IMMLEIH

19

gunxmmunummmm "x/

\ 10172 2316

  
     

  

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

A TEST OF THE VALIDITY OF THE
VROOM-YE'I‘TON MODEL OF LEADERSHIP

DECISION- IE‘IG
presen e y

Thomas Edward Hill

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph. D. Psycho logy

degree in

 

 

/

Major professor

Date 10/3/77

 

0-7639

 

A TEST OF THE VALIDITY OF THE VROOM-YETTON MODEL

OF LEADERSHIP DECISION-MAKING

BY

Thomas Edward Hill

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

1977

Thomas Edward Hill

The results indicated that there was a significant
amount of variance in the selection of decision styles
attributable to both individual subject differences and
situational differences. These individual differences were
further explored by the examination of the subjects' per-
sonality characteristics and by a Q-type principal com-
ponents analysis of the subjects' responses. No signifi-
cant relationships were found between the personality
dimensions (achievement, autonomy, cognitive structure,
dominance, and order) and leader decision style or leader
effectiveness. The principal components analysis did
identify groups of decision strategies that were then
examined by analysis of variance of subjects' responses.
From these analyses, three different leader strategies were
identified and labeled human relations oriented, leader
influence oriented and Vroom-Yetton model oriented. Results
also indicated that a majority of the subjects were utili-
zing the problem attributes interactively. It was con-
cluded from these analyses that the contingency assumptions
of the model were supported.

Several different analyses were employed to examine
the descriptive assumptions of the model. It was found that
the correlations betWeen subjects' responses to both the
Cases and the Sets and the responses prescribed by the
model's Least Manhour Criterion (LMC) were generally high,
and the subjects agreed with the LMC and the feasible set

at considerably more than chance levels. The Vroom-Yetton

Thomas Edward Hill

model is defined by a series of ten rules that dictate the
prescribed relationship between the presence or absence of
the problem attributes and the selection of the decision
styles. It was found that the subjects violated all of the
rules, except one, at less than chance levels when respond-
ing to both the Cases and the Sets. Since the goal con-
gruence rule was violated at chance levels, it was con-
cluded that the subjects did not use this rule as a com-
ponent in their criteria to select decision styles. It was
speculated that, although these leaders perceived a need to
process this type of an issue in a group forum, they may
have been overestimating the influence afforded to the
group. The results indicated that 45 percent of the vari-
ance in the selection of decision styles was accounted for
by the presence or absence of the eight problem attributes.
Furthermore, it was discovered that not all problem attri-
butes were of equal importance in the selection of decision
styles with the attribute goal congruence independently
accounting for 15 percent of the variance and problem
structure independently accounting for almost no variance.
It was also found that leaders do not make the distinction
between group and individual problems completely consistent
with the model. In most respects, the basic descriptive
properties of the model were supported, but in some cases
the model calls for finer discriminations than were made

by leaders in the present study.

Thomas Edward Hill

The normative aspects of the model were inspected
by relating four Vroom-Yetton similarity indices to per-
formance and satisfaction measures by means of canonical
correlation analysis. A marginally significant relation
was found between the Vroom-Yetton indices and satisfaction,
for the Cases, and performance for the Sets. Examination
of the canonical variates revealed that superior performance
in the human relation aSpects of the job are related to the
Vroom-Yetton LMC, however, superior performance in the
technical skills aspects are related to similarity to the
model's feasible set. It was concluded that the relation-
ships were not strong support for the normative aspects of
the model.

In the second study, the generalizability of the
Vroom-Yetton model was examined by determining its appro-
priateness in the resource allocator and disturbance
handler roles defined by Mintzberg (1976). New case studies
were written for this study that described leaders in these
two roles. It was found that the Vroom-Yetton model was
generally more applicable to leaders in the resource allo-
cator role rather than the disturbance handler role. It
appears that when leaders are in the disturbance handler
role they are less likely to use the autocratic and delega-
tive decision styles than when in resource allocator roles.

Finally, it was suggested that additional research
is necessary to clarify the relationship between similarity

to the model and leader effectiveness. Within this general

Thomas Edward Hill

area the development of better similarity indices and the
examination of the appropriateness of the LMC are important

issues.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Although my name is conspicuously transcribed on
the cover of this document, the research within is actually
the combined effort of many people. I would like to thank
the members of my committee, Bob Davis, Carl Frost, Mike
Moore, and Neal Schmitt for their significant contributions.
I would particularly like to thank good old Neal, my
chairperson, for both his unsurpassed professional advice
and personal friendship. In addition, a large proportion
of gratitude is extended to my learned colleague and friend,
Carol Bylenga, for her assistance in all aspects of the
research. I am also grateful to Kathy Kohl and Elaine
Bishop for their help in dealing with the voluminous paper

work.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 v
LIST OF FIGURES. o c o o o o o o c c o o Vii
INTRODUCT ION O O O O O O I O O O O O O O 1
THE EVOLUTION OF LEADERSHIP THEORY . . . . . . 3
Trait Theories O O O O O O C O O O O I 3
The Behavioral Dimensional Theories . . . . . 4
Contingency Theories of Leadership. . . . . . 9
STUDY I--OBJECTIVES AND HYPOTHESES . . . . . . 39
METHODOLOGY 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 4 5
Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Description of the Measures . . . . . . . . 45
Performance Evaluations . . . . . . . . . 51
Problem Attribute Sets. . . . . . . . . . 52
Description of the Data Gathering . . . . . . 54
WYSIS OF DATA 0 O O O O O O O O C O O 57
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . 61
Descriptive Properties of the Sample . . . . . 61
Organizational Differences . . . . . . . '. 61
Contingency Aspects of the Model . . . . . . 64
Individual and Situational Differences. . . . 64
Leader Personality . . . . . . . . . . 68
Descriptive Aspects of the Model . . . . . . 71
Correspondence Between the Cases and Sets. . . 71
Subject Agreement with the Vroom-Yetton Model . 76
Rule Violation. . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Individual and Group Problems. . . . . . . 84
Importance of the Problem Attributes . . . . 87

iii

Normative Aspects of the Model .

Validity of the Vroom-Yetton Model

Models of Leader Decision-Making

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

STUDY II . . .

Objectives and Hypotheses.

METHODOLOGY . .

Subjects . .

Description of the Measure
Description of the Data Gathering

ANALYSIS OF DATA

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

APPENDIX . . .

LIST OF REFERENCES.

iv

Page
91
91
99

106
118
118
120
120
120
121
123
125
134
137

144

9.
10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

LIST OF TABLES

Types of Management Decision Styles . . . .

Mean Frequency Use of Management Decision
Styles (Cases) for both Organizations Used
in this StUdY o c c o c o o o o o 0

Mean Frequency Rule Violations for both
organizations 0 I I O O I O O O O 0

Reliability, Means and Variance for Each Scale
or Subscale in this Study. . . . . . .

Overall Analysis of Variance for Subjects and
Situations for the Cases and Sets . . . .

Correlations Among Personality Variables and
Leader Style, Satisfaction and Performance .

Individual Subject Reliability for the Problem
Attribute Sets . . . . . . . . . .

Summary Statistics for Leadership Measures
from Both the Cases and the Sets . . . .

Correlation Matrix for Both Cases and Sets. .

Correlations Between the Subjects' Responses
and the Vroom-Yetton Model (LMC) . . . .

Comparison of Observed and Expected Probability
of Rule Violation . . . . . . . . .

Frequency of Decision Styles for Group and
Individual Problems. . . . . . . . .

The Unique Contribution of the Problem Attri-
butes to Average Level of Participation . .

Correlations Among Vroom-Yetton Indicies and
the Criterion Sets . . . . . . . .

Page

19

62

63

65

67

69

72

74

75

77

82

85

89

93

Table

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

Page

Canonical Correlation Analyses Between the
Vroom-Yetton Indices and the Criterion Sets . 95

Q-Type Rotated Principal Components Solution . 100

Omega Square Values for Significant Main
Effects and Significant Interactions for
Each Subject . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Problem Attribute Structure for the Problem
set 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 122

Overall Analysis of Variance for Subjects and
Situations for Study II. . . . . . . . 127

Percentages of Decision Style and Summary
Measures for Subjects and the Vroom-Yetton
MOdel. O O O I O O O O O O O O O 129

Analysis of Variance Table for a Leader Role X
Problem Type X Subjects. . . . . . . . 131

Cell Means for Level of Participation and the

Prescribed LMC by Problem Type and Leader
Rele O O O O O O O O I O O O O O 132

vi

LI ST OF F IGURES

Figure Page

1. The Decision Process Flow Chart for the Vroom-
Yetton Model. (Reprinted from Leadership and
Decision-making by V. H. Vroom and P. W.
Yetton, University of Pittsburgh Press, 1973,
used with permission) . . . . . . . . . 26

 

 

2. Abridged Vroom-Yetton Decision Model. (Reprinted
from Individual differences in leader decisions
by T. E. Hill and N. Schmitt, 1977) . . . . 32

3. Example of the Problem Attribute Sets . . . . 53

vii

INTRODUCTION

Throughout the last several decades an abundance of
research has been undertaken in order to augment the under-
standing of leadership within industrial organizations. In
an idyllic manner the study of leadership can be viewed as
the inspection of interpersonal behavior between the one
who leads and the one who is led. Katz and Kahn (1966,

p. 301) assert that, "Leadership is a relational concept
implying two terms: the influencing agent and the person
influenced. Without followers there can be no leader."
However, a third term is also implicit within this state-
ment, that is the environment. Without a situational con-
text there can be no leaders nor followers. Hence the
parameters of the study of leadership encompass the leader,
the follower and the situation.

In order to integrate these three concepts various
theories of leadership have been proposed. The purpose of
these theories has been to explain what leadership is and
how it effects both individuals and groups (Stogdill, 1974).
The orientation of the theories has changed in response
to empirical research demonstrating the limitations of the

theories. As a whole, leadership theory can be viewed as

an evolutionary process. When a particular theory fails
to explain satisfactorily the nature of leadership or its
impact on the followers, a new theory emerges that is
altered in a manner that avoids the inadequacies of its
predecessor. Hence, the critical focus of leadership
research has been, and continues to be, on obtaining
evidence that supports or refutes the validity of the
theory. Validity, as used here, means the ability of a
theory to classify leadership components and make predic-
tions between these classifications and a wide variety of
common leadership outcome variables.

In the next section of this paper a brief review
of the evolution of leadership theory will be presented.
The review will commence with early attempts to understand
leader behavior and will terminate with the Vroom-Yetton
normative model of leadership which is the primary subject

of this investigation.

THE EVOLUTION OF LEADERSHIP THEORY

Trait Theories

 

Initial efforts in leadership theorizing concentra-
ted on determining general traits or constellation of
traits that were associated with successful leaders. One
such conception characterizes leadership as an unidimensional
personality trait. This theory assumes that individuals
have varying amounts of the trait which determine the
effectiveness of their leadership. In order for this theory
to be valid, Gibb (1968) suggests that it is necessary for
all types of environments and cultures to exhibit this
trait. He concludes that no such trait has yet been found
and much evidence has been accumulated to dispute the unitary
trait theory (Stogdill, 1948; Mann, 1959; and Bass, 1960).

A modification of the unitary-trait theory labeled
the constellation of traits theory states that each per-
son's leadership capacity is determined by a pattern of
traits. The pattern may shift from one situation to
another but this theory stipulates that the determinants
of leadership effectiveness are found in the personality of
leaders (Gibb, 1969). Stogdill (1948) conducted a thorough

review of the literature on the relationship between

personality and leadership and concluded that factors which
are associated with leadership could be classified as
capacity, achievement, responsibility, and participation.
He concluded,
The findings suggest that leadership is not a matter
of passive status or of the mere possession of some
combination of traits. It appears rather to be a
working relationship among members of a group, in
which the leader acquires status through active
participation and demonstration of his capacity for
carrying cooperative tasks through to completion
(Stogdill, 1948, p. 15).

The conception of leadership as a personality
characteristic proved to be an oversimplification of the
process. Significant correlations have not consistently
been found for many traits, and when they were found the
traits were too general (self-confidence or empathy) to be

of use in theory building or prediction of leader success

(Mintzberg, 1973).

The Behavioral Dimensional Theories

 

Following the decline in popularity of the trait
approach, theorists began to concentrate on the actual
behavioral dimensions and quantitative instruments to
measure them.

In the mid 1940s the Bureau of Business Research
at Ohio State University instituted extensive research to
construct an instrument for describing leadership. From a
large pool of items, the 150 that best represented ten
a priori dimensions were administered to a large summer

school sample. The subjects were asked to describe the

leader of a group in which they were a member. Hemphill and
Coons (1957) intercorrelated and factor analyzed mean

scores of the ten dimensions and obtained three orthogonal
factors. They may be described as (l) behaviors that are
socially agreeable to group members; (2) behaviors that
result in the output of the group; and (3) behaviors that
structure communication among group members. Halpin and
Winer (1957) revised the above questionnaire and adminis-
tered it to a larger number of bomber crews who described
their crew commanders. A factor analysis was performed on
this data in order to reorganize the items into fewer and
more independent categories of behavior. This was accom-
plished by correlating eight a_priori dimensions with 130
items (mostly from the original Hemphill and Coons question-
naire). The above procedure yielded four orthogonal factors.
(1) Consideration. Behaviors demonstrating friendship,
trust and respect; (2) Initiating structure. Behaviors

that organize patterns of organization; (3) Production
emphasis. 'Behaviors which stress the job to be completed;
and (4) Sensitivity. Awareness of social interrelation-
ships.

Halpin and Winer dropped the third and fourth
dimensions because they accounted for too little common
variance. These results and this scale (The Leader
Behavior Description Questionnaire) have come to be well
known and consideration and initiating structure are now

identified as the Ohio State dimensions of leadership.

Concurrent with the Ohio State studies the Uni—
versity of Michigan Survey Research Center also developed
behavioral dimensions of leadership. Katz, Maccoby, and
Morse (1950) located clusters of characteristics which
correlated positively with themselves and effectiveness of
the leader. They found two dimensions of leadership.

(1) Employee orientation. Behaviors by the supervisor that
denote his positive feelings toward his subordinates; and
(2) Production orientation. Behaviors by the supervisor
that stress getting the work done and technical aspects of
the job.

Likert (1961), working with data from the Life
Insurance Agency Management Association, suggests five
dimensions which he reports are necessary for effective
supervisory behavior. (1) Principle of supportive relations
--building subordinate sense of personal worth and impor-
tance; (2) Group methods of supervision-~building a high
degree of group loyalty and effective skills of inter-
action; (3) High performance goals--supervisors must be
both employee-centered and at the same time have high
performance goals; (4) Technical knowledge--supervisors
must have adequate competence to handle technical problems;
and (5) Coordinating, scheduling, planning. The super-
visor brings to the group the views, goals, and decisions
of other groups to provide communication and influence

decisions. These behavioral dimensions have been

integrated by Likert (1967) into a theory of participative-
group management which has been labeled System 4 management.

Bowers and Seashore (1966) reviewed a large number
of leadership studies and concluded that a great deal of
conceptual content was held in common. By integrating the
studies on leadership they proposed four dimensions which
they state ". . . seem to comprise the basic structure of
what one may term leadership.“ They are: (1) Support.
Behaviors that encourage a feeling of personal worth;

(2) Interaction facilitation. Behaviors which encourage
satisfying relationships; (3) Goal emphasis. Behaviors
which encourage goal attainment; and (4) Work facilitation.
Behaviors which help goal attainment by planning and pro-
viding resources.

Implicit in much of this research was the assumption
that different styles of leadership or different leader
characteristics would result in diverse levels of sub-
ordinate performance and satisfaction. Therefore, a great
deal of effort was directed at attempting to determine the
"best" or more productive types of leadership. Unfortun-
ately much of this research had led to equivocal results.
For example, field experiments by Coch and French (1948),
Brarclas (1948), and Marrow, Bower, and Seashore (1967)
have produced evidence that participative decision making
does increase productivity. On the other hand, studies by
French, Israel, and As (1960), Fleishman (1965), and Morse

and Reimer (1956) found no significant differences in

productivity between participative and autocratic work
groups. rAmong the several possible reasons for these out-
comes one appears to be most important. An effective
pattern of behavior in one situation may not be effective
in other situations. Based on this assumption contingency
models of leadership were developed and now appear to be
the most promising framework for studying leadership.

Concomitant with this view of leadership is a new
focus on the definition of leadership. No longer is it
conceptionalized as a general trait or a fixed behavior
pattern, but rather as a role to be performed within
certain established boundaries (Vroom, 1976). Although
contingency models of leadership may appear on the surface
to be a radical departure from previous research orienta-
tions, this is substantially a sophistical outlook. In
fact, contingency models are in response to the tremendous
amount of research on behavioral dimensional theories and
are modifications of these theories to handle inconsistent
findings. For example, the five dimensions of Likert's
System 4 are actually consequences of both leader behavior
and organizational conditions. Therefore, this particular
model of leadership can easily be transcribed into a con-
tingency model. In a similar manner other dimensional
theories have implicit contingency aspects within them.

In summary it may be stated that contingency
models are a temperate revision of leadership theory that

shifts a portion of the emphasis from static behavioral

characteristics of the leader to leader behaviors in a
dynamic environment. They also have the effect of altering
the focus of research from the leader as a person to one on
the psycholoqical process of leadership (Hammer & Dachler,

1975).

Contingency Theories of Leadership

Robert Tannenbaum and Warren Schmidt (1958) pioneered
in formal contingency models of leadership when they
presented an interactive model of leadership. They viewed
leadership behavior in terms of the degree of authority used
by a supervisor and the amount of freedom available to
subordinates in making decisions. Inherent within this
model is the assumption that the supervisor utilizes
differing amounts of authority and differing levels of
subordinate autonomy depending on the nature of the parti-
cular situation or problem. Antecedents that contribute
to the chosen style of leadership are perceived as stemming
from the supervisor, the subordinates, and the situation.
Hence, these three "forces" interact to determine the
leader behaviors that will be exhibited in each situation.
The major limitation of this model is that it encompasses
a prohibitively large number of variables and hence pro-
vides no prescriptions for appropriate leader behaviors
for all situations. It does however, offer a theoretical
orientation that allowed others to develop operationalized

contingency models.

10

In 1964, Fred Fiedler proposed a theoretical
explanation of much of the rather ambiguous results which
had come to his attention in the previous decade of research
on leadership. His theoretical approach has been labeled
the contingency theory of leadership. What Fiedler
essentially postulates is that the relationship between
leadership style and group effectiveness is moderated by a
situational favorability dimension. The emergence of the
contingency theory was guided by the notion that the
leader's style of interacting with his/her subordinates
will be affected by the degree to which he/she can wield
power and influence (Fiedler, 1967).

Fiedler classifies interacting groups along three
dimensions of situational favorableness for the leader.
They are (from Fiedler, 1967):

l. The leader's position power is defined as the
degree to which the position itself enables the
leader to get his/her group members to comply with
and accept his/her direction and leadership.

2. The structure of the task is defined as the degree
to which the activities of the group are programmed.
For example, Open hearth steel crews were classi-
fied as highly structured and ad hoc student groups
were classified as unstructured.

3. Leader-member relations represent the leader's
evaluation of the subordinates' reaction to him or
her and the subordinates' reaction toward the
leader.

The three dimensions are dichotomized into two
levels and are represented by a cube with eight cells or

octants. These cells range from Octant I (good leader-

member relations, high task structure, and high position

11

power) to Octant VIII (poor leader-member relations, poor
position power, and an ambiguous task). The theory Speci-
fies that a very favorable situation is one that would fall
within Octant I, while a very unfavorable situation falls
within Octant VIII. The contingency model then postulates
that group performance is contingent upon matching a
leadership style and the degree of favorableness of the
situation, that is, the degree to which the situation
provides the leader with influence over the subordinate.
This model suggests that group performance can be improved
either by modifying the leader's style or by modifying the
group-task situation.

A major underlying assumption of this theory is that
no one type of leadership will be effective in all situ-
ations. Fiedler views leadership in terms of motivational
systems. He hypothesizes that "relationship-motivated"
leaders seek primarily to maintain good interpersonal
relationships with co-workers, while "task-motivated"
leaders strive to accomplish some tangible goal (Fiedler,
1974). Fiedler assesses the motivational systems of leaders
by use of the Least Preferred Co-Worker (LPC). This measure-
ment is obtained by asking the subject to rate the person
he or she least likes working with on a bi-polar, eight-
point scale of the semantic differential format. High-LPC
persons, i.e., individuals who describe their LPC in rela-
tively positive terms are primarily relationship motivated.

Low-LPC persons, those who describe their least preferred

12

co-worker in very unfavorable terms, are task-motivated.
Fielder (1974) notes that the LPC is not a description of
leader behavior, since high or low LPC leaders change with
different situations, but is rather a general measure of
their motivational system.

Based on a good deal of past research the contin-
gency model predicts that task-motivated leaders (Low LPC)
will perform best in very favorable conditions or in very
unfavorable conditions, while relationship-motivated
leaders (High LPC) will perform best in moderately favor-
able conditions.

