before. Seams are joined with hot-air welding, and the manufacturer's details differ from the system we usually install in how seams are overlapped and how penetrations are flashed. The manufacturer's warranty requires its own inspection, and the hospital requires that work over occupied operating rooms be scheduled around surgical hours. I have assigned the work to a journeyman from Crew B with nine years of experience, who has welded other membranes many times, is eager to lead his first job and has never installed this system.
Dimension 1: What Each Model Takes as Given
Situational leadership takes the follower's readiness for this specific task as the fixed fact the leader must read. Readiness here is mixed: the journeyman's willingness is high, but his ability on this system is untested, which places him in the second of the model's four readiness levels for this task even though he would sit higher on our usual system. Path-goal theory takes as given two sets of contingencies: the follower's characteristics, such as experience and need for autonomy, and the task environment, such as how structured and clear the work is. Here the follower is experienced and independent, and the task is ambiguous because the system and the inspection process are new to everyone.
Dimension 2: What Each Model Treats as Changeable
In situational leadership the leader's style is what changes. The leader moves along a scale of task direction and relationship support to match readiness, and as readiness grows the leader steps back. In path-goal theory the leader's behavior also changes, but so does the environment: removing obstacles, arranging resources and clarifying expectations are leadership acts in their own right. Path-goal therefore gives me more levers than situational leadership, which concentrates on how I interact with the follower.
Dimension 3: What Evidence Supports Each
The evidence favors neither strongly, but it is weaker for situational leadership. Graeff (1997) reviewed the model's development and identified conceptual inconsistencies, including changes over time in how readiness is defined. Thompson and Vecchio (2009) put three versions of the model to an empirical test and found little support for its prescriptions, with the partial exception that newer employees benefited from more structure. For path-goal theory, Wofford and Liska (1993) found mixed meta-analytic support across many studies, with some predicted moderating effects of task structure confirmed and others not, and with weak measures limiting many studies.
Dimension 4: What Each Prescribes
| Dimension | Situational leadership | Path-goal theory |
|---|---|---|
| Reads the situation as | Willing but not yet able on this system | Experienced, independent follower facing an ambiguous task |
| Prescribed behavior | High direction with high support: explain, show and stay close while ability builds | Clarify the goal and standard, remove obstacles, set a challenging expectation, avoid redundant direction |
| Where the leader spends the first days | On the roof, watching and correcting seam work | Off the roof, arranging the manufacturer's representative, test equipment and the inspection and surgical schedules |
| Risk if wrong | Experienced journeyman feels second-guessed | Early welding errors go unnoticed until inspection |
Where the Models Diverge
The models agree that the journeyman needs something from me. They disagree about what. Situational leadership reads his untested ability on this system as the controlling fact and tells me to direct closely until he shows competence. Path-goal theory reads his experience and independence, together with the task's ambiguity, and tells me that close direction on welding he already knows how to do would be redundant and could lower his satisfaction; the ambiguity lies in the system's details and the inspection process, so that is where my effort belongs.
In practice the divergence is about where I spend the first three days of the job. Under situational leadership I am beside him on the roof. Under path-goal theory I am arranging for the manufacturer's technical representative to train the crew on the first morning, getting the seam probe and test welder the system requires, and settling the inspection dates and the surgical schedule with the hospital, while telling the journeyman the standard the warranty inspection will hold him to.
What I Will Do
I will follow path-goal theory, for two reasons. The evidence for it is stronger, if only modestly. And the situation's real uncertainty is not his welding but the system, the inspection and the hospital's constraints, which are things I can change and he cannot. I will take one idea from situational leadership: readiness is specific to a task. On the first morning I will watch the first test welds alongside the manufacturer's representative, which addresses the one real gap in ability without directing the rest of his work.
The choice can be checked. If path-goal theory is right about this situation, the first probe tests on his seams should pass at roughly the rate our crews achieve on familiar systems, and the inspection should find no more defects than usual. If the first day's probe tests show repeated failures, situational leadership's reading was the better one, and I will move back onto the roof for the rest of the first week. Deciding in advance what result would change my approach is the most practical thing the comparison taught me, because it turns a preference between two models into a test I can run on an ordinary Tuesday.
References
Graeff, C. L. (1997). Evolution of situational leadership theory: A critical review. The Leadership Quarterly, 8(2), 153-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(97)90014-X
Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, D. E. (2013). Management of organizational behavior: Leading human resources (10th ed.). Pearson.
