Leadership Methods and Skills - Research Proposal Example

Degrees of participation related to decision-making are represented by a continuum ranging from autocratic (leader retains all decision-making power)to participative (leader shares power with subordinates and permits them to influence decisions) models. Initial research on the effectiveness of various participative leadership styles has yielded mixed findings (Vroom, 1976)1. In addition, since there are many degrees of participation involved and many ways to measure its effectiveness, the whole notion of participative decision-making may be a little problematic to graph. Thus, effectiveness of participative decision-making may under various situations and in many different types of responses and the degree of participation. The appropriate leadership style applied to a specific situation and issue may help in understanding the participative decision-making and the motivations that induce such participation. Functional participation (Yukl, 1981)2 is present; when, leader has the authority to make a decision, the decision is made without stringent time limitation, subordinates have the relevant knowledge to discuss and implement the decision, subordinates' characteristics (values, attitudes, needs) are congruent with the decision to participate, and the leader is skilled in the use of participative techniques. Vroom & Yetton (1973) developed a normative model of leadership decision-making based on Maier's (1963) classification3. The Vroom-Yetton model is one of a number of contingency models designed to provide guidance for managers concerning when and how much subordinate participation should be used. The model focuses attention on the nature of decisions and attempts to designate conditions under which participation will be most successful. The Vroom-Yetton model might appropriately be classified as hierarchical control models that derive their principal assumption from the rational design view of organizations. The AI (first variant on the authority decision) says that the manager solves the problem individually or makes the decision alone using available information, and then the second variant on the authority decision or the manager gets the necessary information from subordinate(s) or others, and then reaches a problem solution. He/she may or may not tell subordinates what the problem is before obtaining the information from them. The subordinates provide the necessary information but do not generate or evaluate alternatives. Then CI, or the first variant on the consultative decision, i.e. the manager, shares the problem with relevant subordinates or others individually, getting their ideas and suggestions without bringing them together as a group. He/she then makes a decision that may or may not reflect subordinates' influence. The CII or the second variant on the consultative decision, i.e. the manager, then shares the problem with subordinates or others, collectively obtaining their ideas and suggestions. He/she then makes the decision that may or may not reflect subordinates' influence. The G (the group or consensus decision): the manager shares the problem with subordinates as a total group and engages the group in consensus seeking to arrive at a final decision. The central proposition of the Vroom-Yetton model is that the decision-making method selected must be appropriate to the problem requiring a solution. Thus, all five of the decision-making methods are useful and each will be used over time. The manager's task is to know when and how to implement each method as the situation requires. The appropriate choice of decision-making method will depend on the attributes of the problem faced. Their flowchart provides a way for managers to analyze the attributes of problem situations and select the most appropriate decision method. Leadership decision-making style measured by the Vroom-Yetton problem set divides leaders into two groups determined by the degree of agreement with the feasible set. Worker job satisfaction is defined as satisfaction with supervision as measured by the Job Description Index (Smith, Kendall & Hulin, 1969)4. Productivity was measured by the ratio of sales revenue to direct material plus total payroll. The Vroom-Yetton model has been analyzed in many different decision situations. It has been compared with other decision-making models (Tjosvold, Wedley & Field, 1986)5. The model has been used to compare leadership styles at different hierarchical levels (Jago, 1978)6. Its validity has been tested with regard to decision quality and decision acceptability, analyze the personality determinants of participativeness, applied in situations that did not rely on leader self-reports and used to compare the decision-making style of managers in different organizational functions. The model has been used to study the perspective from which the individual views the leader and its impact on evaluation of leadership effectiveness and finally, the Vroom-Yetton model has been applied to leaders of several nations (Bottger, Hallein & Yerton, 1985)7. However, only a few of the studies have been conducted in real-world business or have been used to analyze subordinate productivity and job satisfaction (Margerison & Glube, 1979)8. Even fewer have measured jobs where performance is subject to subordinate control and almost none have investigated service activities. Thus, the impact of leadership decision-making styles, i.e. the feasible set as defined by the Vroom-Yetton model, on subordinate productivity and job satisfaction may be questionable. Its