This model of leadership has by far generated more
research, both supportive and contradictory, than any other
such model. Therefore, I will not attempt to cite all the
relevant studies in this area, but will rather only sum-
marize and list major findings and conclusions. The
interested reader should consult Fiedler (1967, 1971) and
Chemers and Rice (1974) for a comprehensive review of the
empirical findings.

Fiedler (1974) has extrapolated data from 1963 to
1971 and presented the combined results in a figure
(Fielder, 1961, p. 69). Fiedler states,

The solid curve connects the median correlation within
each of the octants obtained in the original studies
(before 1963) on which the model was based. The broken
line connects the median correlations obtained in
various validation studies from 1964-1971. As can be
seen, the two curves are very similar, and the points

on the curves correlate .76 (p<.01) (Fiedler, 1974,
p. 70).

13

This summary seems to indicate that this model has generally
been supported by the latest research and is, therefore,
valid. Other writers do not share this opinion and con-
tinually attack Fiedler's findings.

Most of the criticism concerning this model questions
the empirical validity of the theory, the methodological
rigor in the experimentation, and the adequacy of this
theory as a theory. The major criticisms will be listed in
summary form below.

1. In a review of the theory in question Graen et al.
(1970) compared mean correlations for the octants
and found that the systematic relationship could
not be accounted for by Fiedler's favorability
dimensions. Furthermore, out of 51 correlations
used to test the model only two reached signifi-
cance. Thus, the conclusion was reached that the
findings which support the contingency model are
trivial.

2. The instruments used to measure the situational
dimensions are "weak" and subject to contamination
(Ashour, 1973).

3. Fiedler has offered no evidence to support the
contention that some situations are favorable to
the leader while others are not (Mitchell, et al.,

1970).

14

4. Because of the broad sampling of setting and popula—
tions the data could be simply a function of
sampling error rather than true differences between
conditions (Korman, 1971).

5. The LPC lacks acceptable test-retest reliability
and construct validity (Fiedler himself offers four
explanations of this measure) (Ashour, 1973).

6. Marx (1963) criticizes this theory because it fails
to meet the properties of a theory in that because
of methodological deficiencies it has a limited
capacity to guide meaningful research.

7. Ashour (1973) states Fiedler's approach lacks
explanatory power.

8. A lab study designed to test Fiedler's model failed
to find any support for the predictions (Grach,
Orris, & Alvares, 1971).

Fiedler's contingency model was an attempt to
explain the relationship between supervisory behavior and
effectiveness. The limited success may be attributed to
the fundamental orientation of the model. Vroom (Vroom &
Yetton, 1973) points out that Fiedler's model is a situ-
ational adaptation of the personality trait conception of
leadership. He uses a static individual difference measure
as an independent variable and includes situational
measures as moderator variables. Most reviewers note that
its major failing appears to be in the individual differ-

ence measures (Hunt, 1967; Hill, 1969; Mitchell, 1969).

15

This model does not allow for the possibility that the
leader's behavior may be influenced by the situation or
that leaders develop varying sets of decision rules
depending on the particular situation. Fiedler offers no
evidence that leadership is as rigid as the model demands.
If leadership is a learned set of behaviors then these
behaviors can be modified through new learning (Vroom,
1976).

Fiedler's contingency model was a major step forward
for leadership theory. It focused the attention of re-
searchers on the importance of the interaction between the
situation and leader behavior. While it is an important
link in the evolutionary chain of leadership theory, its
practical implications are uncertain at this time. The
overwhelming evidence from validation studies fails to
support the theory's predictions and the rationale behind
the classification system. Its major value rests in that
it prompted others to pr0pose contingency models that cir-
cumvent the inaccuracies of this model.

In contrast to Fiedler's approach, Vroom and Yetton
(1973) have proposed a normative model of leadership based
on the decision making process at the individual level.
They view the leadership role as controlling the process
by which decisions are made. The major focus of this
approach is to monitor the decision making strategy of the

person in a leadership role and to develop a systematic set

16

of criteria for selecting the optimal alternative from a
well defined set.

This conceptualization is consistent with the work
of March and Simon (1958) and Cyert and March (1963) which
contends that understanding the decision making process is
critical for the explanation of both individual behavior
and organizational behavior. In addition, studies utilizing
factor analysis have also indicated the importance of
decision making for effective leadership (Bray, Campbell, &
Grant, 1975; Hinrichs, 1969; Schmitt, 1977).

Vroom and Jago (1975) have noted that there are
both normative and descriptive questions concerning leader-
ship that are relevant to this model, which is typical of
leadership models that have been proposed recently (i.e.,
Blake & Mouton, 1964; Maier, 1974). The descriptive
questions center on understanding what and how components
of a situation have impact on a leader's decisions. Norma-
tive questions seek knowledge concerning the desirability
of choosing among the various alternatives available to a
leader. The latter questions are most important when one
is interested in applying models to obtain optimal solu-
tions to organizational problems (Vroom, 1976).

In 1968, Dr. Vroom had just completed a comprehen-
sive review of the literature on participative decision-
making and was somewhat disturbed by the conflicting
findings that research had yielded. To resolve this situa-

tion Vroom along with Yetton, then a graduate student at

17

Carnegie-Mellon, committed themselves to the construction
of a normative model of leadership behavior which would
systematize the multiple outcomes of participative decision-
making in a framework which could be utilized to describe
and predict the policies used by leaders. To accomplish
this goal they chose a multiple-path decision process. The
rationale behind this method was that the leadership role
can be conceptualized as controlling the process by which
decisions are made.

In any situation where a decision must be made that
will effect his/her subordinates and organizational effec-
tiveness the leader can make the decision in a number of
ways. He/she can, for example, make the decision himself/
herself with no inputs from others, or he/she can involve
the subordinates in the decision to varying degrees. The
method which is chosen will depend on the situation as
defined by the specific attributes of the problem being
solved. Vroom and Yetton undertook the explanation of
which type of decision strategy would be implemented by the
constructing of decision trees that reflected the principle
implication of research (Vroom & Yetton, 1973). Their
method was one of trial and error which demanded that the
model be re-evaluated and revised periodically. Following
their early speculations they began empirical research on
situational factors which influence leadership decisions.
This led to a formal defining of problem attributes and

decision-making rules to define effective leadership in

18

the model. Vroom and Yetton continued to collect more data
and revise the model, and in 1973 they published a book
explaining the model and describing the extensive research
which they had completed on it. Although this model has
been in print for a few years now, the reader should be
cautioned that the authors are still revising it and many
of the earlier models have been replaced by more compli-
cated ones that fit the data more closely.

Vroom and Yetton commenced with the assumption that
influence afforded subordinates in a decision-making
process has profound consequences on the nature of that
decision. A supervisor who autocratically makes a decision
may need to implement that decision in a different manner
than if his/her work group had been consulted in the
decision making process or were given the opportunity to
make the decision themselves. Since there is substantial
agreement that these decision making processes are distin-
guishable and are commonly used in organizations, attention
was turned to identifying the differences in process of
each style of leadership. From this analysis, Vroom and
Yetton (1973) defined a taxonomy of decision processes that
were likely to have different consequences on solutions and
were descriptive of the usual methods of leadership
employed by managers in their normal routine dealing with
both individuals and groups. This taxonomy is exhibited in
Table 1. Each process is labeled by a symbol, e.g., AI,

CII, GI, DI; the letter symbolized the nomenclature which

19

Table l.--Types of Management Decision Styles.

 

For Individual Problems

For Group Problems

 

AI

AII

CI

GI

You solve problem or make AI
decision yourself using
information available to you

at that time.

You obtain any necessary All
information from the sub—
ordinate, then decide on
solution to problem yourself.
You may or may not tell the
subordinate what the problem
is in getting the information
from him. The role played by
your subordinate in making
the decision is clearly one
of providing specific infor-
mation which you request,
rather than generating or
evaluating alternative solu-
tions. CI

You share the problem with
the relevant subordinate,
getting his ideas and sugges-
tions. Then ygu_make the
decision. This decision may
or may not reflect your sub-
ordinate's influence.

You share the problem with one CII
of your subordinates and to-
gether you analyze the problem
and arrive at a mutually sat-
isfactory solution in an
atmosphere of free and open
exchange of information and
ideas. You both contribute

to the resolution of the pro-
blem with the relative con-
tribution of each being depen-
dent on knowledge rather than
formal authority.

You solve problem or make the
decision yourself using infor—
mation available to you at
that time.

You obtain any necessary infor-

,mation from subordinates, then

decide on solution to problem
yourself. You may or may not
tell subordinates what the pro—
blem is in getting the infor-
mation from them. The role
played by your subordinates in
making the decision is clearly
one of providing specific in-
formation which you request,
rather than generating or evalu-
ating alternative solutions.

You share the problem with the
relevant subordinates indi-
vidually; getting their ideas
and suggestions without bring-
ing them together as a group.
Then ygu_make the decision.
This decision may or may not
reflect your subordinates'
influence.

You share the problem with your
subordinates in a group meet-
ing. In this meeting you
obtain their ideas and sug-
gestions. Then, ygg_make the
decision which may or may not
reflect your subordinates'
influence.

20

Table l.--Continued.

 

For Individual Problems

For Group Problems

 

DI

You delegate the problem to GII
one of your subordinates
providing him with any rele-
vant information that you
possess, but giving him
responsibility for solving
the problem by himself. Any
solution which the person
reaches will receive your

support.

You share problem with your
subordinates 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 chairman, coordinating the
discussion, keeping it focused
on the problem and making sure
that the critical issues are
discussed. You do not try and
adopt "your" solution and are
willing to accept and imple—
ment any solution which has
the support of the entire
group.

 

21

commonly associated with that style of leadership, (A =
autocratic, C = consultative, G = group and D = delegativc)
and the numeral constitutes variation on that process.

Once criterion sets of leader behaviors had been
established, Vroom and Yetton turned their attention toward
describing situational attributes which are characteristic
of the problem to be solved or decisions to be made. From
previous research on the consequences of participative
decision-making they isolated the following problem attri-
butes (Vroom & Yetton's problem attributes have been revised
since the first publication and to avoid confusion only
their most recent one (Vroom & Jago, 1974) will be exhibited

here):

Problem Attributes
A. The importance of quality of the decision.

B. The extent to which the leader possesses sufficient
information/expertise to make a high-quality
decision by himself or herself.

C. The extent to which the problem is structured.

D. The extent to which acceptance or commitment on the
part of subordinates is critical to the effective
implementation of the decision.

E. The prior probability that the leader's autocratic
decision will receive acceptance by subordinates.

F. The extent to which subordinates are motivated to
attain the organizational goals as represented in
the objectives explicit in the statement of the
problem.

G. The extent to which subordinates are likely to be
in conflict over preferred solutions.

22
H. The extent to which subordinates have sufficient
information to make high quality decisions.

These problem attributes are intended to represent the
essential properties of the situation or problem and are
the basic elements of the Vroom-Yetton model. The objective
of this model of leadership is to provide a tool for super-
visors to rationally regulate choices among leadership
styles in order to maximize the supervisor's effectiveness.
The effectiveness of a decision is thought to be a function
of (l) the quality of the decision; (2) the acceptance or
commitment on the part of subordinates to execute the
decision effectively; and (3) the time required to make the
decision (Maier, 1974).

Based on a large amount of past research that is
summarized in Vroom (1970) and Vroom and Yetton (1973),
Vroom established three sets of rules. The first set con-
tains seven rules which were adopted to protect the quality
of the leader's decision by eliminating alternatives within
prescribed circumstances where there was substantial risk
that the mandatory controls needed to ensure a high quality
decision were absent. A second set of six rules serve to
protect the acceptance of the decision by eliminating alter-
natives that would impose a leadership decision style that
is likely to be unacceptable to subordinates. The third
set incorporated a single rule for selecting alternatives

when more than one decision process violates none of the

23

rules in the first two sets. These rules may be summarized

as follows (from Vroom & Jago, 1974):

3a.

3b.

4a.

4b.

Rules Protecting Decision Quality

 

The Leader Information Rule: If the quality of the
decision is important and the leader does not
possess enough information or expertise to solve
the problem by himself, then AI is eliminated from
the feasible set.

The Subordinate Information Rule: (Applicable to
individual problems only.) If the quality of the
decision is important and the subordinate does not
possess enough information or expertise to solve the
problem himself, then DI is eliminated from the
feasible set.

The Goal Congruence Rule: If the quality of the
decision is important and the subordinates are not
likely to pursue organization goals in their efforts
to solve this problem, then GII and DI are elimin-
ated from the feasible set.

The Augmented Goal Congruence Rule: (Applicable to
individual problems only.) Under the conditions
specified in the previous rule (i.e., quality of
decision is important, and the subordinate does not
share the organizational goals to be attained in
solving the problem) GI may also constitute a risk
to the quality of the decision taken in response

to an individual problem. Such a risk is a reason-
able one to take only if the nature of the problem
is such that the acceptance of the subordinate is
critical to the effective implementation and prior
probability of an autocratic solution is low.

The Unstructured Problem Rule (Group): In decisions
in which the quality of the decision is important,
if the leader lacks the necessary information or
expertise to solve the problem by himself and if the
problem is unstructured, the method of solving the
problem should provide for interaction among sub-
ordinates. Accordingly, AI, AII, and CI are
eliminated from the feasible set.

The Unstructured Problem Rule (Individual): In
decisions in which the quality of the decision is
important, if the leader lacks the necessary infor-
mation to solve the problem by himself and if the
problem is unstructured, the method of solving the

24

problem should permit the subordinate to generate
solutions to the problem. Accordingly, AI and AII
are eliminated from the feasible set.

Rules Protecting Acceptance

 

The Acceptance Rule: If the acceptance of the
decision by subordinates is critical to effective
implementation and if it is not certain that an
autocratic decision will be accepted, AI and All
are eliminated from the feasible set.

The Conflict Rule: If the acceptance of the decision
is critical, an autocratic decision is not certain
to be accepted and disagreement among subordinates
in methods of attaining the organizational goal is
likely, the methods used in solving the problem
should enable those in disagreement to resolve their
differences with full knowledge of the problem.
Accordingly, AI, All and CI, which permit no inter-
action among subordinates, are eliminated from the
feasible set.

The Fairness Rule: If the quality of the decision

is unimportant, but acceptance of the decision is
critical and not certain to result from an auto-
cratic decision, the decision process used should
permit the subordinates to interact with one another
and negotiate over the fair method of resolving any
differences with full responsibility on them for
determining what is equitable. Accordingly, AI,
AII, CI, and C11 are eliminated from the feasible
set.

The Acceptance Priority Rule: If acceptance is
critical, not certain to result from an autocratic
decision and if (the) subordinate(s) is (are)
motivated to pursue the organizational goals
represented in the problem, then methods which pro-
vide equal partnership in the decision-making pro-
cess can provide greater acceptance without risking
decision quality. Accordingly, AI, AII, CI, and
CII are eliminated from the feasible set.

The Group Problem Rule: Group If a problem has
approximately equal effects on each of a number of
subordinates (i.e., is a group problem) the decision
process used should provide them with equal Oppor-
tunities to influence that decision. Use of a
decision process such as GI or DI which provides
opportunities for only one of the affected sub-
ordinates to influence that decision may in the
short run produce feelings of inequity reflected in

25

lessened commitment to the decision on the part of
those "left out" of the decision process and, in
the long run, be a source of conflict and divisive-
ness.

10. The Individual Problem Rule: Individual If a pro-
blem affects only one subordinate, decision pro-
cesses which unilaterally introduce other (un-
affected) subordinates as equal partners constitute
an unnecessary use of time of the unaffected sub-
ordinates and can reduce the amount of commitment
of the affected subordinate to the decision by
reducing the amount of his opportunity to influence
the decision. Thus, CII and GII are eliminated from
the feasible set.

 

Rule for Selecting Among Alternatives
in the Feasible Set

 

11. Given a set of methods with equal likelihood of
meeting both quality and acceptance requirements
for the decision, select the method that requires
the least investment in manhours (this has been
labeled the least manhours criterion (LMC)).

From the above principles and within the boundaries
established by the problem attributes and decision-making
taxonomy sets, Vroom and Yetton conceptualized a normative
model of leadership which is shown in Figure 1. Expressed
in the form of a decision tree, the model implies that the
decision maker asks himself/herself a series of Yes-No
questions. To use the model one starts at the left-hand
side of the tree and proceeds to the right answering the
questions indicated at each point. When a terminal node is
reached at the end of a particular branch, a leader decides
among the set of feasible alternatives presented at the
bottom of Figure l. The feasible sets are comprised of the

management decision styles presented in Table l and are

determined by reference to the sets of rules. The feasible

26

7333566 an? own: .23

.mmmum cmucnmuuwm mo auflmum>aco .couuow .3 .m can EOOH>

.m .> we .mcHxMEIGOfimflomo 0cm mwcmumommq sown omuceumwmv
.Hmcoz :ouuowleoou> on» How unmoo 30am mmcoonm cowmfiooo one .H mucmflm

 

6.6 . 6.6 .. 6.66 H. 6.6.:< 1. 6.6 . 6.6.:<..< ._
3 .
.66“? .667. .6466» .6..6.6.:< U0T. .64;vm .6..6.6.:< .467.
6 H_ 6.6 D. 6 “_ 6..o...<..o .. 6 . 6.6...<.6..< H.
m.
.66”: _6._6.6wm. .66“ 26.66.5416“: .6.meh .6..6.6.:<..<6*n
6...... H. 6.6 . 6.6 H.
m
6.6.5.6”? .667. .6H *
6.6 Jm 654.2 .7 .6.6...<..o..< “.T
.6 .6 6 .6 .6 ._.< ..< .6 .6 ..6.6 .:< .2. Ho

aEssa... .: .3929;
0:0 .0. 96.0 :0. 2;. E2006 some .0. :29: m. .3 6.0.38 orb

 

 

 

 

 

be
r:
o
2 . .Eofiotn
mwr mm; I 2..
”MWWHuil m> rt .55
m
mw> 02
m or ~11 02 .mec,
02 11
I 0 K W Q U Q Q

“00.230 >550 :9: m 8.2: o. 2:. .5653» 26: “23.0693 00

AimEfinctn 63055:. 9 6066:. m. :02ch0 “it «5:0:30“ 096.03 E 23.: 3650.003 acoEo 65:00 2
WESDOB 25 GEE—um :. U053; on 0. «30m .mcczmflcmmto 0.... mecca 335.3003 00

«3650.09: >E >o 006306 on 0.302. z 3:. £3.00 229.039. : a. 58?: >0 c0530 or. 86E 0“ 825 . :
~:o:2:~E2oE. 0260:... 0. .0056 3650.093 >9 :07..ch .0 oocouoouon a.

«0656:...» E2006 2.: a.

5:03.000 >53: :9: 6 86E 0. 3:. 622:3 26; _ 00

turboco :9: 6:96.. 90E on o. 33.: a. c256“ 2.0 .9: 5.: 63:25.09 >230 a 29: a.

{QSUQ'MHL'L'SI'

27

sets for each terminal node are written below Figure l and
range from the most autocratic to the most participative
alternative available to a decision maker in that situation.
The first decision style is the one that conforms to the
LMC.

The model outlined above is intended to protect the

quality and acceptance of decisions and expend a minimum of
manhours. Since this model concentrates on making and
implementing a particular decision it is a short-term model.
Vroom (1974) suggests that the model can be adapted to a
long-term orientation by de-emphasizing the manhour rule.
A replacement rule would involve a trade-off between man-
hours and team development. The leader could select from
the feasible set the management decision style that would
suit both these needs over a long period of time.

The following section of this paper summarizes the
research that has been completed by Vroom and his associates.
There are two important validity issues to which most
research has been directed. First does the Vroom-Yetton
model of leadership actually represent the decision process
of a leader; and do the rules which govern the model
actually define an effective leader?

Two different research methods (both described in
detail in Vroom and Yetton, 1973) have been employed to
study this model. In one method called "recalled problems"
leaders (which include managers, executives, graduate

students and college faculty) are asked to recall and write

28

about a problem that they have recently solved. They are
also asked to indicate which decision processes they used
and are then asked to answer questions about the problem
attributes. From this method a more sophisticated technique
of study was derived. "Standardized Cases“ were systemati-
cally developed from earlier manager reports. The situ-
ational attributes within the cases are systematically
varied allowing the testing of hypotheses concerning a
particular attribute, leader, or decision rule.

Vroom and Yetton (1973) have reported five studies
that they conducted in both the development and the early
validation stages of their normative model. It is not
possible to describe the wealth of information discovered
by this research in this paper, but I will summarize the
most important findings.

Perhaps the most significant conclusion from this
research is that leaders do employ more than one general
leadership style. These results are consistent with the
bulk of leadership literature. In fact, in studies using
the standardized cases no manager indicated that he or she
would use the same leadership process on all problems.
Although individual leaders tend to use one process more
than others, the data clearly indicates that participative-
ness or autocrativeness is not a general trait that leaders
exhibit in differing amounts. Vroom (1974, p. 59) con-
cludes that, "(i)t makes more sense to talk about partici-

pative and autocratic situations than to talk about

29

participative and autocratic managers." These studies have
shown that a large number of factors influence the leader's
choice of leadership process, many of which are congruent
with those proposed by the normative model. Multiple
regression analysis demonstrated that the problem attri-
butes such as structure, trust, importance of acceptance of
the decision, and prior probability of decision acceptance
are all significantly related to the chosen leadership
process in accordance with the model. However, the inter—
action among problem attributes, as predicted by the model
were not found to be significant.

