https://oer.missouriwestern.

edu/rsm424/chapter/contingency-theory-of-leadership/

CONTINGENCY THEORY OF LEADERSHIP

PreviousNext
LOGAN MCKENZIE, K LOVE

What is the Contingency Theory?

The Contingency Theory of Leadership states that a leader’s effectiveness is contingent upon
with how his or her leadership style matches to the situation (Leadership Theories, n.d). That is,
the leader must find out what kind of leadership style and situation he or she thrives in. The
Contingency Theory is concerned with the following:
 “There is no one best style of leadership” (Fiedler’s Contingency Model, n.d)
 A leader is effective when his or her style of leadership fits with the situation (Fiedler’s
Contingency Model, n.d)
History of Contingency Theories
The Contingency Theory of leadership was developed by Fred Fiedler in 1958 during his
research of leader effectiveness in group situations (Fiedler’s, n.d). Fiedler believed that one’s
effectiveness to lead depended on their control of the situation and the style of leadership
(Fiedler’s, n.d). Unlike the Situational Theory of leadership, leader effectiveness is contingent on
the leader’s style matching the situation, not adapting to it (Fiedler’s, n.d). This theory assumes
that styles are fixed, and that they cannot be adapted or modified (Gupta, 2009). A leader is most
effective when his or her attributes and style of leadership is matched with the situation and
environment around them (Gupta, 2009).

How Fiedler’s Contingency Theory Works

 The Contingency theory is not concerned with having the leader adapt to a situation, rather the
goal is to match the leader’s style with a compatible situation (Gupta, 2009). To make best use of
this theory, it is important to find what style a leader has (Gupta, 2009). This is done through
the Least Preferred Coworker Scale (LPC) (Gupta, 2009).
The LPC is a list of questions designed to find out what kind of employee a leader would most
like to work with, and in turn shows the leaders style (Gupta, 2009). Fiedler’s Contingency
Model attempts to match the leader’s style using LPC to the situation in which they would thrive
(Gupta, 2009).

 High LPC Score– leader with good personal skills and relies on relationships with others to
accomplish tasks (Fiedler’s, n.d); people-oriented
 Low LPC Score– leader that accomplishes goals through focus on the task and positional
power (Fiedler’s, n.d); task-oriented
Task-oriented leaders are most effective when their positional power is high, as well as the task
structure (Gupta, 2009). People or relation-oriented leaders perform their best when the
relationship levels between themselves and followers are at their greatest (Gupta, 2009). After
finding the style of the leader, Fiedler’s Model states that finding the best situation for the leader,
also known as “situational favorableness” (Fiedler’s Contingency Model, n.d).
A situation is defined by three factors in the contingency theory:

1. Leader-Member Relation- how the leader interacts with employees (Gupta, 2009).
2. Task Structure- how tasks are set up by the leader (Gupta, 2009).
3. Positional Power- the amount of power a leader has over followers (Gupta, 2009).
These three factors combine to form the situation in which a leader’s style is effective or
ineffective. If the three factors match up to the style of the leader, success is projected (Gupta,
2009). It is important to remember that the opposite can happen as well. If a leader is put into a
situation opposite of his or her favored task structure, member relation, and level of power, then
failure is to ensue (Gupta, 2009). The three factors of contingency situation have less of an
impact on leaders who are task-oriented, or score low LPC’s, than leaders who are people-
oriented and score high LPC’s (Fiedler’s, n.d). By using the results from the LPC to find a
person’s leadership style, and analyzing their preferred leader-member relation, task structure,
and positional power, finding the right job or position for someone can be more accurately
accomplished (Fiedler’s Contingency Model, n.d).

Read the following information and watch the video below to become more familiar with
Fiedler’s Contingency Model:

Contingent Leadership (Gupta, 2009)

Fiedler’s Contingency Model (Contingency Videos, n.d).

