Journal of Management Development

Managing Participation: A Critical Dimension of Leadership

Victor H. Vroom Arthur G. Jago
Article information:
To cite this document:
Victor H. Vroom Arthur G. Jago, (1988),"Managing Participation: A Critical Dimension of Leadership",
Journal of Management Development, Vol. 7 Iss 5 pp. 32 - 42
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb051689
Downloaded on: 07 August 2015, At: 02:20 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 02:20 07 August 2015 (PT)

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 797 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Victor H. Vroom, (2003),"Educating managers for decision making and leadership", Management
Decision, Vol. 41 Iss 10 pp. 968-978 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251740310509490
Bernard Bass, (1988),"The Inspirational Processes of Leadership", Journal of Management
Development, Vol. 7 Iss 5 pp. 21-31 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb051688
Robert J. Allio, (2012),"Leaders and leadership – many theories, but what advice is reliable?", Strategy
& Leadership, Vol. 41 Iss 1 pp. 4-14 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10878571311290016

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:463575 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well
as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of

download.
 Journal of
Management
Managing Participation:
Development
7,5
A Critical Dimension
of Leadership
32 by
Victor H. Vroom
Yale University, USA, and
Arthur G. Jago
University of Houston, USA
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 02:20 07 August 2015 (PT)

It is now almost a truism that managers must adapt their leader-

ship styles to fit the demands of the situations they face. One of
the necessary manifestations of this situational view of leadership
is the need to adapt the form and degree of participation in decision
making by subordinates to the personalities of the subordinates,
the decisions to be made and the general organisational circum-
stances.

In a classic Harvard Business Review article written in 1958, Tannenbaum and

Schmidt first laid out the problem and sketched some of the factors that should
be included in an attempt to solve it. Fifteen years later, Vroom and Yetton[1]
introduced a normative model which tried to specify which of a set of alternative
decision-making processes, varying in opportunity for subordinate participation,
should be used in different situations. The processes used by Vroom and Yetton
are shown in Table I.
Selection among these processes for a particular problem or decision is based
on four criteria:
(1) the quality of decisions produced,
(2) the acceptance or commitment to decisions by subordinates,
(3) the time required to make the decision, and
(4) the opportunities for subordinate development.
The Vroom-Yetton model is, in fact, quite simple. Those processes thought to
risk either decision quality or acceptance are eliminated by seven "rules". For
example, if the quality of the decision is important and if the leader lacks the
necessary information, AI is eliminated from consideration. When all seven rules
have been applied, a feasible set consisting of at least one or as many as five
alternatives is generated.
 Symbol Definition Managing
Participation:
AI You solve the problem or make the decision yourself using the information A Critical
available to you at the present time. Dimension of
AII You obtain any necessary information from subordinates, then decide on Leadership
a solution to the problem yourself. You may or may not tell subordinates
the purpose of your questions or give information about the problem or 33
decision on which you are working. The input provided by them is clearly
in response to your request for specific information. They do not play
a role in the definition of the problem or in generating or evaluating
alternative solutions.
CI You share the problem with the relevant subordinates individually, getting
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 02:20 07 August 2015 (PT)

their ideas and suggestions without bringing them together as a group.

Then you make the decision. This decision may or may nor reflect your
subordinates' influence.
CII You share the problem with your subordinates in a group meeting. In this
meeting you obtain their ideas and suggestions. Then you make the
decision, which may or may not reflect your subordinates' influence.
GII You share the 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 chairperson, co-
ordinating the discussion, keeping it focused on the problem, and making
sure that the critical issues are discussed. You can provide the group with
information or ideas that you have, but you do not try to "press" them
to adopt "your" solution, and you are willing to accept and implement
any solution that has the support of the entire group.
Reprinted from Leadership and Decision-making by Victor H. Vroom and Philip W. Yetton
Table I.
by permission of the University of Pittsburgh Press. © 1973 by University of Pittsburgh Types of Management
Press. Decision Methods —
Group Problems