In terms of the validity of the model, Vroom
reports that the subjects in the studies use the same
leadership process as predicted by the model 40 percent of
the time. He further states that the four rules designed
to protect the acceptance of the decision have signifi-
cantly higher probabilities of being violated than the
quality rules. One last conclusion that can be drawn from
these studies is that the normative model predicts greater
variance in selection of leadership process than is actually
exhibited by the "typical manager."

In a study designed to test differences between
group and individual problems Vroom and Jago (1974)
administered a new 48 problem set to three manager popula-
tions. They found that managers do discriminate between
group and individual problems. Managers chose for group

problems processes that were designed for individual

30

problems in about only one-tenth of one percent of the time.
It was found that the managers were more autocratic in
individual problems than group problems. They also found a
higher level of agreement between the subject's responses
and the Vroom-Yetton model on individual problems than
group problems.

This study also replicated Vroom and Yetton's
(1973) earlier findings that the situation accounts for
about three times as much variance as individual behavior.
On group problems situational differences account for
34.7 percent of the variance in manager's behavior, while
individual differences accounted for only 11.7 percent.
This difference was even greater for individual problems
where a 44 to 8.7 percent split in the variance was found.

Results of the study were supportive of two major
assumptions of the Vroom-Yetton model. The finding that
the situation accounts for more variance in the leader's
style than individual differences indicates that subjects'
behaviors are being moderated by situational effects thereby
supporting a general contingency model of leadership to
explain leader behavior. The conclusion that managers do
in fact alter their decision style depending on whether
they are dealing with groups or individuals supported
Vroom's contention that leadership models must contain
components that deal with the two situations in a differ-

ential manner.

31

In a recent study Hill and Schmitt (1977) originated
an abbreviated methodology for assessing leader decision
making in terms of the Vroom-Yetton model. In place of the
cases they used 64 hypothetical problems consisting of all
possible combinations of the presence and absence of each
of six problem attributes. In order to use this new instru-
ment they were forced to shorten the model so that it con-
tained only six problem attributes. Hill Schmitt's adapta-
tion of the model is presented in Figure 2. The results of
the study were generally supportive of the Vroom—Yetton
model. They found that the subject's response to the
problem sets agreed with the model more than would be
expected by chance. It was also found that there were
individual differences in the utilization of the problem
attributes that conformed loosely to the quality and
acceptance dimension proposed by Vroom. Along these lines,
it was discovered that most of the leaders based their
decision on only two or three of the problem attributes
while ignoring the rest. It was also discovered that these
two or three problem attributes were usually utilized
interactively. Vroom's conclusion that the properties of
the situation are most important in the leadership decision
process than individual leader characteristics was supported
in this study.

When Vroom and Yetton developed their leadership
model, they obtained data from around 500 managers who

worked in a large variety of business concerns. This data

32

A.ooma .uuweoom .z 0:0 Hafiz .m .e an .u:0aowooo housed cw
mmocwnomuwo Hosoa>flocH scum ooucwummmv .Hoooa couuowleoou> convened .N ousmwm

 

.~ 3.6 30.9; .3 7.91.5.“
8T oz 7.3.8 E .n. Footie
m. 8.; E .m. E .N. @643...
. oz _ . E .o. 6.9; .2 3.6.5.2:
.
m. me.“ “ oz 3 .: Hoods .o_ Edda is
t fl oz mm». mm» " FA; .0. E .m ES
02 . . . . . . o .
o. mm». m n F a; n. E o _o o a... 3 .
. u " mummuooma zo_m.ouo ...o meum 3996:
n. u u " oz
oz " n .
v. mm» H _ . mu».
. . .
n. u n u fl
oz ” oz “
N. mm». H mu» " .
. . . oz
. OZ . n _
.. . mu». . _
oz . u u " mu» .
0. mm» . . . . .
. . n . _
n u . . _
o . _ n . _ mm»
02 _ _ _
o mm» " . n n fl oz .
_ oz . — — n
a . mm» _ mu» . .
oz . 9.. u n n
_ . — . —
n . w» . u . _ _
n > . m _ _ —
v _ .
. a N «3.053213 as «assign-BE. ” ~56.qu boars a. 659.0 :0“: 65...:
.._...._..§......._,......... ._.._..........._..§........_ ................... . . .2 .2. ._
38o 3:38.286 2.. . ... £3? 3 8.28... .-........ .3 crew... « oceans...“ 2 enuuwfln... “unjpvflfifi

22.. 3.05233 on .o 2: 8.2. o. 2.3. : .n .o cocoa-coo a. .v 2: a. .n 26.. . on .N 3:26 o 22: a. ._

33

was used to define the problem attribute structure of the
situations as well as the cases used to assess leadership
style. Since its conception there has been an implicit
assumption that the model is valid regardless of the cir-
cumstances under which the leader must perform. On the
surface this seems to be a reasonable assumption since the
model was founded on a far-ranging data set and the model's
reliance on the situation to determine the correct manage-
ment decision style. However Vroom and his colleagues

have not given any consideration to the role of the manager
in decision-making.

Mintzberg (1973) conducted an extensive study on
the nature of managerial work. Employing the structured
observation technique he studied five experienced chief
executives over a period of a week. Following the classi—
fication and analysis of an extensive amount of data he
concluded that the most crucial component of the managerial
position is the decision roles that he/she plays. In a
manner similar to Simon (1965) he classified the decision
roles into four categories of entrepreneur, disturbance
handler, resource allocator and negotiator. Mintzberg
views decision roles as points on a continuum ranging from
purely voluntary innovative ones, to involuntary reactive
ones. The voluntary end of the continuum is anchored by
entrepreneurial decisions and at the other extreme are
disturbance handling decisions. Resource allocator and

negotiator decisions fall somewhere in the middle.

34

There has been no research on the relationship
between decision role and participative decision making.
However, some tangential data and speculation may be
utilized to form hypotheses concerning this relation.
Mintzberg points out that the decisions on the involuntary
or disturbance handling end of the continuum have two proper-
ties that distinguish them from other roles. These are
that the decision must be made during a crisis period and
there are important time restrictions. Hamblin (1958)
states that leaders have greater influence in decision
making during periods of crisis than normally. Mulder and
Wilke (1970) have found that leaders become less participa-
tive as they increase their expert power. Lowin (1968)
has noted that group decision-making is limited when time
pressures on decision-making are severe. Therefore, it
seems reasonable to conclude that in the disturbance
handling role leaders will be less willing to allow sub-
ordinates the opportunities to participate than in other
decision roles. If this hypothesis is correct then a new
problem attribute would have to be added to the Vroom-Yetton
model or the model would have to be limited to the appro-
priate decision roles.

The studies described thus far have been solely
concerned with descriptive properties of the Vroom-Yetton
model. They have demonstrated that the model, in general,
does describe the way managers actually behave in leader-

ship situations. However, these studies have shown no

35

evidence that effective leaders more closely resemble this
model than less effective leaders. In an attempt to demon-
strate the validity of the model, Vroom and Jago (1976)
obtained narrative descriptions of a successful and un-
successful decision from 96 managers. The managers were
then trained in the Vroom-Yetton model and instructed to
trace the path of their leadership decisions on the decision
tree. Analysis of this data showed that if the manager's
behavior was consistent with the feasible set, the proba-
bility of that decision being successful was 68 percent.
0n the other hand, if the manager's behavior was inconsis-
tent with the feasible set, a success rate of 21 percent
was found. Vroom and Jago also found the Vroom-Yetton
model to be superior in terms of explanatory power than a
simpler situation-independent model based solely on the
assumption that more effective decisions are due to greater
amounts of participative decision-making.~

This study offers preliminary evidence that is
supportive of the validity of the Vroom-Yetton model.
However, since the usual leadership instrument (case
studies) was not used, the positive statements about vali-
dity apply only to the conceptual model and not to the
operationalization of the model. In other words, although
there is now some data to support this model on a theoreti-
cal level, no studies have been attempted to validate the

problem sets.

36

Thus far, an attempt has been made to present a
brief description of the evolution of leadership research.
Some aspects of this progression are worthy of distinction.
Leadership theory has proceeded from relatively simple
trait models to prohibitively complex contingency models.
This maturation of leadership theory has been precipitated
by the inability of pre-existent theories to explicate the
multiple causal relations among the leader's behaviors and
work group or organization outcomes. When identifying
leader personality or behaviors failed to explain the
relationship between subordinate satisfaction or producti-
vity and style of leadership, another factor, the environ-
ment, was appended and a new theory formulated. Thus in
contrast to some popular notions that contingency models
are a major departure from previous leadership models, it
can be seen here that they are one step in the process of
leadership theory development.

The latest extension of the theoretical chain is
the Vroom-Yetton normative model of leadership. This model
was founded on an extensive aggregate of leadership research
and theorizing, and is an adaptation of several theories.

Whenever a theory is formulated by an inductive
process it is critical that it be validated. While valida-
tion usually concerns the confirmation of the theory's
predictions by results other than those which were used in
its formulation, it may also encompass the affirmation of

assumptions, classification systems, and relations among

37

the theory's components. Marx (1963, p. 39) states that
one of the functions of theory is, ". . . to organize and
order empirical knowledge so as to facilitate not only
empirical predictions but also understanding of natural
phenomena (by means of integrating conceptualization)."
Therefore, a valid theory not only correctly makes pre—
dictions but also serves as a tool to enable us to under-
stand why the components operate in the way they do.

In terms of the Vroom-Yetton theory of leadership
there are several critical components that relate either
to the validity of the theory by an external criteria or
the validity of the theory by explaining the relationship
between its concepts. These are:

1. No single leadership method is maximally effective
in all situations.

2. The most apprOpriate unit for the analysis of
leadership style is a person within a leaderhip
role dealing with a specific situation. This
implies that analyzing leadership in terms of
traits or personality of the leader is not produc-
tive.

3. The most appropriate unit for the analysis of the
situation is the particular problem to be solved
which may be classified by the presence or absence
of eight essential attributes.

4. In general, the rules governing the selection of a
management decision style (represented in Figure l)
are descriptive of common methods used by leaders.

5. Leaders whose selection of management decision
styles conform to those prescribed by the model are
more effective leaders than those whose selection
of leadership styles do not conform to the model.

6. The model is applicable to all leadership situations
that are normally encountered in industrial organi-
zations.

38

Although some of these issues have been already
examined by Vroom and his associates none of these can be
at the present time considered confirmed or disconfirmed.
It is the purpose of this study to explore each of these
issues and to examine the validity of the Vroom-Yetton

theory of leadership.

STUDY l--OBJECTIVES AND HYPOTHESES

The objective of the present study is to examine the
validity of the Vroom-Yetton model of leader decision
making by: (a) generating supportive evidence for a funda-
mental contingency theory of leadership; (b) confirming that
that classification systems are internally consistent and
descriptive of typical leadership behavior; (c) examining
the relationship between the similarity of a leader's
responses to those suggested by the model and an external
criteria of performance and subordinate satisfaction;

(d) examining the appropriateness of a noncompensatory model
of decision-making in leadership situations.

The Vroom-Yetton model is founded on the assumption
that leadership style is not a static trait or personality
configuration, but rather is the result of the leader's
ability to respond to a problem involving one or more
identified subordinates in a particular situation. Hence,
they claim that leadership must be studied on an individual
level in a specific situation. This assertion has been
somewhat supported by Vroom and Yetton's (1973) finding
that the situation accounts for three times as much vari-

ance as that accounted for by individual leader differences.

39

40

This assumption precludes the use of personality variables
in the identification of leadership styles. In fact, a
systematic relationship among personality variables and the
identification of leadership style or effectiveness would
be evidence to refute a contingency model, hence, the Vroom-
Yetton theory. Therefore, personality characteristics will
be measured and related to leadership style and effective-
ness to test this assumption. My hypotheses are as follows:

1. Both situational and individual differences will
account for significant systematic variance in the
selection of management decision styles.

2. The personality characteristics of the subjects will
not significantly predict either the leadership
classification variables nor effectiveness criterion
variables.

The Vroom-Yetton model has several classification
systems. It categorizes supervisors in terms of their
conformity to the model, leadership styles by level of
participation, situations by the problem attributes, and
rules according to their intended purpose. In addition,
measuring instruments and rules governing the systematic
relationships among the systems have been formulated.
Through a series of studies, Vroom and his associates have
presented evidence that these systems do describe typical
leadership behavior. A component of this study will be
directed at confirming the descriptive preperties of this

model. The following are hypotheses that are concerned

with these issues.

8.

41

The subjects responding to the cases will agree
with the least manhours criteria and will agree
with the feasible set significantly more than
chance level.

The variance in the selection of decision styles
prescribed by the Vroom-Yetton model will fall
within the 95 percent confidence interval computed
from the subjects average variances in selection

of decision style over the 48 Cases/128 Sets in this
sample.

The subjects responding to the cases will violate
the ten rules significantly less than what would be
expected by a random process.

The subjects responding to the cases will use
decision styles that are only applicable to group
problems (CII and GII) significantly more on group
problems than on individual problems.

The subjects responding to the cases will use
decision styles that are only applicable to indi—
vidual problems (GI and DI) significantly more on
individual problems than on group problems.

An assumption of the normative model is that all

problem attributes are of equal importance in selecting a
management decision style. Past research has shown this
may not be true. Vroom and Yetton (1973) have shown that
problem attributes designed to protect quality are broken
significantly less often than the problem attributes
designed to protect acceptance of the decision. This
implies that managers may perceive the quality problem
attributes as being more important than the others. This
study will attempt to determine the magnitude of the inde-
pendent contribution to the systematic variance by each

problem attribute.

The problem attributes are all of equal importance
in selection of a management decision style.

42

Although there is no universally accepted definition
of a successful leader, a vast majority of research that
has attempted to define leader success has employed per-
formance measures and subordinate satisfaction as criteria
(Gibb, 1969; and Stogdill, 1973). These appear to be the
consequences of the supervisor-subordinate relation that
are of critical importance in discriminating between
successful and unsuccessful leaders. Vroom and Yetton
(1973) maintain that effective leaders conform more closely
to their model than less effective leaders. In order to
test this hypothesis, leaders will be assessed in terms of
the Vroom-Yetton model and these measures will be related
to performance ratings and subordinate satisfaction ratings.
The following is hypothesized:

9. Conformity to the Vroom-Yetton model, as measured
by the four leadership indices is significantly

and positively related to performance and satis-

faction.

As previously stated, one of the major objectives
of this study is to gain additional understanding into the
process of decision-making in leadership situations. The
Vroom-Yetton model of leadership stipulates that leaders
base their decisions concerning subordinate participation
on eight problem attributes that are functions of the
problem at hand, the leader himself/herself, the subordi-
nate(s), and the situation. Hence, leaders must base their
leadership decisions on a set of multidimensional attri-

butes. The hypothesized process of leader decision-making

43

involves the subjective weighing of the attributes and then
combining them in some way to reach a conclusion. The
Vroom-Yetton model prescribes a somewhat complicated set of
rules which guide the selection of a decision style by means
of a multiple cut-off process. However, the preponderant
question in this case is do leaders integrate data in this
manner?

The multiple cut-off process is just one of many
mathematical models that have been advocated as paramorphic
representations of judgment processes. It is a nonlinear
or noncompensatory model. This implies that the decision
involves the consideration of many attributes, and the
interpretation of a given attribute is conditional upon the
state of the other attributes (Hoffman, 1968). Specifically,
the presence of problem attribute A (Figure 1) will pre-
scribe a participative decision style only when there is a
predetermined combination of the other problem attributes.
In contrast to this approach, many researchers have found
that a linear or compensatory model is an adequate repre-
sentation of decision making. The major difference between
these two models is that in a compensatory model the
interaction among the attributes is assumed to account for
little variance.

Resolution of this question is complicated by the
measurement problem that surrounds this model. In the past,
management decision styles were measured by subjects

responding to the "standardized cases." Utilizing this

44

method each subject must make two major judgments. First,
he/she must analyze each case in terms of whether each
problem attribute is present or not present. Then he/she
must judge which management decision style is appropriate
for that combination of problem attributes. Therefore, two
independent sources of judgmental error are present in the
final judgment. It can be argued that a large component of
error variance in the selection of decision styles is being
introduced by the subject's inability to reliably judge the
composition of problem attributes from the case. If this
is true, a subject may be attempting to respond in accord-
ance with the normative model, only to have this masked by
his or her misdiagnosis of which problem attributes are
present. In addition, in the cases not all combinations of
problem attributes are used, thereby confounding inter-
actions. This study will present all combinations of the
problem attributes in addition to the cases, thus enabling
the examination of the subject's decisions without this
first source of error and the unconfounded interactions.
Using this measure, an attempt will be made to determine if
subjects utilize the problem attributes in the stimulus sets
in a configural manner as predicted by the normative model.
The following hypothesis is prOposed:
10. There will be significant interactions among

problem attributes in the use of the decision
styles.

MET HOD OLOGY

Subjects

The subjects participating in this study consisted
of 46 (44 males and 2 females) managers from two manu-
facturing companies located in the mid-western United
States. Both companies operate under a Scanlon Plan and
have a history of advocating manager development and parti-
cipative decision-making. All management personnel from
these two companies were invited to participate in this
study in exchange for personal feedback and career coun-
seling. The subjects' mean age was 40 years, average
length of time at present job was five years, and average
length of supervisory experience ranged from less than one
year to 23 years with an average of nine. Organizational
level of the subjects ranged from president to first level

supervisor.

Description of the Measures

Data for this study were obtained by means of
paper-and-pencil questionnaires covering leadership style,
personality characteristics, subordinate satisfaction with

the subject's leadership, and performance evaluation from

45

46

the subject's supervisor. Each of the measurement instru-
ments are identified below.

The Case Studies1 (Vroom & Jago, 1974). In order
to assess the subject's leadership behavior, the 48 standar-
dized cases develOped by Vroom and his associates were
employed. The development of Vroom's cases were discussed
earlier in this paper and are outlined in detail in Vroom
and Yetton (1973) and Vroom and Jago (1974). Briefly, the
cases consist of short narratives which describe a typical
leadership situation. Each case has been classified in
terms of its problem attribute structure and its applica-
bility to individual or group problems by expert judges.
If all combinations of problem attributes were used for
individual and group problems, 512 cases would result. To
reduce the number of cases to a workable amount, five
nesting principles and some sampling procedures were used
(Vroom & Jago, 1974, pp. 756-767). Although confounding
higher-order interactions, this procedure resulted in
reducing the cases to 48 (24 group and 24 individual), while
retaining the desirable property that main effects are
orthogonal. A sample of the cases used in this study are
presented in Vroom and Jago (1974, pp. 750-753).

The subjects were instructed to respond to each

case independently on the set of management decision styles

 

1This instrument was provided for use in this study
by Dr. victor‘Vroom and Kepner-Tregoe, Inc.

47

presented in Table 1. For the purpose of statistical
analysis each management decision style was assigned the
following integer value to construct an ordinal level of

participation scale.

H——N
H—-r—-UJ
H—fi :5
H P-

1
I

r
AI

A I C

While no previous reliability or validity infor-
mation is available on this problem set, an earlier problem
set of 30 cases was found to have a corrected split-half
reliability of .81.

The following measures were also derived from these
cases:

1. Mean level of participation (MLP). This measure
is indicative of the subject's average level of participa-
tion across the 48 cases. It is simply the mean of the
scale values assigned to the management decision styles
employed by the subject on the Cases.

2. Deviation from the MLngrescribed by the Vroom-
Yetton model's least manhour criterion (DMLP). If a
hypothetical leader responded to these 48 cases in a manner
that perfectly conformed to the Vroom-Yetton least manhour
criterion he/she would receive a MLP score of 3.46. A
subject deviation score is computed by subtracting 3.46
from his/her MLP score, taking the absolute value and sub-

tracting this value from 4. This score represents the

48

correspondence between the subjects' responses in terms of
average participation and the model. Subjects who most
closely resemble the model will receive the highest scores
on this variable.

3. Variance in use of deciSion scales (VAR). This

measure is indicative of the extent to which the subject
varies his/her behavior when responding to the cases.
This measure will be used to indicate the extent to which
a subject responds to the contingencies of the situation.
It is simply the variance of the scale values assigned to
the management decision styles for each subject.

4. Deviation from VAR prescribed by the Vroom-Yetton
model's least manhour criterion (DVAR). A hypothetical
perfect Vroom-Yetton leader would receive a VAR score of
4.468 on the 48 cases. 4.468 is subtracted from the
subject's VAR score, the absolute value is taken and this
value is subtracted from 4. This score represents the
correspondence between the subject's variance in responding
to the cases and that prescribed by the model. Subjects
who most closely resemble the model will receive the
highest scores on this variable.