Comparisons to other Leadership Theories

Comparing Fiedler’s Contingency Theory to other theories, we see that the contingency theory
incorporates some parts of other theories. In many ways, the contingency theory derives from the
trait theory (Leadership, n.d). A leader’s traits are directly related to the most effective style and
situation in which they lead (Leadership, n.d). The factor of relations with followers related to
the transactional and transformational theories (Leadership, n.d). The Contingency Theory states
that a leader’s relations impact their effectiveness, which is the basis of these two theories
(Leadership, n.d). In transactional leadership, a leader’s ability to influence followers with
rewards and punishments for behavior to ensure member goals is the basis of the style
(Leadership, n.d). In Transformational Theory, the leader relies on building relationships
between themselves and followers (Leadership, n.d). Leaders who are people-oriented rely on
these relationships to be effective and have influence over his or her followers (Fiedler’s, n.d).

Strengths of Contingency Theory

 Used to create leadership profiles for organizations

 Puts emphasis on combination of leaders style and the situation
 “It is predictive; there is a well-defined method to evaluate LPC and Situations”
(Gupta, 2009).

The Contingency Theory can be used to create leadership profiles for organizations, in which
certain styles can be matched with situations that have proven to be successful (Gupta, 2009).
Companies can know what type of person would fit in each position of the organization
whenever there is an opening. This theory also helps to reduce what is expected from leaders,
and instead puts emphasis on finding a match to the situation (Gupta, 2009). This theory,
although complex, is very useful in matching professionals to the right situations and
determining the best person for a job (Gupta, 2009).

REFERENCES
Contingency Videos and Resouces. (n.d.). Retrieved November 08, 2016, from
http://situationalandcontingencyleadership.weebly.com/contingency-videos-and-resouces.html

Gupta, A. (n.d.). Leadership Development – Practical Management. Retrieved October 20, 2016,
from http://practical-management.com/Table/Leadership-Development/feed/atom.htm

Fiedler’s Contingency Theory. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.leadership-

central.com/fiedler’s-contingency-theory.htm

Fiedler’s Contingency Model: Matching Leadership Style to a Situation. (n.d.). Retrieved

November 03, 2016, from

https://www.explorepsychology.com/contingency-theory-leadership/

What Is the Contingency Theory of Leadership?

(Last Updated On: August 3, 2017)
“Effective leadership is finding a good fit between behaviour, context, and need.” – White &
Hodgson, 2003

What is it exactly that makes a leader effective? According to one theory of leadership
that became prominent during the 1970s and 80s, effective leadership is dependent
upon the interaction between a leader’s behaviors and the situation itself. This approach
is known as the contingency theory of leadership.

Gill (2011) explains, “Contingency theories suggest that there is no one best style of leadership.
Successful and enduring leaders will use various styles according to the nature of the situation
and the followers.”

How Do Contingency Theories Work?

Those who support contingency theory suggest that the best leaders are those who
known how to adopt different styles of leadership in different situations. These leaders
know that just because one approach to leadership worked well in the past, it does not
mean that it will work again when the situation or task is not the same.

So what are some of the variables that might influence which leadership style is most
effective?

Gill (2011) suggests that these might include:

 The maturity levels of the subordinates or followers

 Whether the relationship between the leader and the followers is a positive one
 The clarity of the task at hand
 The amount of personal power held by the leader
 The level of power given by the leader’s position
 The culture of the organization
 The amount of time available to complete the task
 The speed at which the task must be completed

A number of different approaches to contingency theory have emerged over the years.
The following are just a few of the most prominent theories:

Fiedler’s Contingency Theory

The contingency theory of leadership was one of the first situational leadership theories.
One of the very first contingency theories was proposed by Fred. E. Fiedler in the
1960s. Fiedler’s theory proposes that a leader’s effectiveness hinges on how well his or
her leadership style matches the current context and task.
Fiedler’s pioneering theory suggests that leaders fall into one of two different leadership
styles: task-oriented or people-oriented. The effectiveness of a person’s style in a
particular situation depends on how well-defined the job is, how much authority the
leaders has, and the relationship between the followers and the leader.

The Evans and House Path-Goal Theory

According to the path-goal contingency theory of leadership, first proposed by Martin
Evans and later expanded by Robert House during the 1970s, focuses on how
leadership behavior can help followers achieve the group’s goals. Four key types of
behavior are identified (directive, supportive, achievement-oriented, and participative),
and the type of behavior applied should depend upon the nature of the task.