setting is a service-producing organization and its focus is on a situation where job performance is under subordinate control, that is, employees could devote more or less time to job performance by choice. They did not have to depend on technology or other employees to control their activities. The study tested the same hypothesis in a different work setting and using different measures of productivity. A number of limitations may be pointed out. First, the work-sampling procedure measured work input (percentage of time devoted to productive work activities) rather than output. A second problem with the study concerned the use of self-report techniques. Such approaches may be suspected as they introduce many possible perception errors. What a supervisor says he/she would do in a given decision-making situation and what he/she would actually do are often quite different. Most leaders generally use a more democratic style than is perceived by their followers and others. It is difficult to evaluate the impact of perception errors. A third limitation may be the use of concurrent validation. The fourth limitation may be the usual problems associated with short-term studies. Although every effort was made to control for these influences, and to ensure that all subjects in the study were exposed to identical influences, experimenters cannot normally be certain that these effects have been eliminated. Finally, it is recognized that the Vroom-Yetton model focuses on only one aspect of leadership, i.e. decision making. Unfortunately, it tells us little about how and why a leader perceives the problem and subordinate reactions as he/she does. Further research will have to address these limitations and conjectures concerning possible causes. Recent studies suggest possibilities for interactions with other theories of leadership decision making and behavior in organizations in many countries, involving: vertical dyad linkage theory (Crouch & Yetton, 1988)9, problem structure and leader power, conflict management (Crouch & Yetton, 1987) and empowerment theory (Conger & Kanungo, 1988)10. The model may be limited because it deals with a limited aspect of leadership behavior. The model describes in full the individual problems and the group problems. The model is deductive in nature that is designed to protect decision quality and acceptance. In addition, the biggest test to validity of the model is that they have been developed keeping in mind self-reported data and situations personally felt and recorded. A further error could occur because the dependent variables of decision effectiveness, quality and acceptance are self-reported on seven-point scales and when reporting an effective decision-making these may be cognitively reported on low scales. Thus the major threat to this model is the use of concurrent validation with the problem of attributes, decision process, decision effectiveness, quality and acceptance all being self-reported by the subject-manager. A predictive validation study of the model must be undertaken using objective coding of these variables. Rigorous research is necessary before this model can be accepted as valid for use as a prescriptive tool for decision-making. The utility is questionable as it is not parsimonious as other models of leader decision process choice. Maier's (1963) 11 model may be recommended, since it works on problem solving deals with this aspect of leader behavior that Vroom and Yetton suggest along with requisite leader skills and their development, which shall help the decision-making model with exhaustive results that are more effective and predictable in nature. Works Cited 1. Vroom, V. H. (1976). Leadership. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, pp. 1527-1551. Chicago; Rand McNally. 2. Yukl, G. (1981). Leadership in Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 3. Maier, N. R. F. (1963). Problem Solving Discussion and Conferences: Leadership Methods and Skills. New York: McGraw-Hill. 4. Smitb, P., Kendall, L. & Hulin, C. (1969). The Measure of Satisfaction in Work and Retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally. 5. Tjosvold, D., Wedley, W. & Field, R. (1986). Constructive controversy, the Vroom-Yetton model and management decision-making. Journal of Occupational Behaviour. 7, 125-138 6. Jago, A. G. (1978). A test of spuriousness in descriptive models of participative leader behaviour. Applied Psychology. 63, 383-387. 7. Bottger, P. C , Hallein, I. H. &Yetton, P. W. (1985), A cross-national study of leadership: Participation as a function of problem structure and leader power. Journal of Management Studies. 22, 358-368. 8. Margerison, C, & Glube, R. (1979). Leadership decision-making: An empirical test of tbe Vroom and Yetton model. Joumal of Management Studies. 16. 45-55. 9. Crouch, A. & Yetton, P. (1988). Manager-subordinate dyads: Relationships among task and social contact, manager friendliness and subordinate performance in management groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Making. 41, 65-82. 10. Conger, J. & Kanungo, R. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. The Academy of Management Review. 13,471-482. 11. Maier, N. R.F Problem Solving Discussions and Conferences: Leadership Methods and Skills (New York: Mc-Graw-Hill, 1963). 12. Maier, N.R.F. Problem Solving and Creativity in Individuals and Groups (Belmont, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1970) 13. Maier, N.R.F. Psychology in Industrial Organizations, 4th ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1973) for more information. Read More