5. Agreement with the feasible set (AFS). This measure
is indicative of the extent to which the subject responded
to the cases in a manner that is congruent with the Vroom-
Yetton model. It is computed by counting the number of
cases in which the subject's response falls within the

feasible set dictated by the model.

49

6. Agreement with the least manhour criterion (ALMC).
This measure is indicative of the extent to which the
subject responded to the cases in a manner that is congruent
with the least man-hour criterion which has been previously
discussed. It is computed by counting the number of cases
in which the subject's response is the same as the one
dictated by the model.

The supervision scales of the Minnesota Satisfaction
Questionnaire (Weiss, Davis, England, & Lofquist, 1967).
The Supervision-Human Relation and the Supervision-
Technical scales of the Minnesota Satisfaction Question-
naire (MSQ) were employed to assess the level of subordinate
satisfaction of each subject. Each scale consists of five
Likert-format items which are purported to measure both
intrinsic and extrinsic reinforcement dimensions of super-
vision. The scales were constructed on a sample of 1,793
workers employed in a wide range of positions and industries.
The instructions and items were written to be applicable to
all levels of organizations and have been found to conform
to a fifth grade reading level. Extensive reliability,
validity, and normative data are presented in the manual.

Hoyt reliability coefficients have been reported
ranging from .95 to .71 with a median of .89 for the human
relations scale and .86 for the technical scale. Test-
retest reliabilities of .86 and .90 with a week interval
and .66 and .68 for a one year interval are reported in

the manual.

50

Evidence for construct validity has been reported
by Dunham and Smith (1976). They concluded that the MSQ
met all of Campbell and Fiske's (1959) criteria for con-
struct validity when analyzed in conjunction with the
Employee Attitude Research Survey, Job Description Index,
and Faces Scale. Further construct validity evidence has
been obtained in the form of the scale performing according
to its theoretical expectations (Weiss, et al., 1967).

Personality Research Form (Jackson, 1967). The
achievement, autonomy, cognitive structure, dominance, and
order subscales of the Personality Research Form (PRF) were
selected to measure relevant dimensions of the subject's
personality. The particular dimensions were selected
because they were judged to be components of personality
that have considerable potential to shape supervisory
behavior. This instrument was developed from a large amount
of data surrounding Murray's personality theory and was
constructed to describe personality comprehensively. Each
scale consists of 20 true-false items that were deve10ped
utilizing carefully controlled quantitative procedures.
Detailed descriptions of the construction and validation
are presented in Jackson (1967, 1970).

Odd-even, Kuder—Richardson, and test-retest
reliabilities for the scales cluster around .80 to .95.
Contruct validity has been reported in the form of signi-
ficant correlation with comparable scales (California

Psychological Inventory and Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament

51

Survey) and pooled peer ratings and self-ratings of appro-
priate dimensions (Anastasi, 1976). This measure has
generally met criteria for convergent and discriminant
validity using the multi-method factor analysis (Jackson &
Guthrie, 1968).

The following is a brief description of a high
level of each of the scales used in this study paraphrased
from the manual.

Achievement--Aspires to accomplish difficult tasks,
maintain high standards and work toward
distant goals.

Autonomy-~Breaks away from restraints or restrictions,
is not dependent on others and may be
rebellious.

Cognitive Structure--Does not like ambiguity or uncer-

tainty in information and desires
to make decisions on definite

knowledge.

Dominance-—Attempts to control the environment, influ-
ence others, and enjoys the role of leader.

Order--Concerned with keeping things organized; dis-
likes lack of organization.

Performance Evaluations

 

Performance data on the subjects were collected by
means of supervisory ratings. The rating scale consists of
three subscales: general appraisal, technical skills, and
human relation skills. The scale was constructed for this
study drawing items primarily from the Mixed Standard Scale
(Blanz & Ghiselli, 1972). Two items from this scale were
not used and five items were written to cover content areas

that were not covered by the Mixed Standard Scale. There

52

are nine items in the General Appraisal Scale, six items

in the Technical Skill Scale, and six items in the Human
Relations Scale for a total of 21 items. The item format
consists of three descriptions of various components of
supervisory behavior. The descriptions were designed to
describe three levels of performance on each selected
behavior. Respondents checked the statement that most
resembles the ratee. They could check one of the three
statements or check between the first and second or second
and third. With this procedure there are five possible
choices on each item. Therefore, the hypothetical ranges of
the scales are: General Appraisal 45 to 9, Technical Skills
30 to 6, and Human Relation Skills 30 to 6. This instrument

is presented in the Appendix.

Problem Attribute Sets

 

Sixty-four hypothetical management situations were
constructed by forming all possible combinations of six
problem attributes defined in the Vroom-Yetton model of
leadership. Problem attributes B, C, D, E, F, and G (see
Figure l) were utilized. Each problem was presented in the
form of a table containing six of the questions presented
in Figure 1. 0n the right side of the questions were two
columns labeled Yes and No. A cross ("x") was placed in
the Yes column if the problem attribute was present and in
the No column if it was not present. Presented in Figure 3

is an example of the stimulus used for this instrument.

53

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Problem Number 1 Yes No
l
A. Do I have sufficient information to make a high '
quality decision?
B. Is the problem structured? 1}<
C. Is acceptance of decision by subordinates '
critical to effective implementation? /\
D. If I were to make the decision by myself, is it .'
reasonably certain that it would be accepted by fk
my subordinates?
E. Do subordinates share the organizational goals '/
to be attained in solving this problem? }X\
F. Is conflict among subordinates likely in
preferred solutions?
Management Decision Style AI AII CI CII GII
Problem Number 2 Yes No

 

 

 

 

 

 

A. Do I have sufficient information to make a high W<
quality decision?

B. Is the problem structured? f:

C. Is acceptance of decision by subordinates ‘
critical to effective implementation? ‘X

D. If I were to make the decision by myself, is it .
reasonably certain that it would be accepted by }
my subordinates? (\

E. Do subordinates share the organization goals .'
to be attained in solving this problem? a

F. Is conflict among subordinates likely in '

preferred solutions?

 

 

 

Management Decision Style AI AII CI CII GII

Figure 3. Example of the Problem Attribute Sets.

 

 

54

Presenting all possible combinations of the six problem
attributes yield 26 or 64 situations. Each situation is
presented twice producing 128 situations in the question-
naire. The situations were randomly distributed throughout
the questionnaire with the limitation that there must be 25
situations between the two presentations of the same
situation.

Preceding the problems in the booklets was a set
of instructions that acquainted the subjects with the nature
of this questionnaire, and gave a description of each of
the problem attributes. The subjects were also informed
that for each of these situations they were to assume that
there was a quality requirement (problem attribute A) and
that they were group problems. The subjects responded to
the situation with the group management decision styles
defined in Table l.

The same six measures that were computed from the

cases were computed for these sets.

Description of the Data Gathering

Following agreement between the prospective organi-
zations and the investigator, letters were sent to appro-
priate managers soliciting their participation in this
study. The general nature of the study and the extent of
feedback they would receive was explained. They were
informed that five hours of time over a period of two weeks

would be needed in the data collection phase of this study.

55

The letter also stressed that all information obtained from
the participants would be examined only by the researchers
and would be held strictly confidential.

On a prearranged day all persons who wished to
participate in this study were invited to an on-site
morning meeting. In the meeting the investigator was intro-
duced by the personnel manager and the investigator then
explained the general nature of the study. The question-
naire packets were distributed and each component was
reviewed. The subjects could examine all measures except
the problem attribute sets. These were enclosed in separate
sealed envelopes. It was explained to the participants that
this packet contained descriptions of problem dimensions and
it was important that these were not to be seen by them
until all other components were completed. The investigator
stressed the need to respond to all items as carefully and
accurately as they could in order to make the feedback
meaningful. A deadline was set allowing the subjects two
weeks to complete the packets.

On that same day the performance evaluation forms
were distributed to each subject's supervisor by the
subject. The purpose of the form was explained and the
supervisor was given a self-addressed stamped envelope to
mail the form directly to the investigator.

The satisfaction with the supervisor scale was
given to five of the subject's subordinates who were

randomly selected prior to data collection by the company's

56

personnel department. In order to stress the confidentiality
of the satisfaction ratings the subordinates were provided
with self-addressed stamped envelopes to mail the scale
directly to the investigator at his university address.

The questionnaire packets were collected by the investigator

after the two week period.

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The contingency aSpects of the Vroom-Yetton Model
were investigated by determining proportions of variance
in decision style utilization that were attributable to
both situational differences and individual leader differ-
ences. These prOportions were found by submitting the
subjects' responses to both the Cases and the Sets to two
separate subject by situation analyses of variance. Since
those analyses produced significant effects for both
factors, the variance attributable to the individual sub-
jects was further explored by relating five dimensions of
the subject's personality and the Vroom-Yetton similarity
indices by means of a multivariate multiple regression
analysis. The usefulness of the personality dimensions in
predicting leader effectiveness was also investigated by
employing the five personality dimensions as predictors and,
in the first regression analysis, the satisfaction scales
as criteria. In the next regression analysis, the satis-
faction scales were replaced with the three performance
scales.

The descriptive properties of the Vroom-Yetton model

were examined availing several different statistical

57

58

techniques. This study employed two methods of assessing
the subjects' leadership decision process and relating it
to the model. One method was the usual case studies and
the other was the Problem Attribute Sets. The Set's
reliability was examined by correlating the first and
second presentation of each problem. The correspondence
between these two assessment devices was examined by inter-
correlating the Vroom-Yetton indices from each of them.

Subject agreement with the Vroom-Yetton model was
explored by correlating each subject's responses with the
LMC, examining the percent agreement with the feasible set
and the LMC, and examining the correspondence between the
subjects' average variance and the variance prescribed by
the model. Subject conformity to the ten rules that are
the foundation of the model were evaluated by computing the
pr0portion of observed rule violation and expected rule
violation based on random assignment of decision style,
constrained by the mean distribution of decision style for
each subject, and testing these differences with t-test for
proportions. Vroom's past finding that leaders respond
differently to group and individual problems was reviewed
by computing the mean level of participation separately
for group and individual problems and testing the differ-
ences with correlated t—test.

The relative importance of the problem attributes
in leader decision-making was examined by a multiple

regression analysis that employed average level of

59

participation (mean of the decision styles for subjects on
each case) as the criterion and the eight problem attri-
butes as the predictors. The hypotheses that all problem
attributes are of equal importance in the selection of
decision styles was tested by comparing the residual sum of
squares computed from a regression equation that assumes
all beta weights are equal (Rao & Miller, 1971). In
addition, independent contribution of explained variance for
each predictor was computed and tested for significance

in a manner suggested by Overall and Spiegel (1969,

pp. 315-317).

Validity of the Vroom-Yetton model's normative
aspects were evaluated with canonical correlation analyses.
Canonical correlation is a generalization of multiple
regression which allows several criteria and a method for
relating these criteria to a set of predictors (Cohen &
Cohen, 1975). The canonical correlation is the maximum
correlation between these two linear functions. Designating
the Vroom-Yetton indices as independent variables and the
performance and satisfaction data as dependent variables
four separate canonical analyses were then performed to
explore the relationship among the Vroom-Yetton index
measure and effectiveness data.

Individual models of leader decision-making were
examined by performing a Q-type principal components
analysis with varimax rotation on a 128 x 44 correlation

matrix (43 subjects plus the Vroom-Yetton LMC). The

60

decision to rotate four factors were based on Cattell's
scree test (1966). To facilitate the interpretation of
these components, separate analyses of variance were

computed for each subject. A 2x2x2x2x2x2 (two levels of
each of six attributes) fixed effects model was used for

these individual subject analyses.

RESULTS AND D ISCU SS ION

Descriptive Properties
of the Sample

 

Presented in Table 2 are the reliabilities, means
and variances for the measures used in this study. The
reliability for both the Cases and the Sets are extremely
high indicating that the subjects were able to respond
consistently on these instruments. The reliabilities for
the satisfaction and the performance scales cluster around
.70. This is an acceptable level of internal reliability
suggesting that the subscales are assessing one general
component of each of these constructs. However, the
reliabilities for the personality dimensions range from
.51 to .76 indicate that some of the dimensions are not

tapping the single trait that was intended.

Organizational Differences

Although this study is not concerned with the
effects of organizational structure on leadership behavior,
it was decided that a brief look at the differences between
these organizations on the Cases may be informative.
Presented in Table 3 are the mean frequency use of decision

styles on the Cases for both organizations participating in

61

62

Table 2.--Mean Frequency Use of Management Decision Styles
(Cases) for both Organizations Used in this

 

 

Study.

Decision Organization Organization Total Mean
Style A - B Usage
A1 8.0 5.8 6.9
All 4.3 2.0 3.2
Cl 10.0 8.2 9.1
Cll 8.4 8.0 8.2
G1 6.6 7.9 7.3
Gll 6.4 11.9 9.2

D1 3.6 4.2 3.9

 

63

Table 3.--Mean Frequency Rule Violations for both Organi-

 

 

zation.
Organization Organization
Rules A B
l 1.6 .7
2 .2 .2
3a 2.7 4.9
3b .8 1.5
4a .3 . .2
4b .6 .3
5 1.8 .7
6 1.1 .3
7 1.6 1.1
8 3.7 2.2
9 .6 .5

10 1.4 2.0

 

64

this study. The two groups of managers were very similar in
their selection of decision styles with the only notable
difference being a slightly greater preference for decision
style Gll for organization B.

To examine the extent that members from both
organizations complied with the Vroom-Yetton model, the
mean rule violations were computed separately for both
organizations and are presented in Table 4. Once again,
there does not appear to be any major differences. There
is, however, a slight trend for members of organization A
to have more violations for rules designed to protect the
acceptance of the decision (rules 5 through rules 8).

The results from these analyses indicated that
members from both organizations responded to the Cases in
substantially the same manner. Although, there are small,
but consistent differences between these organizations, it
appears that organizational variables were not having a
major effect in the selection of leader styles. This is
not a surprising result since the two organizations are,
in fact, very similar and Vroom and Jago (1974) failed to
find major differences in use of decision style when three

distinct management groups were studied.
Contingency Aspects of the Model

Individual and situational differences.—*Contingency
theories of leadership mandate that a leader's behavior is

a function of both individual differences attributable to

65

Table 4.--Reliability, Means and Variance for Each Scale or Subscale in

 

 

 

 

 

 

This Study.
Instrument Subscale Alpha Mean Variance
Mean level of Participation (MLP) .877 4.002 .330
Deviation from Prescribed MLP - - 3.127 .302
The (DMLP)
Variance in Use of Decision Styles - - 3.404 .455
Vroomr
(VAR)
Yetton Deviation from Prescribed VAR - - 2.921 .418
(DVAR)
case Study Agreement with the Feasible Set - - 34.565 12.918
(AFS)
Agreement with the LMC (AIMC) -— 16.652 12.987
Satisfaction Human Relations .683 12.430 14.073
"1th the Technical Skills .768 21.951 17.776
leader
The Achievement .513 16.78 3.507
Person— Autonomy .578 5.71 6.607
ality Cognitive Structure .541 12.56 6.429
Research Dominance .767 13.15 13.821
Form. Order .530 13.67 7.202
Perfor- General Appraisal .726 35.0 24.151
mance Technical Skills .768 21.95 17.776
Evaluations Human Relation Skills .683 21.43 14.073
Mean Level of Participation (MLP) .980 3.607 .565
The Deviation from Prescribed MLP - - 2.975 .508
(DMLP)
Problem Variance in use of Decision Styles - - 3.572 4.082
V
Attributes ( AR)
Deviation from Prescribed VAR (DVAR)- - 2.285 1.393
Sets Agreement with the Feasible set - - 94.652 126.943
(AFS)
Agreement with the LMC (ALMC) - - 40.478 151.100

 

66

the leader and differences attributable to the situation at
hand. This assumption was tested by submitting the data to
a subject by situation fixed effects analysis of variance
and computing omega squared (wz). For the Cases a 48 by 46
(48 cases and 46 subjects) analysis of variance was com-
puted and for the Sets a 128 x 44 analysis of variance was
computed. The results of these analyses are presented in
Table 5. Hypothesis 1 predicts that both individual and
situational differences will account for significant vari-
ance in the selection of decision styles.

From Table 5 it may be observed that data from
both the Cases and Sets verify this hypothesis. For both
assessment instruments subjects tended to respond in a
manner such that the different situations accounted for
more variance in the employment of decision styles than
individual differences among subjects. Past research using
the Vroom-Yetton model has constantly demonstrated that,
while both situational differences and individual leader
differences account for a significant portion of the vari-
ance, situations accounted for about three to four times
more than individual leader differences (Hill & Schmitt,
1977; Vroom & Jago, 1974; and Vroom & Yetton, 1973). The
data from the Cases replicates this finding with about a
3.5 to 1 ratio. However, in the data from the Sets the
proportion of variance accounted for by situations and
individual differences is about equal. This is surprising

since Hill and Schmitt found that the situation accounted

67

 

 

 

 

mooeee.e Hoem ommm.~oem uouum
amen. mooo. v em~.om ommmae.me me meem.mm~m muomnoom memo
moem. mooo. v omo.ma moeeme.m~ ems mmo~.eeom meoeumsuem
memamm.a mafia oeoe.eo~e gonna
memo. mooe. v eee.e eomoom.ma me emmm.mae muommnom memoo
mmem. mooo. v eme.mm oeeemo.om ea emem.emo~ meoeumouem
«3 e m we we mm muusom
.mumm

one mommu may now mooflumouwm one mpomnnom MOM mocmflum> mo mammamgm Hamum>oll.m manna

68

for 4.5 times more variance than did leader difference,
using an assessment instrument nearly identical to the one
employed here.

The results of these two analyses are similar and,
for the most part, conform with past findings. However,
for the sets the lesser variance attributable to the
situational differences is important and may indicate that
the subjects were responding to the Sets using a somewhat
different decision strategy than when they were responding
to the cases. Nonetheless, these results do support the
notion that the situation plays an important part in the

selection of leader decision styles.

Leader personality. Contingency theories of leader-

 

ship imply that leader decision style is not a stable trait,
but rather the product of the leader interacting with the
environment. Consequently, such theories must contain the
basic premise that the leader's personality is not a major
determining factor in leaderhip style or effectiveness. In
order to explore the relationship among leader personality,
decision style and effectiveness, these data were inter-
correlated and several multivariate multiple regression
analyses were conducted. The intercorrelations of these
variables are reported in Table 6. The correlations between
AFS (Cases) and autonomy and ALMC (Cases) and autonomy

are the only significant correlations among the Vroom-

Yetton similarity indices and the personality dimensions.

69

mo. v m«

 

 

 

 

 

ha. 00. Ho.| 0H. 0H. Hmowsnooa
am. we. mo.l No.l 0H. :OHUMHmm cmafim OUGMEHOMHmm
OH. ma. v0. mo. ma. Hmmwmummc Homoeou
no. mo. Ho. oa.l mo.u HMUflqnooB
cofluummeumm
mo. no. mo.| ma.| mo. moowumHom smeom
NH.I mo.| 0H. no.1 mo. m4>o
00.: mo.| mo. Ho. mo. qua
mamm
mo. mo.| mo.l $0.: no. 024$
oo.| ma. mm. vo. mo. mm<
ma.u mo. ma. no.1 90.: m¢>n
mo. Hot ma. mo.l HN.I 32D
mmmdo
Ho... v0.1 3.: . «mm. mo. 02.2
am.u ma. ma.l «mm. ma. mm<
Hmouo mocmofleoo muouoouum msooouom ucmsw>mwnu¢
m>wuwomoo

 

.woomsHOMHmm ocm sowuommmwumm .mauum Hmommg one mmHnmAHm> mafiamcomumm moose moowumamuuooun.m manna

70

To examine these relationships in greater detail, the five
personality dimensions were employed as predictors and the
Vroom-Yetton indices (based on the Cases) as criteria.

The overall multivariate F-test, which tests the null
hypothesis of no association between the predictors and
criteria, was not significant, F(20,126.6) = 1.21, p > .05.
The same analysis was repeated with the Sets indices sub-
stituted as criteria. Once again, the overall Fftest was
not significant, F(20,123.7) = .83, p > .05. The absence
of a relationship between leadership style and personality
lends more support to the validity of a general contingency
model, which is an integral component of the logic of the
Vroom-Yetton model.

The relationship between personality and leader
effectiveness was examined in a similar manner by employing
the personality variable as predictor in two separate
regression analyses. In the first analysis in which the
two satisfaction scales served as criteria, the overall
multivariate F test was not significant §(10,78) = .73,

p > .05. In the second regression analysis, the three
performances measures were employed as criteria and, as
predicted, no significant relation was found §(15,104.3) =
1.0, p > .05.

The failure to isolate significant relationships
among these variables supports hypothesis 2. For this
sample there appears to be no identifiable relationship

among these personality variables, leadership style, or

71

effectiveness. While generalizing from nonsignificant
results is not completely warranted, these analyses taken

as a whole, offer strong support for the contingency

aspects of the Vroom-Yetton model. Subjects do apparently
employ leader decision styles that are systematically varied
depending on situational elements. These styles appear not
to be controlled by stable traits that in the past have
often been associated with leadership style. However, there
may be individual leader differences that control or influ-
ence leaderhip style that were not tested in this study.
This issue was explored by a Q-type principal components

analysis which is presented later in this section.