Hershey and Blanchard’s Situational Theory

Paul Hershey and Kenneth Blanchard proposed a situational theory of leadership
characterized by four leadership styles. The style that should be used in a particular
situation depends upon the maturity level of the subordinates. For example, if followers
lack both knowledge and responsibility, the leader should adopt a directive leadership
style in that situation.

The bottom line:

The contingency approach to leadership remains popular today, but it is not without
criticism. Gill (2011) suggests that two of the key criticisms of contingency theories are
that they do not account for the position of the leader or how styles change. While these
theories help account for the importance of the situation, they do not explain the
processes behind how leadership styles vary according to factors such as the
organization or the position of the leader within the structure. Perhaps most importantly,
they do not explain how leaders can change their behavior or style depending upon the
situation or features of the group.

References

Fielder, F. E. (1964). A theory of leadership effectiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology. New York: Academic Press.

Gill, R. (2011). Theory and practice of leadership. London: SAGE Publications.

Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K. H. (1969). An introduction to situational leadership. Training and Development Journal, 23, 26–34.

House, R. J. (1996). Path–goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory.Leadership Quarterly, 7, 323–352.
https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/fiedler.htm

Fiedler's Contingency Model

Matching Leadership Style to a Situation

What is your natural leadership style?

Do you focus on completing tasks or on building relationships with
your team?

And have you considered that this natural style of leadership might be
more suited to some situations than it is to others?

In this article, we'll explore Fiedler's Contingency Model, and we'll

look at how it can highlight the most effective leadership style to use in
different situations.

© iStockphoto
thecraft
Make sure your leadership style is a perfect match to your
situation.

Note:
With this theory, we are not using the word "contingency" in the sense
of contingency planning . Here, a contingency is a situation or event
that's dependent – or contingent – on someone or something else.

Understanding the Model

The Fiedler Contingency Model was created in the mid-1960s by Fred
Fiedler, a scientist who studied the personality and characteristics of
leaders.

The model states that there is no one best style of leadership. Instead,
a leader's effectiveness is based on the situation. This is the result of
two factors – "leadership style" and "situational favorableness" (later
called "situational control").

Leadership Style
Identifying leadership style is the first step in using the model. Fiedler
believed that leadership style is fixed, and it can be measured using a
scale he developed called Least-Preferred Co-Worker (LPC) Scale (see
figure 1).

The scale asks you to think about the person who you've least enjoyed
working with. This can be a person who you've worked with in your
job, or in education or training.

You then rate how you feel about this person for each factor, and add
up your scores. If your total score is high, you're likely to be a
relationship-orientated leader. If your total score is low, you're more
likely to be task-orientated leader.
Figure 1: Least-Preferred Co-Worker Scale
Unfriendly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Friendly

Unpleasant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Pleasant

Rejecting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Accepting

Tense 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Relaxed

Cold 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Warm

Boring 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Interesting

Backbiting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Loyal

Uncooperative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Cooperative

Hostile 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Supportive

Guarded 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Open

Insincere 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Sincere

Unkind 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Kind

Inconsiderate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Considerate

Untrustworthy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Trustworthy

Gloomy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Cheerful

Quarrelsome 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Harmonious
Tables from "A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness" by Professor F.E. Fiedler.
© 1967. Reproduced with permission from Professor F.E. Fiedler.
The model says that task-oriented leaders usually view their LPCs
more negatively, resulting in a lower score. Fiedler called these low
LPC-leaders. He said that low LPCs are very effective at completing
tasks. They're quick to organize a group to get tasks and projects done.
Relationship-building is a low priority.

However, relationship-oriented leaders usually view their LPCs more

positively, giving them a higher score. These are high-LPC leaders.
High LPCs focus more on personal connections, and they're good at
avoiding and managing conflict. They're better able to make complex
decisions.

Situational Favorableness
Next, you determine the "situational favorableness" of your particular
situation. This depends on three distinct factors:

 Leader-Member Relations – This is the level of trust and

confidence that your team has in you. A leader who is more trusted
and has more influence within the group is in a more favorable
situation than a leader who is not trusted.
 Task Structure – This refers to the type of task you're doing: clear
and structured, or vague and unstructured. Unstructured tasks, or
tasks where the team and leader have little knowledge of how to
achieve them, are viewed unfavorably.
 Leader's Position Power – This is the amount of power you have
to direct the group, and provide reward or punishment. The more
power you have, the more favorable your situation. Fiedler
identifies power as being either strong or weak.

