American Recovery and Reinstatement Act of 2009 Michael Neal

I think Obama best displayed the path-goal theory because he laid out the specific needs and wants that this act caused. He gave the situation and new the outcomes that would take place.

This act was important because it saved jobs and created new ones as soon as possible

This theory may not have been appropriate because the people may not have needed to know the reason that jobs were decreasing. Knowing that jobs are at stake may stress them out and cause them to be angry.

Another theory that could have been applied is the contingency theory. This may have been appropriate because it focuses on relations with the people and that is what Obama thrived at.

This theory may not have been appropriate because rather than just focusing on the people relations, the important task had to be accomplished as well.

I would have applied the path-goal theory. I am confident this would work because it lays out the clear path for achieving any goal. One concern I may have is that it does not focus on the relationship between the leader and the people.

One beneficial aspect of the bill is that is creates millions of jobs for the people. One thing that concerns me is that it costed $787 billion.

Made with Adobe Slate

Make your words and images move.

Get Slate

Report Abuse

If you feel that this video content violates the Adobe Terms of Use, you may report this content by filling out this quick form.

To report a Copyright Violation, please follow Section 17 in the Terms of Use.