Descriptive Aspects of the Model

 

Correspondence between the Cases and Sets. In the

 

past, three vastly different types of assessment instru-
ments have been exploited to measure leadership style in
terms of the Vroom-Yetton model. These are the recall
method (Vroom & Yetton, 1973) standardized cases (Vroom &
Jago, 1974) and problem attribute sets (Hill & Schmitt,
1977). The present study employed the latter two methods.
The problem attribute sets are the newest and least used
assessment method and therefore must be given special
attention. Listed in Table 7 are the individual test
retest reliabilities for all subjects. These were computed
by correlating the first and second presentation of each

problem. The reliabilities range from .25 to .98 with the

72

Table 7.--Individua1 Subject Reliability for the Problem
Attribute Sets.

"-————.. _.

 

Subject Reliability Subject Reliability
1 .32 24 .25

2 .53 25 missing data
3 missing data 25 .42
4 .69 27 .29
5 .61 28 .73
6 .62 29 .28
7 .60 30 .56
8 .98 31 .64
9 .69 32 .40
10 .54 33 .48
11 .40 34 .61
12 .57 35 .40

13 .72 36 missing data
14 .62 37 .74
15 .54 38 .60
16 .51 39 .39
17 .90 ' 40 .52
18 .84 41 .60
19 .45 42 .48
20 .78 43 .26
21 .55 44 .42
22 .29 45 .74
23 .86 46 .49

 

*Three subjects are not reported due to extensive
missing data.

73

majority in the .50 to .70 range. These are somewhat lower
than Vroom and Yetton's (1973) estimate of .81 for a 30
case set, but are comparable to the reliabilities found

for Hill and Schmitt's problem attribute sets. Given the
complexity of the task these reliabilities are reasonably
high and do suggest that this assessment instrument is
useful in measuring leader decision styles.

The similarity between the Cases and Sets was
examined by comparing the descriptive statistics and inter-
correlating the four Vroom-Yetton indices, MLP and VAR from
both measures. By inspection of Table 8 it can be observed
that there is a high degree of correspondence among measures
computed from the Sets and the Cases. Displayed in Table 9
is the correlation matrix constituted of measures from
both the Sets and the Cases. The underlined correlations
represent the relationship between the same measure com-
puted from the Cases and Sets. MLP, AFS, DMLP, and DVAR
all have moderately high correlations indicating that these
measures exhibit convergent validity. However, the ALMC
correlation of .17 is not significantly different from zero
suggesting that these measures are tapping somewhat differ-
ent decision-making behavior. Perhaps the most surprising
correlation is the -.38 between the VAR measures. This
indicates that subjects who employed higher levels of
variation in selecting decision styles on the Cases use
less variation on the Sets. Therefore, subjects were

perceiving the Cases and Sets in some differential manner

74

Table 8.--Summary Statistics for Leadership Measures from
Both the Cases and the Sets.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Index Statistic Cases Sets
Maximum 5.16 5.64
MLP Mean 4.00 3.67
Minimum 3.04 2.37
Maximum 4.69 8.73
VAR Mean 3.40 3.57
Minimum 1.21 .58
Percent Maximum 50.00 55.55
AFS Mean 72.57 74.11
Minimum 85.42 98.84
Percent Maximum 16.67 17.00
ALMC Mean 34.69 32.28
Minimum 47.92 53.12
Maximum 3.98 3.97
DMLP Mean 3.13 2.99
Minimum 1.97 1.05
Maximum 3.89 3.95
DVAR Mean 2.20 2.28
Minimum .738 -l.72

75

 

 

 

 

oo.H mm. ea. mo. mo.u om.u mm. an. em. so. am. mm.u m<>o
oo.e mm. Ho. mo.- 50.- mm. .mm. me. eo.- mm. em.u maze
oo.H om. Ho. me.u we. no. .Mm. mo. we. oo.- ozqe
I S
oo.H no. mo. mo. oH.u mo. mm. mo.- he. wee m
S
oo.H oo. oo.. mm.n om.- oo.u mm.u H~.- m4>
oo.H om.- mo.n mm.u mo. Hm.n mm; mos
oo.H om. ea. e~.- om. m~.u m<>o
oo.a so. e~.- mm. om.n ouzo
oo.H am. He. «4.- 0244
m
oo.H mm.- on. out m
S
oo.H om.- ma>
oo.H mu:
m4>o maze 0244 mm< ma> ma: m¢>o mazo 0244 who m«> mo:
memo mmmao

 

.muom one mommu.auom How xfluumz cowumHmMMOOIn.m manna

76

in terms of diversity in use of decision styles. Neverthe-
less, the other measures demonstrate that the subjects were

responding to the Cases and Sets in much the same manner.

Subject agreement with the Vroom-Yetton model. As

 

an index of similarity between the responses of the sub-
jects and the Vroom-Yetton model, the correlation between
each subject's responses and the LMC for both the Cases
and the Sets were computed. These correlations are dis-
played in Table 10. For the Cases the correlations ranged
from .0 to .67 with a mean of .39. Of the 46 subjects 40
had correlations that were significant at the .05 level.
The data from the Sets are very similar. These correlations
range from .04 to .69 with a mean of .42. Thirty-seven of
the subjects had a significant correlation with the LMC on
the Sets. Correcting for lack of reliability in the sub—
jects' responses to the Sets indicates many subjects were
in substantial agreement with the model. A comparison of
the subjects' performance on both the Cases and Sets reveal
a moderate correspondence with some notable exceptions.
Subject 21 received an extremely high correlation (.69)
when responding to the Sets and a nonsignificant correla-
tion when responding to the Cases. However, this subject
is not representative of the norm and the correlation
between the MLP measures of .61 is strong indication that
there is a fair amount of conformity between these two

measures.

77

 

xom.e boo. .mo. me Ame.o .He. .o~. om
Aom.v am. «no. He Ame.e ea. «we. we
Aoe.o .om. .em. oe “om.. «em. «en. es
Amo.o «me. .mm. mm Ame.o «mo. .mm. we
imm.v .oo. .me. mm Aom.o «em. «on. ma
Ame.o «we. «mm. em xom.o em. ma. ea
memo ooemmwz ice. on xeo.o gem. ave. me
roe.o ewe. «on. mm imm.o ewe. .mm. NH
xmo.o .em. .ov. om imm.o eem. «we. as
Aeo.o «we. «mm. mm xom.o «mm. a~. oH
lee.e «me. «em. mm “He.v «on. «we. m
Aam.o «He. .Hm. Hm Amm.o 4mm. «oo. o
Amm.e .He. ion» on Ae~.. HN. 4mm. 5
xem.v «me. «mm. mm “NH.V oo. .om. o
Amm.v .om. «om. mm Amm.. «we. «mm. m
Amm.o «om. om. em “em.o «em. «mm. o
Aee.o eom. «on. em memo ocemmez .mw. m
memo ocemmez .em. mm Amm.e eoe. «om. N
loo.v om. «on. em Rom.o ea. oo. H
.muem memeo HeQEdz .muem may momeo we» Honsoz
we» no Honor one so somnnsm co Hence no Hopes unannom
we» sues Hmeoz sees an» euez one goes
ooflueaeuuou cowueawuuou cowueaouuoo sowueaeuuoo

 

. 85v Hmooz

souuewleoou> on» one noncommem .muoennom on» cemaumm

mGOflueHeHHOUII.oa «MMMW

78

How omuoouuoo efinwuwuo

.memcommeu .muoennom on» so mueaflnefiaeuso
couumwneoou> man one: encoueamunoo ecu one mononuceuem so mosae>e

 

 

mo. V m...
on.v «mm. oo. we Amo.v «mm. «mm. mm
Amp.v «mo. «mm. mo Amv.v «om. «om. mm
on.v «we. «we. ow Rom.v «no. ma. Hm
.muem memeu Hensoz .mumm esp memeu eon Honesz
man no Heooz esp no poennam so Hmooz so Hoooz nomnnom
ecu suw3 Heooz sues ecu one: emu eufi3
cowueaeuuoo sowueaeuuoo sowueaeuuoo coaueaeuuou

 

.owoowuoooun.oa wanes

79

Hypothesis 3 predicts that subject agreement with
the Vroom-Yetton model as measured by the AFS and ALMC,
will be greater than chance levels. For the following
comparisons chance levels are defined as the expected
values for the probabilities of agreement with the feasible
set or least manhour criterion when management decision
styles are selected randomly over the 48 Cases or 128 Sets.
Average AFS (Cases) was 70.83 percent and the AFS expected
by a random process was 40.0 percent. Average AFS (Sets)
was 57.0 percent. Both are higher than chance and it may
be concluded that the subjects were responding to both the
Cases and Sets in a manner concurrent with the Vroom-Yetton
model. The ALMC measure closely resembles the result
obtained with the AFS. For the Cases the mean ALMC was
34.47 percent which is compared with a chance value of
14.28 percent. For Sets, the mean ALMC was 32.28 percent
and the value expected from a random process was 20.0 per-
cent. Both these scores are much higher than chance level,
thereby confirming hypothesis 3.

Hypothesis 4 predicts that the VAR prescribed by
the model will fall within the 95 percent confidence inter-
val computed from the sample VAR. This interval was com-
puted from a formula presented in Lindgren (1968, pp. 390-
391). For the Cases the 95 percent confidence interval
ranges from 2.19 to 5.9 and the value prescribed by the
model is 4.47. For the Sets this interval ranges from

2.30 to 6.21 and the value prescribed by the model is 3.01.

80

For both Cases and Sets, the model value falls within this
confidence interval. This analysis was originally intended
to find the confidence interval in which there is a pre-
scribed probability that that interval contains the popula-
tion variance. As it is used here, the assumption has been
made that if this model is valid, in terms of its descriptive
properties, the variance prescribed for the model should be
equal to the variance of the population of leaders. Given

this assumption, hypothesis 4 is supported.

Rule violation. The Vroom—Yetton model is based on

 

10 rules, four are designed to protect the quality of the
decisions, four are designed to protect the acceptance of
the decision, and two to eliminate group or individual
styles when appropriate. The identification of rule viola-
tions for each rule provides a clearer understanding of the
basic agreement or disagreement with the model. The mean
observed probability of violation of each rule was calcu-
lated by dividing the frequency of violation by the fre-
quency of applicability of the rule within the Cases and
Sets. Expected probabilities of rule violations were

based on random assignment of decision styles constrained
by the mean distribution of decision style in the Cases and
Sets. These probabilities reflect the rule violation
expected for a person who maintained the mean frequency of
each decision style, but who did not discriminate among

problems in the allocation of decision styles (Vroom &

81

Yetton, 1973, pp. 146-147). The difference between expected
and observed is evidence for the discrimination between
problems to which the rule is applicable and problems to
which the rule is not applicable. A positive difference is
consistent with the Vroom-Yetton model's prescriptions; a
negative difference, inconsistent. The differences were
tested for significance by t-test for prOportions.

Presented in Table 11 are the results of this
analysis. When responding to the Cases the subjects vio-
lated all rules except rules 3a and 3b (the goal congruence
rules) significantly (p < .05) less than what is expected
by random assignment. For the Sets all applicable rules
except rule 4a (the unstructured problem rule) were viola-
ted significantly less than expected by random assignment.
Rule 3a was, (the goal congruence rule) in fact, violated
significantly more than chance level.

The results for both the Cases and the Sets are
very similar and are, in general, supportive of the
descriptive properties of the model. The only exception to
this is rule 3 (a and b) for the Cases and rule 4a for the
Sets. Rules 3a and b concern circumstances where the
quality of the decision is important and the subordinate(s)
do not share the goals. Rule 3a forbids the use of decision
style Gll and 01 and rule 3b specified that in group problems
G1 is also not recommended. The data from both the Cases
and Sets suggest that these rules do not play a part in the

subjects' decision strategies. It may be that the leaders

82

.Hemauee oeuoemeum one measu may MOM encoumCmmeQe

 

 

 

 

. . . . . . . . Ho.v om.o oom. moo. oH
. . . . . . . . mo.v om.o mmm. «no. m
Ho.v mm.m mom. moo. Ho.v Ho.o omm. omm. m
. . . . . . . . mo.v oo.e omm. omm. o
Ho.v om.m omo. mom. Ho.v mo.o moo. moa. o
Ho.v mm.m Hem. moo. Ho.v om.m mam. moo. m
. . . . . . . . Ho.v mm.m mam. moo. no
mz mm.m mom. mom. Ho.v mo.o moo. ooo. mo
. . . . . . . . mz oo.- omm. mod. om
Ho.v mm.~- mom. mmm. mz oo.a ohm. mmm. em
. . . . . . . . mo.v mm.~ «mo. mmo. m
mo.v om.m mmm. oao. Ho.v mm.m moH. ooo. m
.boum mome> u .oxm .mno .noum moae> u .oxm .moo amaze
meme mmmeo

 

.eoeomeoe> mane mo

mumaooenoum oeuoemxm one oe>uemoo mo confinemeoouu.aa wanes

83

felt it was necessary to hold group meetings under these
circumstances to work on the problem ownership issue. They
may believe that the group process is powerful enough to
change the subordinate's views without encountering a sub-
stantial risk to the quality of the decision.

Rule 4a recommends that when the quality of the
decision is important, the leader lacks information, and
the problem is unstructured, decision styles AI, AII, and
CI are excluded from the feasible set. Since this rule was
used significantly in the Cases and not in the Sets, it
suggests that the subjects altered their decision strategy
somewhat when responding to these two different assessment
instruments.

Hypothesis 5 predicts that all 10 rules would be
violated significantly less than chance level. This
hypothesis was supported for all rules except rules 3
(a and b) and 4a (for the data from the Sets). Generally
this analysis is supportive of the model.

Vroom and his associations have often reported that
managers tend to violate rules to protect acceptance more
frequently than rules to protect quality. This finding has
been replicated several times (Hill & Schmitt, 1977; Vroom &
Jago, 1974; and Vroom & Yetton, 1973). The subjects in
this study violated rules to protect quality on the average
of 9.5 percent of the time. Acceptance rule violation was

19.3 percent. Once again these results concur with past

84

research. They suggest that the usual leader is more con-

cerned with quality than acceptance.

Individual and group problems. The Vroom-Yetton

 

model stipulates that managers behave differently in
individual and group situations. To assess if the subjects
do, in fact, discriminate between group and individual
problems, the mean frequency of each decision style was
computed separately for the two types of problems. A
repeated measure t-test was computed on this data. Hypothe-
sis 6 predicts that the decision styles that are theoreti—
cally applicable to only group problems (CII and GII) will
be used significantly more on group problems than indi-
vidual problems. Hypothesis 7 further predicts that
decision styles theoretically applicable to individual
problems (GI and DI) will be used significantly more on
individual problems than group problems. It is also
implicity expected, although not formally predicted, that
management decision styles that are theoretically applicable
to both group and individual problems will not significantly
differ in their use between group and individual problems.

Presented in Table 12 are the results of this
analysis. As forecasted in hypothesis 6, decision styles
CII and GII were employed significantly more in group
problems than in individual problems. While hypotheses 6
and 7 were both supported, an unambiguous interpretation

of these findings is not possible. From Table 12 it can

85

Table 12.--Frequency of Decision Styles for Group and
Individual Problems.

 

 

Group Individual

MDS Problems Problems t Value* Probability
A1 2.326 4.630 -8.05 < .001
All 1.652 1.804 -.60 < .55

Cl 3.891 5.261 -2.84 < .007
C11 7.369 .891 18.37 < .001
61 2.391 6.978 -16.05 < .001
G11 8.196 .826 12.59 < .001
D1 .3261 3.609 -10.42 < .001

 

86

be seen that the subjects utilized decision styles A1 and
C1 significantly more on individual problems than group
problems. This outcome is not congruent with the model and
suggests that the discrimination between group and indi-
vidual problems does not conform specifically to the model.
Another interesting aspect of these results is that they
replicate exactly the findings of Vroom and Jago (1974).
However, they concluded that their subjects were making a
distinction concurrent with the model. What is not stated
is that the directions to the Case studies draw the
respondent's attention to the distinction between group and
individual problems and the decision styles for group and
individual problems are listed separately (see Table 1).
Hence, the significant use of decision styles C11, Gl, Gll,
and D1 in the present study and in the Vroom and Jago study
in the predicted way may be a consequence of the subjects'
conforming to the directions rather than a meaningful dis-
crimination in leader decision-making.

The data in Table 12 also indicates that the parti-
cipants in this study were more inclined to avoid the
autocratic decision styles in group problems than in indi-
vidual problems. This may be attributable to the leader's
perception that when dealing with a group problem there is
a greater probability that new information or greater

commitment is possible when the group is brought together.

87

Importance of the problem attributes. The Vroom—

 

Yetton model assumes that leaders base decisions about the
amount of participation they will afford their subordinates
on eight situational factors labeled "problem attributes."
Furthermore, the model assumes that all problem attributes
are of equal importance in making these decisions. However,
past research has suggested that some of the attributes may
be more important to managers in selecting their decision
styles. In order to examine this issue, a multiple
regression analysis was performed. Average level of parti-
cipation on each case, that is, the mean of the decision
styles for all subjects on each case, was the criterion and
the eight problem attributes (coded l or 0) were the
predictors. The squared multiple correlation of .4554
indicated that about 45 percent of the systematic variance
in the average level of participation can be attributed to
the presence or absence of all the problem attributes.

This significant multiple correlation, F(8,89) = 4.076,

p < .001, is important evidence supporting the model. It
indicates that there is a significant relation among the
presence or absence of the problem attribute and the
selection of a decision style.

Hypothesis 8 predicts that there are no signifi-
cant differences among the problem attributes used to
select the management decision styles. This hypothesis is
analogous to the hypothesis that the beta weights for each

predictor (problem attribute) are equal. This was tested

88

by defining a new regression equation which imposed the
restriction that all beta weights were equal to unity and
comparing the residual sum of squares from this equation
to the residual sum of squares from the original regression
equation. The difference between these sums of squares were
tested for significance by an F-test suggested by Rao and
Miller (1971). A significant difference was found between
the two sums of squares, F(8.39) = 3.317, p < .01, there-
fore, hypothesis 8 was not supported. It appears that some
of the problem attributes were more important in the
selection of decision styles than others. To further
examine this issue the independent contribution of each
problem attribute was determined by computing the semi-
partial correlations between the criterion and each of the
predictors and testing for significance using the general
F-test for the simultaneous model. Presented in Table 13
are squared semi-partial correlations and the F-test for
each problem attribute. Individually, only leader infor-
mation, importance of acceptance, prior probability, and
goal congruence accounted for significant independent con-
tribution to the multiple correlation. Specifically, goal
congruence seems to be the most important problem attribute.
It independently accounts for about 15 percent of the
variance which is considerably more than any other problem
attributes.

The past several analyses have provided substantial,

although not unequivocal, support for the descriptive

Table 13.--The Unique Contribution of the Problem Attri-

89

butes to Average Level of Participation.

 

 

Squared
Semi- Probability
Partial of
Problem Attributes Corr. F Value* Significant
A Quality Requirement .019 1.291 NS
B Leader Information .062 4.212 .01
C Structure .010 .679 NS
D Importance of .057 3.465 .01
Acceptance
E Prior Probability .081 5.500 .01
F Goal Congruence .150 10.190 .01
G Subordinate Conflict .015 .951 NS
H Subordinate Information .013 .883 NS

 

*df = 7/35

90

properties of the Vroom-Yetton model. It appears that
leaders vary the use of decision styles in a manner that
loosely fits the model. Perhaps the most convincing
evidence comes from the rule violation analysis. Here the
subjects are unaware of the formal rule structure of the
model. The rules are applied to the subject's responses
controlled for his/her level of participation. The
relatively low rule violation for most of the rules indi-
cates that the subjects did have a set of criteria upon
which they based their decisions concerning use of manage-
ment decision styles. These criteria are approximated by
Vroom and Yetton's rules.

Nonetheless, there are components of the model that
were not supported by these analyses. It appears that the
goal congruence rules are not used by typical leaders.
There is also some question about validity of the indi-
vidual and group problem distinction. Data here suggests
that the subjects' distinctions between types of problems
do not conform to the model. In addition, it was suggested
that past evidence supporting the group and individual
descriptive properties could be attributed to method vari-
ance rather than a meaningful discrimination on the part
of the subjects. It was also demonstrated that not all
problem attributes were of equal importance in the selection
of decision styles. The implication of this result is that
certain problem attributes are more important to the leader

and therefore should be given more prominence in the model.

91

The present study has produced data both supporting
and refuting portions of the descriptive prOperties of the
Vroom—Yetton model. However, many of the most critical
tests, i.e., percent of subjects' agreement with the model,
rule violations, and relation among the problem attributes
and the use of decision styles, were supportive of the
model. The evidence that failed to support the model
involved less substantial concerns. Therefore, it would
seem correct to conclude that the most basic descriptive
properties of the model have been confirmed, but several of
the details need to be reformulated or omitted. Use of all
eight attributes that the model demands may be beyond the

capacity of typical leaders.