Applying the Fiedler Contingency Model

Step 1: Identify your leadership style
Think about the person who you've least enjoyed working with, either
now or in the past.

Finding This Article Useful?

You can learn another 59 leadership skills, like this, by joining the
Mind Tools Club.
Join the Mind Tools Club Today!

Rate your experience with this person using the scale in figure 1,
above. According to this model, a higher score means that you're
naturally relationship-focused, and a lower score means that you're
naturally task-focused.

Step 2: Identify your situation

Answer the questions:

 Are leader-member relations good or poor?

 Is the task you're doing structured, or is it more unstructured, or do
you have little experience of solving similar problems?
 Do you have strong or weak power over your team?

Step 3: Determine the most effective leadership

style
Figure 2 shows a breakdown of all of the factors we've covered:
Leader-Member Relations, Task Structure, and Leader's Position
Power. The final column identifies the type of leader that Fiedler
believed would be most effective in each situation.

Figure 2: Breakdown of Most Effective Leader Style

Leader-Member Leader's Position Most Effective
Task Structure
Relations Power Leader

Good Structured Strong Low LPC

Good Structured Weak Low LPC

Good Unstructured Strong Low LPC

Good Unstructured Weak High LPC

Poor Structured Strong High LPC

Poor Structured Weak High LPC

Poor Unstructured Strong High LPC

Poor Unstructured Weak Low LPC

For instance, imagine that you've just started working at a new

company, replacing a much-loved leader who recently retired. You're
leading a team who views you with distrust (so your Leader-Member
Relations are poor). The task you're all doing together is well defined
(structured), and your position of power is high because you're the
boss, and you're able to offer reward or punishment to the group.

The most effective leader in this situation would be high LPC – that is,
a leader who can focus on building relationships first.

Or, imagine that you're leading a team who likes and respects you (so
your Leader-Member relations are good). The project you're working
on together is highly creative (unstructured) and your position of
power is high since, again, you're in a management position of
strength. In this situation, a task-focused leadership style would be
most effective.

Criticisms of the Model

There are some criticisms of the Fiedler Contingency Model. One of the
biggest is lack of flexibility. Fiedler believed that because our natural
leadership style is fixed, the most effective way to handle situations is
to change the leader. He didn't allow for flexibility in leaders.

For instance, if a low-LPC leader is in charge of a group with good

relations and doing unstructured tasks, and she has a weak position
(the fourth situation), then, according to the model, the best solution is
to replace her with a high-LPC leader – instead of asking her to use a
different leadership style.

There is also an issue with the Least-Preferred Co-Worker Scale – if

you fall near the middle of the scoring range, then it could be unclear
which style of leader you are.

There have also been several published criticisms of the Fiedler

Contingency Model. One of the most cited is "The Contingency Model:
Criticisms and Suggestions," published in the Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 13, No. 3. The authors say that, even under the best
circumstances, the LPC scale only has about a 50 percent reliable
variance. This means that, according to their criticism, the LPC scale
may not be a reliable measure of leadership capability.

It's also perfectly possible that your least preferred co-worker is a

genuinely confused, unpleasant or evil person (they do exist) - if you
are unfortunate enough to have encountered such a person just once
in your career, then you might always be categorized as a low-LPC
leader, however people-oriented you actually are.

Note:
At Mind Tools, we believe that transformational leadership is the
best leadership style in most situations, however, we believe that
other leadership styles are sometimes necessary.
In our opinion, the Fiedler Contingency Model is unhelpful in many
21st Century workplaces. It may occasionally be a useful tool for
analyzing a situation and determining whether or not to focus on tasks
or relationships, but be cautious about applying any style simply
because the model says you should. Use your own judgment when
analyzing situations.
Key Points
The Fiedler Contingency Model asks you to think about your natural
leadership style, and the situations in which it will be most effective.
The model says that leaders are either task-focused, or relationship-
focused. Once you understand your style, it says that you can match it
to situations in which that style is most effective.

However, the model has some disadvantages. It doesn't allow for

leadership flexibility, and the LPC score might give an inaccurate
picture of your leadership style.

