Unbiased Reviews by Real People
|
|
Unbiased Reviews by Real People
Vroom-Yetton Contingency ModelNov 29, 2005 Write an essay on this topic.
Popular Products in Toys
The Bottom Line The Vroom-Yetton Contingency Model allows leaders very direct and clear pattern to address problems that arise.
Introduction to Vroom-Yetton Contingency Model "I do not see any form of leadership as optimal for all situations. The contribution of a leader's actions to the effectiveness of his organization cannot be determined without considering the nature of the situation in which that behavior is displayed." When Victor Vroom made the above referenced comment, Vroom is asserting his belief that all leadership is contingent upon things within the environment and that no leadership model can be carved in stone and adhered to as a be all and end all. Vroom joined with Phillip Yetton to draft in 1973 their model of leadership known as the Vroom-Yetton Contingency Model. This model is based on the assumption that situational variables interacting with personal attributes or characteristics of the leader result in leader behavior that can affect organizational effectiveness. (Hersey, pg. 113-14) In order to fully understand the Vroom-Yetton Contingency Model, it is important to understand what a contingency model is. This model is a contingency model because the leader's possible behaviors are contingent upon the interaction between the questions and the leader's assessment of the situation in developing a response to the questions. (Hersey, pg. 117) This model is important for several reasons, however, perhaps the most important reason is based on the notion that it empowers the leader in ways that other models might not. Both Vroom and Yetton believe that their model allows leaders to have the ability to vary their styles to fit the situation. (Hersey, pg. 117) Breakdown of the Vroom-Yetton Contingency Model Vroom and Yetton differentiated leadership within their model into five different managerial decision styles Through these five unique, yet closely related styles, Vroom and Yetton show how even within the same contingency model there is varying actions that can lead to varying results. In the table below, the outline of the types of managerial decision styles in the Vroom Yetton Model is discussed. (Hersey, pg. 116) AI You solve the problem or make the decision yourself, using information available to you at the time. AII You obtain the necessary information from your follower(s), then decide on the solution to the problem yourself. You may or may not tell your followers what the problem is in getting information from them. The role played by your followers in making the decision is clearly one of providing the necessary information to you, rather than generating or evaluating alternative solutions. CI You share the problem with relevant followers individually, getting their ideas and suggestions without bringing them together as a group. Then, you make the decision that may or may not reflect your followers influence. CII You share the problem with your followers as a group, collectively obtaining their ideas and suggestions. Then, you make the decision that may or may not reflect your followers influence. GII You share a problem with your followers as a group. Together you generate and evaluate alternatives and attempt to reach agreement (consensus) on a solution. Your role is much like that of chairperson. You do not try to influence the group to adopt "your" solution, and you are willing to accept and implement any solution that has the support of the entire group. The five above referenced managerial methods are relevant to group decision making, and include two authoritarian processes (denoted AI and AII); two consultative processes: consultation with subordinates individually (CI) and consultation with subordinates as a group (CII); and a group process of joint decision making (GII). (House and Aditya, pg. 7) The Vroom-Yetton Contingency model takes the shape of a tree diagram and is a very methodical and direct way to choose how best to handle the issue at hand. If you answer seven yes/no questions in relation to the tree diagram, when you reach the end-point at the left, you will have chosen the appropriate decision-process from the five above referenced managerial methods. The seven questions that must be answered in order from 1 to 7 and followed across the tree diagram from left to right: 1.Is there a quality requirement? Is the nature of the solution critical? Are there technical or rational grounds for selecting among possible solutions? 2.Do I have sufficient information to make a high quality decision? 3.Is the problem structured? Are the alternative courses of action and methods for their evaluation known? 4.Is acceptance of the decision by subordinates critical to its implementation? 5.If I were to make the decision by myself, is it reasonably certain that it would be accepted by my subordinates? 6.Do subordinates share the organizational goals to be obtained in solving this problem? 7.Is conflict among subordinates likely in obtaining the preferred solution? (http://www.implementer.com/implementer/web/step4_c/persuade-decrational.htm) Effectiveness of Vroom-Yetton Contingency Model As any good model must have done to it, the Vroom-Yetton Contingency model has been placed through several rigorous tests to determine the effectiveness of the model when put into practical action. It is important to remember that given that: (1) the Vroom-Yetton theory is a highly rational theory, and (2) the managers in the field studies can be expected to present themselves as highly rational, a strong rationality bias based on social desirability may be expected in the results. (House and Aditya, pg. 8) In the Fields and House (1990) study, the Vroom-Yetton model was tested using both managers' and subordinates' recall of decision processes, attributes, and decision effectiveness. While the data obtained from the managers supports the model, those obtained from the subordinates did not. The opposing results were primarily due to differences in ratings of decision effectiveness and ratings of subordinates’ acceptance required between managers and their subordinates. (House and Aditya, pg. 8) This should come as no surprise to observers looking at the data offered from the Vroom-Yetton model. The model's ultimate goal is to allow the managers to be able to run an efficient and effective operation. Therefore, because the Vroom-Yetton model seeks to empower the leader first, it should come as no surprise that the leader is content with the outcome of the model. However, the subordinate in this model, although a slightly more emphasized aspect of empowerment comes in the GII section of the model, should the subordinate work under an AI or AII leader, the subordinate might still feel a strong disconnect from the leader. Therefore, it seems as though based on Fields and House’s analysis of the model, the closer the leader can get to being a GII leader, the likelihood of more content subordinates becomes greater. Conclusion The Vroom-Yetton Contingency Model allows leaders to follow a very direct and clear pattern of questioning and leadership decision making to determine how best to work with subordinates and address a problem. This contingency model shows that leadership and the actions needed to be a leader are never constant and that a certain aspect of fluidity must be applied to leadership at all times. The Vroom-Yetton Contingency model was updated in 1988 when Vroom and Jago took the fundamental practices of Vroom-Yetton and clarified and altered the theory to address some of the weaknesses that Vroom felt were prevalent in Vroom-Yetton. References Hersey, Paul. (2001) Management and Organizational Behavior (Eighth Edition). Upper Saddle, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. House, Robert J. and Aditya, Ram N. (1997) The Social Scientific Study of Leadership: Quo Vadis. Journal of Management. http://www.implementer.com/implementer/web/step4_c/persuade-decrational.htm  |
| Write the first comment on this review! |