Normative Appects of the Model

 

Validity of the Vroom-Yetton model. The previous

 

analysis and discussion was primarily concerned with the
descriptive prOperties of the Vroom-Yetton model. The
focus of the study will now be somewhat altered to con-
centrate on the normative aspects of the model. Here, the
major question is, whether or not managers whose leader
decision pattern resembles the Vroom-Yetton model superior
to those managers whose decision pattern is discrepant from
the model. For the purpose of describing the following
analyses, superiority is defined in terms of supervisory

performance ratings and subordinate satisfaction ratings.

92

Displayed in Table 14 are the zero order correla-
tions among the Vroom-Yetton indices and the criterion sets
and the intercorrelations among the criterion sets. For
most of the indices the correlations are much lower than
expected and in some cases are in an unexpected direction.
The only significant correlation for the indices derived
from.the Cases is between AFS and performance-general
appraisal. For the Sets, AFS is significantly correlated
with both performance-general appraisal and technical skill
scales. However, all three performance subscales are
significantly negatively correlated with DMLP. The results
suggest that subjects whose average levels of participation
corresponded with the model (LMC) were perceived as lower
performers by their supervisors. It should be pointed out
that since this is a discrepancy measure, it does not
evaluate the relationship between level of participation
and performance. The correlations between MLP (Sets) and
the three performance scales of .37, .35, .31 do indicate
that for this sample the subjects who exhibited the greatest
levels of participation were also perceived as being the
best performers. In terms of satisfaction with the leader
only the correlation between DVAR (Sets) and technical
skills was significant. Hypothesis 9 predicts that leaders
who more closely resemble the Vroom-Yetton model, as
measured by the four Vroom-Yetton indices (DMLP, DVAR, AFS:
ALMC) will receive higher scores on the performance and

satisfaction measures. This hypothesis was tested by

93

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oo.H om. em. mm. om. «mm. oo. oo. mo. mo. oo. oo. oo.- Hmoeeeomo
om. oo.m mm. me. me. oo. oo.- Ho. oo. Ho. oo.- om. oo.- meomommom ones:
coauoemmmuem
mm. mm. oo.H mo. oo. oo.- .om.u mm.. «on. mo. ma.u ma. om. mmamxm Hmomqnome
mm. me. me. oo.m mo. mo. eHm.u oo.- oo. mo. oo.- om. om. meoeoemmm sees:
om. me. om. do. oo.m oo.- .mm.n oo.- .mm. oo.- oo.: ma. «mm. Homeeueoe enumemo
moseEHOMHem
9 me we mm mo m¢>o maze exam mom moon maze ozqe mom
cowuoemmfiuem woeeEMOMMmm muem memeu

 

.muem oofiueuwuo on» one meowoaH oouueuueouer ecu wooed mcowuedeuuoolléa 0.33.

94

computing a series of canonical correlation analyses.
Summary statistics for the canonical variates are presented
in Table 15. Four separate canonical correlation analyses
were undertaken. Since this study is concerned with
investigating the effect of leader decision style on
effectiveness, the Vroom-Yetton index measures were
designated the independent variables and satisfaction and
performance measures as the dependent variables. The
satisfaction dependent measures were examined first. This
analysis revealed one significant canonical variate for the
Cases and none for the Sets. The canonical correlation for
the Cases was .5679 and for the Sets was .3679. While the
squared canonical correlation can be interpreted as the
overlap between the criteria and predictor sets, Cooley

and Lohnes, (1971) suggest this may not be meaningful if
the canonical variates are not an important factor of their
respective batteries. However, Steward and Love (1968)
have advocated an expression that indicates the degree of
relationship between the batteries called the index of
redundancy. The index of redundancy is the proportion of
variance extracted by a canonical factor, i.e., a composite
index of dependent measures, times the proportion of shared
variance between the factor and the canonical factor of the
independent measures (Cooley & Lohnes, 1971). For this
analysis, the percent of variance in the composite index of
satisfaction with the leader explained by the set of Vroom-

Yetton similarity indices was 15.6 for the Cases and 7.6

95

 

woerHOMHem HHflxm

o .mm n no .mom.em u mueoom one
whom. u :ooueaeuuoo Heowcoeeo

 

 

 

 

Heoflosoea
eoceEHOHHem moowueaem Hm.| vmmm.l AmBva m<>n
mam. oomm. cease mo~.n meme. Amemmo maze
mmo. memm.au eoaeeu0muem Hemeeumoe ema.u mmqm.: Amemmo ozqe
moo. ammo.m Heueoeo one. memo.m Amemmo wee
Heoocnoee m. u m .NH u no .mhwh.h u eueoow gnu
eunefinomuem mam. u cowueaouuoo Heofleoceo
mGOfiueHem ceeom hum.l Ammmcuv m¢>n
memo.: mooesuomuem movo.H Ammmeoo more
moeo.mu memeeueee meumcmo mmoo.au Ammmeoo ozqm
ommm.H mocesuomuem memo.m Ammmeoo who
om. u m .m n we .mmom. u mueoom one
moon u coaueaeuuoo Heoflooceu
Heowqaoea Hobo. AmBva m<>o
cowuoemmwuem memo.n Awemmv maze
momm.a mucoueaem cesom eomm. Amemmo ozqe
vmmo.mu oofluoemmmuem mmoo. Amemmo wee
mo. u o .o n no .Hmo~.mm n oueovm ego
mmom. cowueaeuuou Heowooceu
Hmm.u memo. “memeoo mesa
mo~.u mmmm. «memeoo more
omm. mmom.a sew mmmoxm announces eea.u Hmom.u Rommeoo ozqe
mom. mmom.u sew mucouemem cease mom. omom. Ammmmoo mom
muoeflowmmeou munmwez meanewue> uceooemeo mueeflommmeoo munmflez meanewue> uceoswmeocH
HMOflGOQMU Ohfiuuaflm HMOfiQOfiMU

 

.muem oowueuwuo men one meowooH couuewlaoou> may :ee3uem mommaese oomueaeuuou deemsoseoun.ma wanes

96

for the Sets. While this is not a great amount of overlap,
it does represent significant shared variance. The analysis
does demonstrate that there is a marginal relationship
between the Vroom-Yetton indices and the satisfaction
measures. Substantive interpretation of the variate can

be made by the examination of the canonical weights and
structure coefficients for the significant analysis.
Structure coefficients are simply the zero-order correla-
tions between a variable and a canonical variate (Cohen &
Cohen, 1975). Here the technical skill scale has a positive
loading of substantial magnitude and the human relation
scale has a moderate negative loading. This indicates that
these two constructs relate differently to the battery of
Vroom-Yetton similarity indices. The independent variate
is about evenly loaded on DMLP and DVAR and moderately
negatively loaded on ALMC for the Cases. However, the
structure coefficients reveal that the AFS is relating
differently to the canonical variate than the other inde-
pendent measures. In a similar manner, the structure
coefficients for the dependent variate shows that both are
positively related to the canonical variate with technical
skills predominanting the relationship.

This analysis indicates that the human relation
component of satisfaction with the leader is related to
AFS and the technical component of satisfaction is related
ALMC, DMLP, and DVAR. It should be noted that, in this

analysis, the opposite signs associated with the canonical

97

weights do not denote an inverse relation between the vari-
ables. They are the consequence of the suppression effect

due to the relatively high intercorrelation among a set of

variables.

Two more canonical correlation analyses were per-
formed employing the Vroom-Yetton indices as independent
measures and the three performances scales as dependent
measures. The canonical correlation for the cases is .309,
which is not significant. The canonical correlation for
the Sets is .5679 which is significant. Only one canonical
variate was significant. The index of redundancy is 15.03
for the Sets and 6.04 for the Cases.

Again there appears to be a polarization of the two
sets of variables. The performance scales of general
appraisal and technical skills are similarily loaded on
the dependent variate and are related to AFS in the
independent variate set. The performance scale human
relation is related to ALMC, DMLP, and DVAR in the dependent
variate set. Furthermore, these two composites of vari-
ables are differently related to each other.

For the two sets of dependent variables, the results
from the Cases and the Sets failed to replicate one another,
with the analysis of the Cases producing significant
results for the satisfaction data and the analysis of the
Sets yielding significant results for the performance data.
In addition, those significant relationships which were

found were not large in the sense of shared variance.

98

Consequently, any interpretative statements must be made
cautiously. With this in mind, it appears that these
analyses produced some interpretable results. For both the
performance and satisfaction data, AFS was related to the
technical skills component. On the other hand, the ALMC,
DMLP, and DVAR were related to the human relations com-
ponent of both variable sets.

It had been assumed that an effective leader would
receive high ratings on both performance and satisfaction
measures, and that his/her leader decision style would be
similar to the Vroom-Yetton model. However, given the
results of the canonical analyses, it may be speculated that
a leader may not be able to be high on all components of
subordinate satisfaction and superior performance ratings.
It appears from these analyses that leaders who resemble
the Vroom-Yetton model are perceived in general, as
superior leaders. However, this is not absolute, but rather
a conditional conclusion. Leaders who resemble the Vroom-
Yetton model as defined by the LMC seem to be superior on
the human relations aspects of leadership but not neces-
sarily on the technical skills aspect. On the other hand,
leaders who resemble the Vroom-Yetton model as defined by
the feasible set, disregarding the LMC, seem to be associ-
ated with superior technical skills or general appraisal
but not necessarily with the human relationzakills.

Although all relations found in the canonical

correlation analyses are marginal, they do suggest that

99

do suggest that conformity to the Vroom-Yetton model is
related to leader effectiveness. Hypothesis 9 is there-
fore partially supported. It is only partially supported
in that while there apparently is a relationship between
the Vroom-Yetton model and effectiveness, the exact nature
of that relationship is unclear. In addition lack of
association among these criteria and the indices is
surprising and casts doubt on the validity of the model.
However, because of the small sample size, further data

relevant to this question should be collected.

Models of Leader Decision-Making

 

Previous analyses have demonstrated that both the
situational aspects of leadership problems and individual
differences attributed to the leader are important in terms
of explaining responses to leadership situations. Other
data have suggested that leaders are using different
strategies and methods to solve problems. In order to
identify if the subjects in the present study are utilizing
common decision-making strategies, a Q-type principal
component analysis of the subject's responses to the Sets
was computed. This analysis yielded four components by
Cattell's scree criterion (1966). Results of this analysis
are reported in Table 16. It should be noted that three
subjects were deleted from this analysis due to a large

amount of missing data.

100

Table l6.--Q Type Rotated Principal Components Solution.

 

 

Subjects FACTOR l FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3 FACTOR 4
VY (LMC) .31676 .42233 .60688* .20232
1 .13010 .00811 .15582 .43611*
2 .64466* .06075 .23247 -.07176
4 .70026* .09863 .15947 .15468
5 .48812 .14291 .53347* .22053
6 .02289 .14743 .12400 .84637*
7 -.09083 .18068 .13400 .71796*
8 .57586* .34248 .34125 -.07782
9 .20026 .02307 .59985* .52410
10 .70906* .25162 -.02804 -.18835
11 .23886 .33783 .57260* -.00049
12 .23786 .50876 .54772* -.03554
13 .64804* .14993 .52423 -.O4708
14 -.07141 .74961* .01320 -.10117
15 .64844* .12502 .16638 .08167
16 .15957 .34764 .59195* .03786
17 .59763* .29291 .25310 .43442
18 .60227* .12156 .17311 .17270
19 .64853* .25937 .10137 .05506
20 .58822* .46975 -.05668 .27267
21 .33355 .50226* .40853 .29963
22 -.15683 .51326* .19703 .04193
23 .31845 .50890 .59754* .00532
24 .37718 .53181* -.00282 .20616
26 .4688) .43066 .18216 .19822
27 .43728* .17565 .23895 .20822
28 .06238 .16239 .67427* .34478
29 .42385 .10985 .46372* .03712
30 .53081* .47534 .11922 -.14245
31 .12454 .61809* .25052 .21512
32 .08393 .34691 .47386* .16781

101

Table l6.--Continued.

 

 

Subjects FACTOR l FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3 FACTOR 4
33 .16694 .12844 .25345 .71771*
34 .51192* .21585 .48909 -.11858
35 .60173* .36871 .21707 .09039
37 .56360 .48044 .18907 -.20960
38 .21374 .26003 .58507* .27932
39 .53873* .13337 .27839 .15508
40 .29241 .67342* -.06160 -.20841
41 .28023 .25513 .35768* -.56604
42 .24229 -.09l94 .58935* .25862
43 .36349 .51350* .27051 .05520
44 .53109* .49316 .13605 .06367
45 .28620 .61635* .50109 -.09651
46 .44158* .20175 .22047 .44041

Eigenvale 15.212 4.382 2.943 2.216

Percentage

Variance 33.8 9.7 6.5 4.9

 

Note: Principal components loadings are result of
varimax rotation. The asterisk (*) indicates the component
on which a given subject has his/her highest loadings.

102

The large general component accounting for about
34 percent of the variance indicates that subjects are
perceiving these problems in the same manner. There are,
however, three other additional components which account
for a relatively large portion of the variance.

In an effort to understand the nature of these
differences among subjects and to identify models of
leader decision-making, a 2x2x2x2x2x2 (two levels of the
six problem attributes from the Sets) fixed effects analysis
of variance was computed for each subject. The results of
these analyses of variance are summarized in Table 17.
Omega-square values are reported only for significant
effects in the analysis of variance. Because of the large
number of F-tests, an alpha level of .01 was employed.

Examination of Table 17 indicates some fairly sub-
stantial differences among the four groups of subjects.

In general, the first group tends to make major uSe of
prior probability and subordinate conflict and moderate use
of importance of acceptance and goal congruency. Persons
in this group also appear to be making more interactive

use of problem attributes than subjects in other groups.
This group's emphasis on prior probability and subordinate
conflict and lack of emphasis on leader information,
problem structure and goal congruence seems to indicate
that they are more concerned with insuring the acceptance
of decisions or avoiding conflict than insuring high

quality decisions. These peOple may perceive effective

1(13

Table 17.--Omega Square Values for Significance Main Effects and Significant Intereactions

for Each Subject.

 

encouoeueucu
weZIeuox 30 m

moowuoeueuou
mesum

hummucou
euecwouondm

eocemoumsou
deco

mumemnmnoum
uowum

museumeoum mo
museuuomaH

ousuoohum

coaueauoucH
nooeoq

anemone

 

5.9 10.1 5.9 26.2 24.0
6.2

10.0

2.7

24.1

11.8

2.8
22.6

1.6

21.1

14.1

12.1

1.8

37.7

13.7

2.6

10
13

21.5 3.7 13.8

29.7

14.0

23.4

3.5

15

5
26.5

20.7

51.4

3.8
6.6
21.5

3.8

.1

17

32.3

4.7
10.5

6.6

18
19
20
26
27
30
34

10.6

2.9

1.3

65.0

1.6

2.7

30.3

6.3

Component 1

10.6

2

2.1
6.1

18.4

2.8

19. 4

2.8

4.1
4.3

13.3

15.8

17.6

4.4
23.4

30.6

5.3

35
37
39
44

4.2

29.4

2.4

8.8

5.6

3.4

23.7

5.9

10.0

18.3

46

 

97
62

15.3 27.0
11.8 23.0 1.8

3.2
19.5

14
21

16.8

5.4

22

27.8

24
31
4O
43

Component 2

6.5 12.7
12.7

. . 17.9

2.9

17.9

2.3

5.7

20.0

9.1

6.3 19.0

17.8

9.8
25.5

1.5

2.7

4.3

5.6

45

 

6
11.0

16.3
13.6

6.0
6.5

20.8
23.3

8.0

W59

442
00.

6.3 6.7 21.1

11

3.7
6.2

1.4
16.1

1.6

6.8 6.8 36.6 24.9

3.7

23

5.8

4.7

35.0

2.1

28
29
32
38
41

Component 3

5.6

9.0

15.5

14.1

21.1

2.1
19.4

14.6 4.1
17.4

12.9

10.6

2.1

4.7

17.4

12.6

5.5 24.5

3.4

42

 

8.2

18.9

Component 4

21.5 10.1 4.1

13.1

2.8

4.1

33

 

104

leadership as facilitating supportive relations between
themselves and their subordinates and among the subordinates.
Therefore, this component can be labeled a high human
relation oriented decision strategy.

The subjects in component 2, on the other hand,
tend to rely most heavily on leader information and prior
probability with moderate usage of goal congruence. There
was almost no reliance on subordinate conflict and there
was only moderate use of interactions. This group seems to
be focussing more on their own influence as a leader than
on subordinate characteristics. It may be speculated that
this group views effective leadership in terms of maximizing
their own influence on the group in order to create and
obtain subordinate acceptance.

The Vroom-Yetton LMC loads most heavily on the
third component. Persons in this group relied most heavily
on importance of acceptance but also a moderate use of all
the problem attributes. This is perhaps the most distin-
guishing characteristic of this group. This is also con-
sistent with the fact that the Vroom-Yetton LMC loaded in
this group. The model stresses the use of all the problem
attributes and hence can be labeled a Vroom-Yetton or equal
use component.

The fourth component is composed of just four
subjects who utilized the goal congruence problem attribute

and to a lesser extent prior probability. There does not

105

seem to be a clear basis on which to interpret or label
this factor.

One advantage of the Sets was that no nesting of
problem attributes was necessary, thereby, allowing a
completely crossed design. This makes the examination of
all interactions possible. Sixty-six percent of all the
subjects used the problem attributes interactively. On
the average, the interactive use of problem attributes
accounted for about 10 percent of the systematic variance
in their responses. Since the total variance accounted for
by the use of the problem attributes was around 50 percent,
the interactive use is substantial. A better understanding
of a leader's decision-making policy can be obtained by
knowledge of their interactive use. Hypothesis 10 predicts
that there will be significant interaction among the
problem attributes. The average number of significant
interactions per subject was 3.77 accounting on the average
for 9.44 percent of their variance. While this is not a
large prOportion of the total variance it does compare
favorably with the amount of variance accounted for by the
main effects for individual problem attributes. It appears
that subjects are utilizing the problem attributes inter-

actively, thereby supporting Hypothesis 10.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUS I ONS

In the present study, several aspects of the Vroom-
Yetton model of leadership decision-making were examined
in order to test the validity of this theory. Important
components of the model are the contingency assumptions,
descriptive properties and the normative properties. The con-
tingency assumptions of this model were generally supported
by the results of this study. It was found that the vari-
ance attributable to situational differences and individual
leader differences was significant, and that the situational
differences were more important in explaining responses to
both Vroom-Yetton cases and problem attribute sets. This
confirms past findings and supports the position that
leadership style is systematically varied depending on
situational characteristics. In order to procure a better
understanding of these individual leader differences,
which apparently do affect the leader decisions, five of
the leaders' personality characteristics were measured.
For these subjects no significant relationships were found
among the personality variables, the Vroom-Yetton similarity
indices, and leader effectiveness. However, another

attempt to explore this question proved more fruitful.

106

107

The Q-type principal components followed by the analysis of
variance produced four subject factors based on individual
leader decision strategies. The leader components differed
most notably in the number, combination, and interactive
use of the problem attributes in selection of decision
styles. From inspection of the amount of variance accounted
for by each problem attribute in the selection of decision
styles, three of the leader components defining common
decision strategies, were clearly interpretable and labeled
human relations, leader influence, and Vroom-Yetton usage.
These findings suggest that the individual leader differ-
ences are due to personal preferences in decision-making
strategies in terms of the usage of influence and power,
rather than to stable traits associated with one's per-
sonality. These results are completely consistent with a
general contingency model of leadership.

The proportion of variance in selection of decision
styles attributable to situational differences was explored
by examining the descriptive properties of the Vroom-
Yetton model. All in all, the results of this study were
supportive of many of the descriptive properties of the
model. Data from both the Cases and the Sets demonstrated
that leaders apparently do make decisions based on the
problem attributes and these decisions are fairly consis-
tent with those suggested by the model's LMC. The
responses to the Cases and Sets agreed with the Vroom-

Yetton model much more often than would be eXpected by

108

chance, and correlations with the Vroom-Yetton LMC were
substantial. It should be noted, however, that correla-
tions with the Vroom-Yetton model were considerably less
than perfect, that percentages of agreement with the LMC
and FS were much less than 100 percent, and that most
subjects' mean level of participation was higher and vari-
ance scores were lower than that suggested by the model.
Perhaps the most convincing evidence supporting the
descriptive properties of this model originates from the
rule violation analysis. This analysis demonstrated that
ten of the twelve rules applicable to the Case and five of
the seven rules applicable to the Sets were violated at
significantly less than chance levels. Consequently, most
of the relationships among the problem attributes and the
use of decision styles prescribed by the model were
exhibited by these subjects. It appears that leaders do
have a set of criteria that they avail in order to regulate
their selection of leader decision styles and these criteria
are approximated by Vroom and Yetton's rules. The most
important exception to this general conclusion concerns the
goal congruence rule. The problem with this rule centers
on the leader's use of decision style Gll in situations
where this rule excludes it from the feasible set. The
explanation for the discrepancy, as was previously noted,
may be that when goal congruence is an issue, leaders
perceive a need to process a problem in a group forum. It

may be hypothesized that this particular situation is one

109

in which leaders are likely to overestimate the amount of
control allocated to the group. In other words, although

a leader has called a meeting of appropriate subordinates,
and facilitated group processing by minimizing her/his role
as the leader, that leader may still be maintaining control
of the decision process by using informal means. However,
because the leader plays down the leader role, he/she may
report using decision style GII, when, in fact, he/she
actually employed GI. If this is the case, then the problem
is not with the descriptive properties of the rule, but
rather in the leaders relating their own behavior to the
management decision styles. It is precisely for this
reason that Argyris (1976) objects to relying solely on
self-reported behavior, rather than observed behavior, to
assess leadership style. The assumption that a leader can
actually report what decision styles were actually employed
in different situations is at this time untested. To
investigate this issue actual behavior must be observed
and then compared with written reports from the usual
instruments. While the proposed study would be difficult,
it is not impossible for a limited sample.