As with all models and theories, use your best judgment when
applying the Fiedler Contingency Model to your own situation.
This site teaches you the skills you need for a happy and successful
career; and this is just one of many tools and resources that you'll find
here at Mind Tools. Subscribe to our free newsletter, or join the
Mind Tools Club and really supercharge your career!

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/brain-and-the-poetic-mind/201507/process-and-
normative-models

Process and Normative Models

Understanding the decision-making process changes how we
should make decisions.
Posted Jul 30, 2015

SHARE

TWEET

EMAIL


 MORE

In many social sciences, such as psychology and economics, there is an

ongoing debate between whether a model should be based on Normative or
Process analyses. A normative model is one which asks what the answer to
a problem should be, and a process model is one that asks how it is solved.

A normative model answers an optimization question – if you are trying to

solve a problem, what’s the optimal way to solve it? For example, if you want
to travel from one point to another, the fastest way is to take a straight line.

A process model answers a mechanistic question – how is the problem

solved? So, for example, we might drive or walk from our house to the
grocery store. Process models will come up with different answers
depending on the how we are going to make our journey. If we are driving
from our house to the grocery store, we can’t travel in a straight line because
cars have to stay on roads. But if we’re walking, we can cut through the
park. Both driving and walking can be viewed as approximations to the
optimal path (a straight line – “as the crow flies”).

However, process and normative models are two sides of the same coin. One
can ask What is the normative thing to do given that you will be using a given
process? Thus, every process model implies a normative answer. But
similarly, every normative model is an optimization under
assumptions. Those assumptions are often not stated, but they still
pertain. Thus, every normative model says something about the underlying
process.

For example, normatively, the shortest distance between two points is a

straight line, but if you are flying from one city to another, you actually don’t
want to go in a straight line because the Earth is not flat. To get from one city
to another, you actually fly in a great circle. Of course, if you are driving, it is
rarely possible to travel along that great circle directly, so you have to take the
roads that are available. (Because different roads have different travel
speeds, the fastest way from one city to another might not actually be the
direct route.) Many people would say that the route found by your favorite
navigation app is an approximation to the optimal path. But the optimality of
that path depends on the assumptions made – Where are the available
roads? Is the Earth really a sphere?
As another example of normative, one can ask what’s the fastest way
between two points in space (a straight line), but the fastest way from Earth to
Pluto is not actually a straight line because it is possible to swing
your spaceship around Jupiter (using what is known as the “slingshot
effect”). The process of going past Jupiter changes the normative optimal
path to Pluto. The original straight-line answer includes the hidden
assumption that there are no planets to slingshot around.

What does this have to do with psychology or economics? There is a long

and ongoing debate about whether we should be looking at questions of
optimality (how should we do this?) or questions of description (how do we do
this?) (In his new book Misbehaving, Thaler calls these
models Econs and Humans – Econs are normative and optimal, while
Humans do what humans really do.) But within the normative explanation of
Econs, there lies a hidden process model.

For example, this model assumes that Econs have infinite knowledge and
infinite processing power. (Which is of course not true. In economics and
psychology, this is known as the "bounded rationality" problem.)

ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER ADVERTISEMENT

In fact, knowing the human decision-making processes creates a new

normative model – what is the optimal decision-making given the algorithmic
processes available? We now know a lot about the human decision-making
algorithms – how there are four action-selection systems that interact, how
humans form schemas to identify situations, etc. The optimal decisions given
those processes is not necessarily the same as the optimal decisions given
infinite search time.

The typical Econ normative model includes a hidden process model that
humans are not part of a social network (which is, of course, wrong). The
optimal decision given that a bad reputation as a jerk can limit your future
interaction opportunities is fundamentally different than the optimal decision to
maximize your income on a moment-by-moment basis.

In neuroscience, this debate is usually phrased in terms of Marr’s three levels

– the computational level is the problem you are trying to solve (how do I get
from Minneapolis to San Francisco?), the algorithmic level is the way that you
are solving the problem (am I flying, walking, or driving?), and
the implementation level is the way that you are implementing that algorithm
(am I driving your car or mine?) While it is useful to think about all three of
these levels for any question, the levels interact. The optimal path from
Minneapolis to San Francisco depends on your algorithmic choice (flying will
go in a straighter line than driving) as well as the implementation (your car
can’t get up the mountains as easily so we need to take a less steep route
across the Rockies). But the optimal path also depends on the assumptions
of the situation (the Earth is a sphere ).