House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(3), 321-339. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391905
House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 323-352. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90024-7
Thompson, G., & Vecchio, R. P. (2009). Situational leadership theory: A test of three versions. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(5), 837-848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.06.014
Wofford, J. C., & Liska, L. Z. (1993). Path-goal theories of leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 19(4), 857-876. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639301900407
Reading the BU 530 Unit 5 instructions
The fifth BU 530 unit asks students to compare two leadership models on a single situation. Requirements usually include naming and attributing both models, stating in a sentence what each treats as the source of effective leadership, choosing and defending comparison dimensions, describing one situation once and carrying it through both models, and identifying where their prescriptions diverge. Organizing by dimension rather than summarizing each model in turn is the structural choice most rubrics reward. Comparing more than two models dilutes the analysis. If the models mostly agree, the paper should say so and look for the narrow point where they do not. A composite situation is acceptable and protects colleagues. Most instructors also want the writer to say which prescription they would follow.
How this BU 530 Unit 5 example is built
The sample opens by attributing both models and summarizing each in one sentence. The situation is described once: a new membrane, a hospital schedule and an experienced but untested journeyman. Four dimension sections follow, each reading the case through both models: what each takes as given, what each treats as changeable, the evidence for each with Graeff, Thompson and Vecchio, and Wofford and Liska, and what each prescribes, summarized in a table. The divergence section explains that the models disagree about where the superintendent's effort belongs. The decision section chooses path-goal with reasons, keeps one idea from situational leadership and defines the result that would reverse the choice.
Reading the BU 530 Unit 5 rubric
Herzing's rubric for the theory comparison typically rewards accurate attribution of both models, well-chosen dimensions, consistent application to one situation, a clear divergence analysis and a reasoned decision. Attribution earns credit when each model is credited and summarized accurately. Dimensions score when they are chosen for a stated reason and applied evenly. Consistent application rewards carrying the same situation through both models without changing its facts. The divergence analysis is usually the heaviest criterion and earns full marks when it identifies the specific point where the models would lead to different actions. The decision scores when it weighs evidence and fit and says what would change the writer's mind.
BU 530 Unit 5 help: mistakes that cost points
Comparison papers lose marks when they describe one model, then the other, and add a paragraph of similarities at the end. Another common problem is using two different situations, so the models are never really compared. Writers often treat evidence unevenly, citing support for a favorite model and criticism for the other. Some find the models agreeing everywhere because the situation was too simple. Others never decide which prescription they would follow. A choice that cannot be checked against results is a preference, not a conclusion. If you need help choosing dimensions and a case that separates your two models, our writers can draft a comparison for your section.
Get a BU 530 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
Tell us which two models the Unit 5 assignment pairs, send the BU 530 rubric and instructions from your classroom, and we take it from there. We write a custom example organized by dimension, running one situation through both models and arguing the divergence to a verdict. First custom sample free, back in 24 to 48 hours.
More BU 530 papers and MBA samples
- BU 530 Unit 1: Leadership theory overview
- BU 530 Unit 2: Trait and behavioral approaches
- BU 530 Unit 3: Contingency and situational analysis
- BU 530 Unit 4: Self-assessment with limits
- BU 530 Unit 6: Ethics and influence paper
- BU 530 Unit 7: Feedback analysis
- BU 530 Unit 8: Leadership development plan
- BU 531 Unit 5: Scenario analysis
- BU 502 Unit 5: Leadership style assessment
- BU 506 Unit 5: Change approach and resistance
- BU 525 Unit 5: Build or buy analysis
BU 530 Unit 5 questions, answered
Can I compare more than two models?
Only if the instructions ask for it, and even then the same discipline applies. Each additional model multiplies the cells in the comparison and usually thins the treatment of all of them. Two models worked properly across four defended dimensions will out-score three handled loosely. If a third is required, keep the dimensions fixed and resist adding axes to accommodate it.
What if the two models mostly agree?
Look harder at the situation, since agreement usually means the case was chosen to be easy. Push the scenario toward the conditions where each model's assumptions are strained: high uncertainty, an unwilling group, a decision that cannot be delegated. If the models still converge, report that as the finding and explain which shared assumption they both rest on.
Should the situation be a real one from my job?
It can be, described thinly and de-identified: the shape of the decision, the constraints, the readiness of the people, nothing more. A constructed situation works just as well here, since the comparison is testing models rather than reporting events. Either way, keep employer documents, client detail, performance material and 360 feedback out of the paper entirely.
Where can I find a free BU 530 Unit 5 sample paper?
The BU 530 Unit 5 theory comparison is published in full here at no cost, with four dimensions, the prescription table, the divergence analysis and margin notes. Comparing other models? Send the instructions and the pair you were assigned, and a custom comparison is written free in roughly two days.
What if the two models mostly agree in BU 530 Unit 5?
Look for the narrow point where they do not. In the sample both models say the journeyman needs help, but they disagree about whether that help is close direction or clearing obstacles.