Rules 9 and 10 are concerned with the correct
selection of the decision styles in group and individual
problems. The rule violation analysis supported the
validity of these rules. However, the veracity of this
portion of the analysis is questionable due to significant

differences for decision styles not associated with one of

110

these classifications of problems and the possibility that
the directions for the Cases force this distinction on the
subjects. In order to resolve this problem the Cases with
altered directions and display of decision styles will have
to be administered to a new sample.

It was also found that not all of the problem
attributes were receiving equal consideration in the
decision-making process. Although there are individual
differences in the utilizationxof the problem attributes,
most subjects relied primarily on one or more of the
following problem attributes: leader information, impor-
tance of acceptance, prior probability of acceptance, goal
congruence, and subordinate conflict. The problem attri-
butes, quality requirement, problem structure and sub-
ordinate information were usually not utilized by the
leaders in this study.

These findings concur with past studies (Hill &
Schmitt, 1977; and Vroom & Jago, 1974) in that the problem
attribute "Problem Structure" is not typically utilized by
leaders to select decision styles. This is the only
problem attribute that has repeatedly not accounted for
significant variance either with the Cases or the Sets.
This is a surprising result since on a conceptual level a
problem that has been well defined or has an established
procedure for acting on it should be handled in a different
manner than problems that lack these qualities. In the

model, the only rule that utilizes this problem attribute

111

is rule 4 (a and b). This rule states that if the decision
has a quality requirement, the leader lacks the necessary
information and the problem is unstructured then decision
styles that do not require subordinate-leader interaction
are eliminated from the feasible set. Since this rule was
violated less than expected for Cases, although not for the
Sets, it appears that, in general, the subjects were making
the discrimination required by the rule but were not relying
on the problem structure attribute to do it. Possibly the
subjects are perceiving this problem attribute as a component
of leader information rather than an independent bit of
information. As used here, an unstructured problem is one
aspect of the leader not possessing the proper information.
Therefore, the subject is able to reSpond in a manner that
conforms with the model without use of this problem attri-
bute. It may be concluded from this analysis that the
problem attribute "problem structure" is not used by
typical leaders independently from leader information and
therefore does not conform to the descriptive prOperties of
the model. It may be suggested that this attribute calls
for a finer discrimination than leaders are able to exhibit
and hence, should be eliminated from the model.

In addition to examining the main effects for the
problem attributes the data from the Sets permitted the
examination of the unconfounded interactions. For 32 of
the subjects the interactive use of the problem attributes

explained a significant proportion of the variance in his/her

112

selection of decision styles. The average number of sig-
nificant interactions (p < .01) was approximately five with
most of them being two or three way interactions. However,
six of the subjects' significant interactions accounted for
over 25 percent of the variance in their decisions. For a
majority of subjects, and especially for about 10 percent,
insight into the strategies in choosing decision styles is
enhanced by knowledge of the interactive use of the problem
attributes. Studies which attempt to gain insight into
these interactions would be informative.

Another interesting finding concerning interactions
was that in most cases the significant interactions for each
subject were comprised of the same problem attributes that
were significant for main effects. This suggests that a
majority of the decision—makers utilized only three or four
of the problem attributes when making their decisions while
ignoring the rest. Vroom and Yetton (1973) have utilized
both the recall method and the case study to assess the
leadership style of their subjects in terms of their model.
Hill and Schmitt (1977) offered an alternative method in
the form of the Problem Attribute Sets. This study employed
the latter two methods and found that they were similar in
many ways. The correlation between the Vroom-Yetton simi-
larity measures computed from the Cases and Sets were high
for AFS, DMLP, and DVAR. In addition, the correlation
between MLP for the subjects and the model's prescribed

LMC were generally similar for both assessment instruments.

113

However, there were some notable differences between these
measures. Possibly the most important difference was the
variability in the employment of decision styles from these
two methods. The VAR computed from the Cases and the Sets
correlated -.38 and the proportion of variance attributed
to individual differences in the leader was much higher in
the Cases than in the Sets. These differences may be due
to the greater complexity of the stimulus used in the Sets.
The subjects may be relying on fewer decision styles in
order to reduce the complexity of the task. It may be the
case that when responding to the Sets, subjects tend to
select a few decision styles that they are most comfortable
with and then apply their concentration to the presentations
of the problem attributes. On the other hand, when subjects
respond to the Cases the more familiar narrative format
demands less concentration, so subjects concentrated more
on the different decision styles. Additional research is
needed to resolve this issue.

Use of the Sets is advantageous for two reasons.
By presenting a table of problem attributes to subjects
instead of case studies, any error due to subjects' mis-
interpreting the presence or absence of the attribute in a
given case is eliminated. A second advantage is that the
procedure used in the present study is much simpler and
less time consuming for subjects to complete. Hence, more
situations can be presented allowing completely crossed

designs and the assessment of subject reliability as in the

114

present study. Though subject reliabilities in the present
study were less than might be desired, the generally
positive results with respect to coincidence with Vroom-
Yetton case method indicate that there is meaningful true
variance in subjects' responses as well. Future research
should direct some attention to increasing-the reliability
of subjects' responses.

The normative assumptions of the Vroom-Yetton model
infer that leaders who closely resemble the model will be
more effective than leaders whose leadership style is
discrepant from the model. One of the major goals of the
present study was to empirically test this assumption by
undertaking a criterion-related validity study. However,
before this could be done, a procedure for classifying
leaders in terms of the model had to be established. Vroom
and his associates have used many different measurements to
describe leader behavior but have not presented a system
for classifying leaders in terms of the model. This is a
difficult task because no one measure seems to be able to
represent the total complexity of the model. Therefore,
it was decided that a composite of four variables would be
used, these were AFS, ALMC, DVAR, and DMLP as defined
earlier. Since both the independent variables and the
dependent variables were actually a battery of measures,
canonical correlation analysis was used. However, the
normative assumptions of the Vroom-Yetton model were not

strongly supported. The results demonstrated a marginally

115

significant relation between the Vroom-Yetton similiarity
indexes and the effectiveness criteria.

It appears that the Vroom-Yetton similarity index
most closely related to the effectiveness variables is AFS.
If this measure is a meaningful index of correspondence
between the leader's behavior and the model then it may be
concluded that leaders whose decision style approximates
the model are superior in the technical aspects of their
jobs, but are not perceived as more competent in the human
relation aspects of their jobs. On the other hand, leaders
whose decision style approximates the model as measured by
a composite of ALMC, DMLP and DVAR appear to be superior in
terms of human relation tasks but not technical skills.

These relationships become clearer when the basic
nature of the indices are examined. ALMC, DVAR, and DMLP
are all based on the model using the LMC. AFS is based on
the model without reference to the LMC. While both measures
are based on the ten rules, it appears that the introduction
of the LMC has substantial effect on the normative proper-
ties of the model. Leaders who are similar to the Vroom-
Yetton model, based on the LMC, are superior on one set of
criterion measures and leaders who are similar to the model,
without the LMC, are superior on other criterion measures.
To further confuse the issue, the Vroom-Yetton model with
the LMC prescribes the most autocratic decision style that
is in the feasible set, however, leaders who are similar

to this model tended to be higher in human relation skills

116

and not on technical skills. Conversely, leaders who are
similar to the model without the LMC, thereby being more
participative, were associated with high technical skills
but not high human relation skills. From a conceptual
stand point it would seem reasonable to predict results
opposite to those reported in this study. However, these
results suggest that perception of leader competence in
terms of human relation skills and technical skills is not
dependent singularly on level of participation, but rather
is determined by a more complex set of criteria. The exact
nature of this criteria is not clear from the results of
this study.

The Vroom-Yetton model provides an extraordinarily
useful structure to understand the construct of leadership.
Past research has successfully supported both the contin-
gency and basic descriptive assumptions of the model.
However, the normative aspects are still unsupported.
Future research effort needs to be directed at the utility
of the LMC and establishing more sophisticated measurement
systems.

In summary, the present study yielded substantial
evidence to support both the contingency and descriptive
properties of the model. In particular, it appears that
leaders do vary their leader decision style using a
criterion set that is keyed to situational characteristics.
Further, it appears that this process is approximated by

the model's rules and problem attributes. However, only

117

marginal relations were found between similarity to the
model and leader effectiveness and the exact nature of

these relationships is unclear.

STUDY II

Objectives and Hypotheses

The descriptive property of the Vroom-Yetton model
contends that the model is representative of managerial
behavior in common industrial situations. However, it has
been noted that no research has been attempted to demon-
strate if the model is equally valid for the different
decision roles a manager fulfills (Mintzberg, 1973). An
examination of Vroom's 48 case sets reveal that about
70 percent portray the leader in the resource allocator
role. Since most researchers have used those 48 cases, or
similar ones, there is some doubt as to whether the model's
descriptive properties apply equally to other decision
roles.

The objective of this study is to examine the
resource allocator and disturbance handler decision roles
and determine if the Vroom-Yetton model is equally appli-
cable to them and to examine the effect of decision role on
the level of participative decision-making. The following
are the hypotheses for this study.

1. Leaders in the resource allocation deciSion role

will conform more closely to the Vroom-Yetton model
than when they are in the disturbance handler role.

118

119

Leaders in the resource allocator decision role
will be more participative than when they are in
the.disturbance handler decision role.

Leaders will be more participative in situations
where the Vroom-Yetton model calls for greater
participation.

METHODOLOGY

Subjects

 

Subjects participating in the study were 13 state
government law and accounting professionals who also had

supervisory reSponsibilities.

Description of the Measure

 

Data for this study consist of the subjects'
responses to a Vroom-Yetton style problem set. The problem
set consists of 20 short case studies that were written
for this study. The cases were patterned after the ones
used by Vroom and his associates which are described in
Study I of this thesis. These cases differ from the ones
previously used in that they were written to conform to two
of Mintzberg's management decision roles. Hence, 10 of the
cases describe a manager in the resource allocator role
and 10 cases describe a manager in a disturbance handler
role.

In terms of the Vroom-Yetton classification indi-
vidual and group problems were used. It was also decided
that the cases would be constructed in a manner that would
require each of four managerial decision styles defined by

the least manhour criteria an equal number of times. Ten

120

121

problem attribute structures were selected in advance of
the constructing of the cases and the cases were written

to conform to these criteria. The same problem attribute
structure was used in each of the two decision role classi-
fications, thereby yielding 20 cases. The problem attri-
bute structures are presented in Table 18.

In order to validate the problem attribute structure
and the decision roles classification the procedure
developed by Vroom and Yetton (1973, pp. 97-101) was
adopted. This procedure dictates that ten expert judges,
here defined as graduate students that have been trained
in the relevant classification systems, read each case,
decide if each of the problem attributes are present or
absent, andldetermine what the manager's decision role
should be. The criterion of 75 percent agreement on each
judgment was used as the level of acceptance for a case.
When this level was not achieved the case was rewritten and
submitted to a new panel of five experts. All cases met

the criterion following the second writing.

Description of the Data Gathering
The same procedures used to collect the data in

Study I were employed in this study.

122

Table 18.--Problem Attribute Structure for the Problem Set.

 

Problem Attributes

 

 

Problem
Type A B c D E F G H LMC
1 + + + + + + o + 1
2 + + + 0 + O 0 + l
3 + 0 + + + O 0 + 2
4 + 0 + 0 + + O 0 2
5 + + + + 0 0 0 + 3
6 + 0 + + 0 0 0 0 3
7 + 0 + + 0 + 0 0 4
8 + + + + 0 + 0 0 4
9 + 0 + 0 + + 0 + 5
10 + 0 + + 0 + 0 + 5

 

+ = presence of problem attribute
0 = absence of problem attribute

Each of the problem types were presented in both
management roles for a total of 20 cases.

ANALYS I S OF DATA

Two sets of analyses were performed on the data
from Study II. The first set of analyses was intended to
assess the similarity between subject responses on this new
20-case set and the Vroom-Yetton model. Therefore, the
correlation between subjects' responses and LMC, MLP,
subject variance, agreement with feasible set, and agree-
ment with LMC were computed. The percentage of variance
attributed to both individual subject differences and
situational differences were found by performing a subject
by situation (13 x 20) analysis of variance and computing
omega squared (wz).

In order to investigate the influence of leader
role on decision-making, the cases were divided into those
in which the decision maker was in a resource allocating
role and those in which the decision maker was in a dis-
turbance handler role. The percentage of usage for each
management decision style was tabulated. The possible
influence of the two leader roles on the parallelism
between subject reSponse and the Vroom-Yetton model was
assessed by assigning each subject a one if he/she agreed

with the LMC and a zero if he/she did not and computing a

123

124

x2 on this agreement with LMC scores. Finally, the effect
of leader role on level of participation was investigated
by the use of a leader role by situational types by sub-
jects (10 x 2 x 13) mixed model analysis of variance,
employing the level of participation as the dependent

measure.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The correlation between the subjects' responses to
the 20 cases and the Vroom-Yetton LMC ranged from .07 to
.58, with a median of .34. The mean level of participation
was 3.79, which is remarkably similar to that defined by
the LMC, of 3.80. However, the subjects' average variance
of 3.382 was noticeably lower than the 5.696 prescribed by
the model. The agreement with feasible set for all subjects
was 65.4 percent and the agreement with the LMC was 27.7 per-
cent. Both of these indices are well above the chance
levels of .40 and 14.3 percent, respectfully.

From these descriptive data analyses, it can be
concluded that subjects perceived the new 20-case set in
the same manner as the Vroom-Yetton case studies. There
does appear to be substantial agreement with the Vroom-
Yetton model, although the similarity between the responses
of this sample and the prescribed reaponses appears to be
somewhat less than in Vroom's samples (Vroom & Yetton, 1973;
and Vroom & Jago, 1974). This may be attributed to
decreased reliability in the shorter case set or, it may

be an inherent characteristic of the sample itself.

125

126

Typically, Vroom has found that there is three
times more systematic variance attributed to the differ-
ences in situations than to individual differences in the
leaders. The subjects' responses were submitted to a
subjects by situation fixed effects analysis of variance,
which conforms to the analysis used by Vroom and his col-
leagues. Presented in Table 19 are the results of this
analysis. Both factors were discovered to be significant
with individual differences in subjects accounting for
4.8 percent of the variance and situations accounting for
47.6 percent. Consequently, in this study the situational
differences account for about ten times as much variance
as individual subject differences. Once again, this may be
traceable to qualities of this sample or properties of
this case set. Unlike Vroom's cases, or the problem sets
of Hill and Schmitt (1977), where the LMC prescribed the
AI management decision style much more often than others,
each of four decision styles were appropriate an equal
number of times according to the Vroom-Yetton prescription
in the 20 cases used in this study. Since the cases them-
selves are more diverse and there is no reason to believe
that these subjects differ in variability from other
samples in the past, one may expect more variance attri-
butable to the situation. Nonetheless, these results are
supportive of past conclusions concerning the greater
importance of situational properties in influencing

leader decision-making.

127

Table l9.--Overall Analysis of Variance for Subjects and
Situations for Study II.

 

Source 83 df MS F P w

 

Subjects 43.1846 12 3.5987 2.0494 .021 .048

Situations 407.2462 19 21.4340 12.2066 .0005 .476

Error 400.3538 228 1.7559

 

128

The major emphasis of this study was to examine
the influence of leader decision role on congruency with
the Vroom-Yetton model and level of subordinate partici-
pation in decision-making. Displayed in Table 20 are the
percentages of usage for each decision style broken down by
leader decision roles. From examination of this table it
can be observed that when the subjects were in a distur-
bance handling role they varied their use of decision
styles much less than when they were in a resource allo-
cating role. This difference centers around the subjects'
hesitance to use either an autocratic (AI and AII) or dele-
gative (DI) decision style. This caused the subject in the
disturbance handler role to make greater use of the middle
of the participative scale.

Hypothesis 1 predicts that leaders in the resource
allocation role will conform more closely to the Vroom-
Yetton model than when they are in the disturbance handler
role. To test this hypothesis the percentage of agreement
with feasible set and least manhour criterion (LMC) were
computed in both roles. Agreement with feasible set was
68.5 percent for the resource allocator role and 62.3 per-
cent for the disturbance handler. Agreement with LMC was
35.4 percent in the resource allocator role and 20.0 per-
cent in the disturbance handler role. Since agreement with
feasible set and agreement with LMC are highly related
measures, with agreement with LMC being more precise in

terms of the Vroom-Yetton model, a x2 was computed only on

129

Table 20.--Percentages of Decision Style and Summary
Measures for Subjects and the Vroom-Yetton Model.

 

 

 

 

Resources Disturbance

Process Allocator Handler Overall

Subjects Model Subjects Model Subjects Model
AI 14.6 20.0 10.0 20.0 12.3 20.0
All 16.9 20.0 6.9 20.0 11.9 20.0
CI 23.1 20.0 29.9 20.0 25.9 20.0
CII 11.5 0 21.5 0 16.0 0
GI 10.8 0 18.5 0 14.2 0
GII 7.7 20.0 10.0 20.0 9.2 20.0
DI 15.4 20.0 6.2 20.0 10.8 20.0
MLP 3.72 3.80 3.86 3.80 3.79 3.80
VAR 4.24 5.96 2.53 5.96 3.38 5.70

 

130

agreement with LMC. The x2 was significant, x2 (l) =
6.58, p < .02, demonstrating that the subjects do in fact
conform more closely to the Vroom—Yetton model when they
are in the resource allocator role rather than the dis-
turbance handler role, hence, hypothesis 1 was supported.
Hypotheses 2 and 3 were tested by conducting a
leader roles by decision types by subjects (2 x 10 x 13)
mixed model analysis of variance with level of participation
serving as the dependent measure. Table 21 contains the
analysis of variance summary table and Table 22 contains
the cell means and prescribed LMC for each cell. Hypothe-
sis 2 predicted that resource allocators would be more
participative than disturbance handlers. Table 21 indi-
cates that the leader role factor was not significant,
hence, hypothesis 2 is not supported. In cases where the
LMC called for a less participative style (A or C) dis-
turbance handlers were generally more participative, and
in cases where the LMC style was delegative the leaders in
the disturbance handler role were less participative. This
observation is reinforced by the significant leader role by
situation type interaction. It appears that in emergency
or in non-routine situations (disturbance handling) the
leaders in this sample were more reluctant to exclude their
subordinate or themselves from the decision-making than
when they were faced with the same combination of presence
or absence of problem attributes in a resource allocator

role. In addition, leaders in the disturbance handling

131

Table 21.--Ana1ysis of Variance Table for a Leader Role x
Problem Type x Subjects.

 

 

Source 88 df MS F P
Leader Role .5538 l .5538 .348 .566
Role x Subject 19.0461 12 1.5872
(error)

Problem Type 267.3077 9 29.7008 16.721 < .005
Type x Subjects 193.8923 108 1.7953

(error)

Role x Type 121.1385 108 13.4598 6.722 < .005
Role x Type x .216.2615 118 2.0024

Subjects (error)

 

132

Table 22.--Ce11 Mean for Level of Participation and the Pre-
scribed LMC by Problem Type and Leader Role.

 

 

Problem Resource Disturbance Vroom-Yetton
Type Allocator Handler LMC
1 1.923 3.769 1
2 2.462 2.923 1
3 2.385 2.615 2
4 2.692 4.923 2
5 2.385 2.615 3
6 3.462 4.308 5
7 5.462 4.231 6
8 3.462 4.308 6
9 5.000 4.154 7
10 6.385 5.231 7

 

133

role seldom agreed with the LMC in cases where an auto-
cratic style was prescribed. This could be due to the
subjects' perceived need to maintain greater than normal
subordinate commitment to decision-making in non-routine
situations.

Hypothesis 3 predicted that overall subjects would
vary their level of participation in congruence with the
Vroom-Yetton LMC. This hypothesis was confirmed by the
significant problem type factor in the analysis of variance.
Inspection of the cell means in Table 22 demonstrates that
in general, leaders were more participative in situations
where the LMC prescribed greater participation, particularly

in the resource allocator role.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study are generally supportive
of the Vroom-Yetton model in that a set of new cases
administered to a somewhat different managerial sample
produced similar results. The agreement with feasible set,
LMC, and the correlation with LMC, were greater than chance,
although they were somewhat lower than in past studies.