Process and normative are two sides of the same coin – What is the optimal
choice given the constraints of the process? and What are the assumptions
underlying a given optimization result?

ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER ADVERTISEMENT

Further Reading

Richard Thaler (2015) Misbehaving. WW Norton &co.

Herb Simon (1982) Models of Bounded Rationality. MIT Press.

David Marr (1982) Vision. MIT Press.

A David Redish (2013) The Mind within the Brain: How we make decisions
and how those decisions go wrong. Oxford University Press.

https://pmleadershipchamps.com/2008/11/06/vroom-yetton-jago-normative-leadership-decision-
model/

Vroom-Yetton-Jago Normative Leadership Decision Model

Posted on November 6, 2008 by Babou
32 Votes

Leadership is all about making decisions, conceiving vision, setting goals, laying paths
to reach the goal, and making all efforts with followers in achieving it. Effective
Leadership requires taking situation based decisions. An individual will be accepted as
Leader when his ideas, suggestions and advise are more appropriate to the situation.
Decision taken under particular situation may not hold good for all situations & it may
give different results in different situations.

How will you get expected output from your decision on particular thing ? What factors
that affect making a good decision? In what situations I need to get consultation from
others or to make own decision? How do I get commitment from my followers on
particular decision?

Vroom-Yetton-Jago Normative Decision Model help us to answer above questions. This

model identifies five different styles (ranging from autocratic to consultative to group-
based decisions) on the situation & level of involvement. They are:

Autocratic Type 1 (AI) – Leader makes own decision using information that is readily
available to you at the time. This type is completely autocratic.
Autocratic Type 2 (AII) – Leader collects required information from followers, then
makes decision alone. Problem or decision may or may not be informed to followers.
Here, followers involvement is just providing information.
Consultative Type 1 (CI) – Leader shares problem to relevant followers individually and
seeks their ideas & suggestions and makes decision alone. Here followers’ do not meet
each other & leader’s decision may or may not has followers influence. So, here
followers involvement is at the level of providing alternatives individually.
Consultative Type 2 (CII) – Leader shares problem to relevant followers as a group and
seeks their ideas & suggestions and makes decision alone. Here followers’ meet each
other and through discussions they understand other alternatives. But leader’s decision
may or may not has followers influence. So, here followers involvement is at the level of
helping as a group in decision-making.
Group-based Type 2(GII) – Leader discuss problem & situation with followers as a
group and seeks their ideas & suggestions through brainstroming. Leader accepts any
decision & do not try to force his idea. Decision accepted by the group is the final one.
Vroom & Yetton formulated following seven questions on decision quality, commitment,
problem information and decision acceptance, with which leaders can determine level of
followers involvement in decision. Answer to the following questions must be either
‘Yes’ or ‘No’ with the current scenario.

1.Is there a quality requirement? Is the nature of the solution critical? Are there
technical or rational grounds for selecting among possible solutions?
2.Do I have sufficient information to make a high quality decision?
3.Is the problem structured? Are the alternative courses of action and methods for
their evaluation known?
4.Is acceptance of the decision by subordinates critical to its implementation?
5.If I were to make the decision by myself, is it reasonably certain that it would be
accepted by my subordinates?
6.Do subordinates share the organizational goals to be obtained in solving this
problem?
7.Is conflict among subordinates likely in obtaining the preferred solution?
Based on the answers one can find out the styles from the graph.

Vroom-Yetton-Jago Leadership Decision Model

References
1. Vroom, V. H. & Jago, A. G. (1988). The new leadership: Managing participation in
organizations. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall.
2. Vroom, V. H. & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision-making. Pittsburgh:
University of Pittsburgh Press.

3. Vroom-Yetton Contingency Model – Nov 29 ’05

– Link: http://www.epinions.com/content_4584087684
4. House, Robert J. and Aditya, Ram N. (1997) The Social Scientific Study of
Leadership: Quo Vadis. Journal of
Management. Link: http://www.implementer.com/implementer/web/step4_c/persuade-
decrational.htm