This may be traceable to the reduced reliability of the
assessment instrument due to the use of fewer cases and the
inclusion of disturbance handling cases. The ten to one
ratio between variance accounted for by the situation and
individual subject difference collaborates Vroom's (Vroom &
Jago, 1974; and Vroom & Yetton, 1973) and Hill and Schmitt's
(1977) findings in that the situation in which a leadership
decision must be made is a major contribution in the choice
of management decision style. This study's finding that
the situation accounts for about ten times more variance
than individual differences is somewhat greater than the
four to one ratio found in other studies. This difference
may have been caused by the diverse problem attribute

structures of the cases which were compiled to produce

134

135

equal usage of the management decision styles as prescribed
by the LMC. All in all, the situation by subjects analysis
was supportive of past conclusions.

It was also discovered that two of the managerial
decision roles defined by Mintzberg (1973) have an effect
on both the level of participation afforded to subordinates
and some of the descriptive preperties of the Vroom-Yetton
model. When the subjects responded to cases in the dis-
turbance handler decision role they were disinclined to
either make the decision all by themselves, by using AI or
AII, or delegate the problem to their subordinates. This
response pattern had the effect of reducing the variability
of the reSponses in the disturbance handler role, and
lowering the agreement with LMC when it demanded AI, AII,
or DI. These results may be due to the leader redefining
the criterion which he/she uses to answer yes or no to key
problem attributes in disturbance handling cases. For
example, in disturbance handling roles, a leader may per-
ceive that there is greater risk in making a decision.
He/she, therefore, tends to share the problem with his/her
subordinate in order to share the risk. In this case, it
may be a common leader decision strategy to attempt to
obtain a higher level of subordinate acceptance in order to
lessen the risk of failure. This redefining of the criteria
would cause the lack of agreement with the LMC which was
found for these cases in the present study. Additional

research is needed to determine if these findings are

136

important enough to justify the inclusion of decision roles
as a new problem attribute.

In summary, the 20 case set used in the study
yielded results that were in substantial agreement with
data collected by Vroom and his colleagues. The analyses
indicate that subjects were responding to the different
cases in a manner that conforms to the Vroom-Yetton model.
However, it was also found that leaders in a disturbance
handler role tend to deviate from the model in that they
are more reluctant to use an autocratic or a delegative

style than when in a resource-allocating role.

APPEND IX

APPENDIX

MANAGERIAL PERFORMANCE SCALE

On the next five pages are 21 important dimensions of a
manager's job. Under each dimension title are three descriptions of
differing levels of performance labeled A, B and C. On the separate
rating form, please indicate which of the descriptions most accurately
describes that person. If you feel that the best description of a
supervisor is between descriptions A and B or B and C, you mark in the
space between the letters on the rating form.

 

For example, if on the first dimension you feel that this
person's performance is somewhere between description A and description
B, then you would mark the rating form as follows:

 

l. Supervisory skills I '><l J ' I
A B C
On the other hand, if on the second dimension you feel that C
is the best you would mark as follows:

 

2. Use of information ' | | [ |’(l
' C

A B

You have been provided with a separate rating form for each
person you are to rate. Please read all descriptions within each
dimension carefully before you start your rating. Then rate all 21
dimensions, for each person, as independently as you can. In most
cases, a person is strong in some areas while weak in others. Try not
to let your judgment on one dimension affect your judgment on another.

Since this performance scale is commonly used for men and
women, both male and female pronouns have been used for the items. It
should be understood that the items apply to all persons.

Thank you for your cooperation.

137

138

Supervisory Skills

 

A.

He/she is a skillful supervisor and he gets his/her subordinates
to work efficiently and according to direction. He/she is a
born leader.

He/she does well as a supervisor and gets the work going
smoothly. He/she is not exactly a great leader, but he/she is
as good as most of the others who have managerial positions.

He/she is probably better suited to a subordinate rather than
a superior position. Under his/her direction the work does not

proceed quite as efficiently and without friction.

of Information

 

He is always able to use the informationugiven him to do his
job. He understands the necessary data.and other information
that is presented in their various forms. He will request more
information when he feels it will help him to do a better job.

He understands most of the information provided him, but is
sometimes unsure of how to apply it. He tends to focus on
some types of information while ignoring others. He does not
usually request more or new information.

He finds it most difficult to use the information provided to
him. He would rather use his past experience supplemented with
only limited new information. He often requests less infor-
mation.

Initiative

 

A.

C.

He is a real self-starter. He always takes the initiative and
his supervisor never has to stimulate him.

While generally he shows initiative, occasionally his superior
has to prod him to get his work done.

He has a bit of tendency to sit around and wait for directions.

Innovation

 

A.

While she fully appreciates the value of proven ways of dealing
with problems, she does have many new ideas and her thinking
is not restricted.

While she does have some ideas, she is usually content with the
customary and familiar solutions.

She rarely has original ideas, and almost always has to deal
with problems in the customary routine fashion.

139

Assertiveness

 

A.

He is a conspicuous leader within his department. He always
directs the attention of his subordinates to the need for pro-
ductivity and cost effectiveness. He feels comfortable in
confronting and discussing these types of problems with his
subordinates.

His leadership abilities allow him to be in command of his
department. However, he sometimes fails to focus on producti-
vity and at times lets minor problems pass without effective
action or discussion with his subordinates.

While he is an able leader, he is not noticeably in command of
his department. He finds it.difficult to confront his sub-
ordinates on productivity issues and is usually unwilling to
pursue such matters.

Knowledge of Subordinate Jobs

 

A. Her vast expertise in the technical areas under her supervision
provides her with the ability to manage with ease. She also
has the knowledge to deal with routine problems quickly and
efficiently.
B. While she has considerable knowledge of the technical areas,
there are noticable gaps. She sometimes must obtain help from
others to deal with problems.
C. Technical expertise is not the strong point of this supervisor. 1
She does not have a great deal of knowledge on some of the
areas under her control and therefore must rely on her other
leadership abilities to get the job done.
Motivation
A. A real workhorse. She works much harder than her job really
requires.
B. She is sufficiently industrious and earnest in her work. You
cannot accuse her of being lazy; nevertheless, you wouldn't
say she is exceptionally diligent.
C. She has a touch of laziness. She does just what is required to i

do, but no more.

10.

140

Enthusiasm

A.

He is most enthusiastic about his job, and is completely
engrossed in his work.

He is indeed interested in his job. Nevertheless, one would
not say that he is among those few who are among the highest
level of eagerness.

While by no means does he dislike his job, he is more or less
indifferent to it. Even though he finds much of the work
interesting, it cannot be said that he has a real zeal for it.

Participation

A.

He is willing to allow his subordinates opportunity to parti-
cipate in decision making when it is appropriate. He listens
to their suggestions and implements them or tries to influ-

ence his superiors to accept them when they are constructive.

He is willing to allow his subordinates opportunity to parti-
cipate in a limited sense. While he listens to their sug-
gestions, he often does not follow through with them.

He is not really concerned with participative decision making.
While he respects most of his subordinates, he feels it is
his job to manage the work in his department.

Planning

A.

It is characteristic of her that she thoroughly and completely
plans her activities, and clearly sees that which is to be
achieved. Her plans are always worked out logically and
systematically.

While she does plan her work before she starts it, neverthe-
less sometimes the parts are not well organized. Ordinarily
she is fully aware of the objectives toward which her work is
directed.

Usually she begins a task without first completely planning
her activities. She does not organize the various phases of
her job quite as well as she might, nor does she fully
apprecipate its objectives.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

141

Compgsure

A. She is a very calm person, never losing her head or becoming
at all nervous.

B. She is usually calm but in difficult situations she may become
a little nervous. However, this does not have much, if any,
effect upon her behavior.

C. Her nervousness is apparent when a situation becomes difficult.
She cannot always control herself.

Permissive

 

A. He is a fair but disciplined supervisor. He is never hesitant
to point out counter productive activities and behavior and
deal with a problem subordinate in a constructive manner. If
necessary, he can be expected to initiate the proper dis-
ciplinary action.

B. He is able to maintain control of his department by acting on
major problem employees. He often chooses to ignore minor
problems or waits until minor problems become more disruptive
before he takes action. He sometimes needs help from his
superiors to handle people related problems.

C. He is a somewhat permissive supervisor. He finds it difficult
to confront a subordinate when he/she exhibits non-productive
behavior. He relies heavily on his supervisor to handle I
people problems within his department.

Report Making»

A. Both his written and oral reports are well formulated,
thorough, and well thought out. They rarely need additional
explanation.

B. His reports are useful and meaningful, but they usually
require some additional explanations.

C. Sometimes his reports are so incomplete and poorly organized
that they are of little value, or must be done over.

Self-Confidence

 

A. Behaves confidently. Reacts in all situations without hesita-
tion and with assurance.

B. Has normal self-confidence, with only occasional uncertainty.
She is usually open and assured.

C. She is a little shy and uncertain. Occasionally avoids
situations which require her to take a position.

15.

16.

17.

18.

142

Delegation of Authority

 

A. He always has complete and unwavering confidence in his sub-
ordinates, and he never fails to delegate to them the full
responsibility they need to do their jobs, and all of the
power to make the decisions they must.

B. He does have faith in his subordinates, and he does delegate
authority to them. However, with very important matters he
keeps the final decision to himself. But in minor matters he
invariably gives the responsibility to his subordinates.

C. While he does have confidence in his subordinates, it is
limited. On some occasions he keeps to himself decisions on

matters which others delegate to subordinates.

Attitude Toward Superiors

 

A. His superior finds him very easy to get along with, and in
turn, he is positively oriented toward his superior.

B. In general his superior can get along quite well with him, and
by and large he regards his superior favorably.

C. As a subordinate he is sometimes a little difficult to handle.
His attitude toward his superior sometimes leaves something to
be desired.

Carefulness

 

A. Her work is striking in its accuracy. There is never any
evidence of carelessness in it.

B. The accuracy of her work is satisfactory. It is not often
that you find clear evidence of carelessness.

C. Her work is spotty, sometimes being all right and sometimes
not. She could be more accurate and careful.

Efficiency

 

A. She is quick and efficient, able to keep her work on schedule.
She really gets going on a new task.

B. She is efficient enough, usually getting through her assign-
ments and work in reasonable time.

C. There is some lack of efficiency on her part. She may take
too much time to complete her assignments, and sometimes
she does not really finish them.

19.

20.

21.

143

Relations with Other People

A.

He is on good terms with everyone. He can get along with
people even when he doesn't agree with them.

Gets along with most people. Only very occasionally does he
have conflicts with others on the job, and these are likely
to be minor.

He has a tendency to get into unnecessary conflicts with other
people.

Participation in Meetings

 

 

A. She contributes in many ways in any meeting. Because of the
active part she plays in the discussion, she has a very real
influence on the outcome and on the decisions reached.

B. She plays an active part in most meetings and sometimes her
influence is seen in the outcomes of the discussion.

C. She participates very little in meetings as a consequence,
she does not have much influence upon the outcomes or
decision.

Competence

A. He is very useful--almost irreplaceable--in his present job.
It would be very difficult to find another man like him to
fill that position.

B. He is useful in his present job, but not irreplaceable. It
is well worth keeping him in the company, even though he
could be replaced with new, equally good persons.

C. You could rather easily find another at least equally good man

to take his place. It would not be a great loss if he should
leave the company.

GD—w -h—‘w—

LI ST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Anastasi, A. Psychological testing (fourth edition). New
York: MacMillan, 1976.

Argyris, C. Increasing leadership effectiveness. New York:
Wiley, 1976.

 

Ashour, A. The contingency model of leadership effective-
ness: An evaluation. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 1973, 9, 339-355.

Bass, B. M. Leadership, psychology, and organizational
behavior. New York: Harper, 1960.

Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. The managerial grid. Houston,
Texas: Gulf Publishing, 1964.

Blanz, F., & Ghiselli, E. E. The mixed standard scale: A
new rating system. Personnel Psychology, 1972, 3;,
185-199. ,

Bowers, D., & Seashore, S. Predicting organizational effec-
tiveness with a four-factor theory of leadership.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 1966, ll, 238-263.

Brarclas, A. Some problems of organizational change.
Journal of Social Issues, 1948, 5, 48-52.

Bray, D. W., Campbell, R. J., & Grant, D. L. Formative
years in business: A long:term AT&T_study of man-
agerial lives. New York: Wiley, 1974.

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. Convergent and discriminant
validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.
Psychological Bulletin, 1959, g9, 81-105.

Chemers, M. M., & Rice, R. W. A theoretical and empirical
examination of Fiedler's contingency model of
leadership effectiveness. In J. G. Hunt & L. L.
Larson (Eds.), Contingency approaches to leadership.
Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University
Press, 1974.

144

145

Coch, L., & French, J. R. P. Overcoming resistance to
change. Human Relations, 1948, 1, 512-532.

 

Cohen, J. and Cohen, P. Applied multiple regression/
correlation analysis_for the behavioral sciences.
New York: Wiley, 1975.

Cooley, W. W. and Lohnes, P. R. Multivariate data analysis.
New York: Wiley, 1971.

 

Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. A behavioral theory of the
firm. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963.

 

Dunham, R. B., & Smith, F. J. Validation of the index of
organizational reactions with the job descriptive
index, the Minnesota satisfaction questionnaire,
and Fases scale. American Management Journal, in
press.

 

Fiedler, F. A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1967.

Fiedler, F. E. The contingency model--new directions for
leadership utilization. Journal of Contemporary
Business, 1974, 3(4), 65-79.

 

Fiedler, F. Validation and extension of the contingency
model of leadership effectiveness: A review of
empirical findings. Psychological Bulletin, 1971,
16, 128-148.

 

Fleishman, E. A. Attitude versus skill factors in work
group productivity. Personnel Psychology, 1965,
lg, 253-266.

 

French, J. R. P., Israel, J., & As, D. An experiment or
participation in a Norwegian factory. Human

 

Graen, G., Alvares, K., Orris, J., & Martella, J. Con-
tingency model of leadership effectiveness: Antece-
dent and evidential results. Psychological Bulletin,
1970, 14, 285-296.

 

Graen, G., Orris, J. B., & Alvares, K. Contingency model
of leadership effectiveness: Some experimental
results. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1971, 5,
196-201.

Gibb, C. A. Leadership. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.),
Handbook of socialpsychology. Reading, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley, 1959, 4, 205-282.

 

146

Halpin, A. W., & Winer, B. J. The leadership behavior of
the airplane commander. Columbus, Ohio: State
University Research Foundation, 1957.

 

meblin, R. L. Group integration during a crisis. Human
Relations, 1958, 11, 67-76.

 

Hammer, T. H., & Dachler, H. P. A test of some assumptions
underlying the path goal model of supervision:
Some suggested conceptual modifications. Organi-
zapional Behavior and Human Performance, 1975, 14,
60-75.

Hemphill, J. K., & Coons, A. E. Development of the leader
behavior description questionnaire. In R. M.
Stogdill & A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its
description and measurement. Columbus: Bureau of
Business Research, Ohio State University, 1957.

 

Hill, T. B., & Schmitt, N. Individual differences in leader-
ship decision making. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 1977, 12, 353-367.

Hill, W. The validation and extension of Fiedler's theory
of leadership effectiveness. Academy of Management
Journal, 1969, pp. 33-47.

Hinrichs, J. R. Comparison of "real-life" assessment of
management potential with situational exercises,
paper-and-pencil ability tests, and personality
inventories. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1969,
53, 425-432.

Hoffman, P. J. Cue-consistency and configurality in human
judgment. In B. Kleinmuntz (Ed.), Formal repre-
sentation of humanyjudgment. New York: Wiley and
Sons, 1968, pp. 53-90.

 

Hunt, J. G. A test of the leadership contingency model in
three organizations. OrganizationalIBehavior and
Human Performance, 1967, g, 290-308.

Jackson, D. N. A sequential system for personality scale
development. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Current
topics in clinical and community psychology,

Vol. 2. New York: Academic Press, 1970, pp. 61-96.

Jackson, D. N. Personality research form manual. Goshen,
N.Y.: Research Psychologists Press, 1967.

Jackson, D. N., & Guthrie, G. M. Multitrait-multimethod
evaluation of the personality research form.
Proceedings of the 76th Annual ConventionL American
Psychological Association, 1968, pp. 177-178.

147

Jackson, D. N., & Morf, M. E. An empirical evaluation of
factor reliability. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 1973, 8, 439-459.

 

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. The social psychology of organi-
zations. New York: Wiley, 1966.

 

Katz, D., Maccoby, N., & Morse, N. C. Productivity, super-
vision, and morale in an office situation. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social
Research, 1950.

 

Korman, A. Industrial and organizational psychology.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1971.

 

Likert, R. New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1961.

 

Likert, R. The human organization. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1967.

 

Lindgren, B. W. Statistical theopy (2nd edition). New York:
MacMillan, 1968.

 

Lowin, R. Participative decision-making: A model, literature
critique, and prescriptions for research. Organi-
zational Behavior and Human Performance, 1968, 3,
68-106.

 

Maier, N. R. H. Psychology in industrial organizations
(4th editiOn). Boston: Hougton-Mifflin, 1974.

 

Mann, R. D. A review of the relations between personality
and performance in small groups. Psychological
Bulletin, 1959, gs, 241-270.

 

March, J. G., & Simon, H. Orgsnizations. New York: Wiley,
1958.

 

Marrow, A. J., Bowers, D. C., & Seashore, S. E. Management
by participation. New York: Harper and Row, 1968.

 

 

Morse, N. C., & Reimer, E. The experimental change of a
major organizational variable. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 1956, £3! 120-129.

 

 

Marx, M. (Ed. ). Theories in contemporary psychology. New
York: MacMillan, 1963.

 

Mintzberg, H. The nature of managerial work. New York:
Harper and Row, 1973.

 

148

Mitchell, T. R. Leader complexity, leadership style, and
group performance. Unpublished doctoral disserta—
tion, University of Illinois, Urbana, 1969.

Mitchell, T. The construct validity of three dimensions of
leadership research. Journal of Social Psychology,
1970, 82, 89-94.

 

Morrison, D. F. Multivariate statistical methods (2nd
edition). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1976.

 

Mulder, M., & Wilke, H. Participation and power equaliza-
tion. Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor-
mance, 1970, 5, 430-448.

 

Overall, J. E., & Spiegel, D. K. Concerning least squares
analysis of experimental data. Psychological

 

Rao, R., & Miller, R. L. Applied econometrics. Belmont,
Calif.: Wadsworth, 1971.

 

Schmitt, N. Interrater agreement in dimensionality and
combination of assessment center judgments.
Journal of Applied Psychology: 1977, g2, 171-176.

 

Simon, H. A. The shape of automation. New York: Harper
and Row, 1965.

 

Stewart, D. K., & Love, W. A. A general canonical correla-
tion index. Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 10,
160-163.

 

Stogdill, R. M. Handbook of leadership: A survey oftheory
and research. New York: The Free Press, 1974.

Stogdill, R. M. Personal factors associated with leader—
ship: A survey of the literature. Journal of
Psychology, 1948, 25, 35-71.

 

 

Tannenbaum, R., & Schmidt, W. H. How to choose a leader-
ship pattern. Harvard Business Review, 1958, 3Q,

 

Vroom, V. H. Decision making and the leadership process.
Jgurnal of Contemporary Business, 1974, 1(4),
47-64.

 

Vroom, V. H. Industrial social psychology. In G. Lindzey &
E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology,
5 (2nd edition). Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley,
1970, pp. 196-268.

 

149

Vroom, V. H. Leadership. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Hand-
book of industrial and organization psychology.
Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976, pp. 1527-1551.

 

Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. Decision making as a social
process: Normative and descriptive models of leader
behavior. Decision Sciences, 1974, 5, 743-769.

 

Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. On the validity of the Vroom-
Yetton model. Unpublished technical report, Yale
University, 1976.

Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. Leadership and decision-
making. University of Pittsburgh Press, 1973.

Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, H.
Manual for the Minnesota satisfaction question-
naire. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota,
Industrial Relations Center, Work Adjustment
Project, 1967.

 

 

Products of the Long-Range Vocational Education Planning Projects
published by the PROACTION INSTITUTE

Long-Range Vocational Education Planning Project: Final Report
Planning For Vocational Education
A Policy Information System for Vocational Education

Preliminary Long-Range Planning Modal

Vocational Education Summary Planning Program

Data Element Dictionary for Vocational Education
A PhD. Program in Education Planning

Planning for Vocational Education: A Selected Bibliography
Policy Information System Computer Program

Implementing Long-Range Planning for Vocational Education

PROACTION INSTITUTE is a center for the study of community and educational planning.
Proaction means positive action taken In advance of some event. As the antithesis of "reaction", pro-
action implies the fer-sighted mental tenor required of Institutions in an era of accelerating. future
onrush.

The principal concern of the Institute is the capacity of formal education systems to plan for
the future delivery of their services. That capacity requires an improved understanding of how formal
educational systems relate to the community at large. The institute, therefore, focuses on the inter-

relationship of educational planning with other community planning systems.

PROACTION INSTITUTE
516 Erickson Hall
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824

 

 

"Illllllllllllllllllls