The last two criteria, time and development, are then used to select within the
feasible set. The importance of time is embodied in Model A (the time efficient
model) which chooses the most autocratic alternative within the feasible set. The
importance of development is embodied in Model B (the time investment model)
which chooses the most participative alternative within the feasible set. Models
A and B are most frequently represented by decision trees in which a manager
asks a set of seven yes/no questions about a particular decision that is being faced.
By following a path through the tree dictated by answers to those questions, the
manager discovers the prescribed method.
During the 15 years since its introduction, the Vroom-Yetton Model has become
the principal technology for informing choices about the appropriateness of different
degrees of participation in different situations. Literally, hundreds of management
textbooks have incorporated the decision trees or the rules on which they are
based. In addition, the number of managers who have received training in the
model can conservatively be placed in six figures. One approach to training has
 Journal of been described at length in Vroom[2]. A follow-up study testifying to the
Management effectiveness of the training has recently been reported by Vroom and Jago[3].
Development While the Vroom-Yetton model is both popular and useful, it is not without faults.
7,5 The most frequent shortcomings noted by ourselves or by others can be
summarised as follows.

Model fails to differentiate among feasible and among non-feasible processes. The
34 structure of the decision rules is such that the rules tell you what not to do, not
what to do. After the rules are applied, a feasible set remains that sometimes
contains a single decision strategy but more often contains a variety of strategies
from which to choose. The average feasible set contains between two and three
alternatives. While time pressures and developmental concerns can be used to
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 02:20 07 August 2015 (PT)

select among these alternatives, it is apparent that the quality and acceptance
rules do too little of the work of the model and that too much of a role is left
for the subsidiary criteria of time and development.
The concept of decision rule which prevents the model from differentiating among
leader behaviours within the feasible set also prevents it from differentiating among
behaviours outside that set. The former are deemed equally effective, the latter
are deemed equally ineffective. Our own research[4] directly challenges this
assumption showing that choices that violate more than one rule are even less
effective than those which violate only one rule.

Model requires yes/no responses. Perhaps the most frequent reaction that
experienced managers have to the Vroom-Yetton model is that it does not permit
an answer of "probably yes, maybe, or probably no to any of the seven questions
measuring the problem attributes". The model makes the assumption that
situations are black or white while managers tell us that the most difficult ones
that they encounter come in varying shades of grey.

Important aspects of the situations are ignored. The Vroom-Yetton model utilises
seven features of the situation to decide which process to use. While these variables
are important, they are not an exhaustive list of the relevant factors. Our research
evidence as well as our experience in teaching the model to managers has suggested
a number of specific factors to be added in the interest of enhancing model validity.

A New Model
For the last three years, the authors have been working on an improved model.
Our revisions have been basic — addressing all three of the criticisms that we
have outlined. A recent book entitled, The New Leadership: Managing Participation
in Organisations[3], describes the model in detail. Here we will touch on the
highlights.
The concepts of rules and of the feasible set were integral to the Vroom-Yetton
model, but proved to be cumbersome and restrictive of efforts to improve the
model. For example, the addition of another attribute or another rule might be
necessary to improve the validity of its prescriptions but would render the feasible
 QR: Quality Requirement Managing
How important is the technical quality of this decision? Participation:
A Critical
1 2 3 4 5 Dimension of
No Low Average High Critical Leadership
import import import import import
35
CR: Commitment Requirement
How important is subordinate commitment to the decision?

1 2 3 4 5
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 02:20 07 August 2015 (PT)

No Low Average High Critical

import import import import import
LI: Leader Information
Do you have sufficient information to make a high-quality decision?

1 2 3 4 5
No Probably Maybe Probably Yes
no yes
ST: Problem Structure
Is the problem well structured?

1 2 3 4 5
No Probably Maybe Probably Yes
no yes
CP: Commitment Probability
If you were to make the decision by yourself, is it reasonably certain that your
subordinates would be committed to the decision?

1 2 3 4 5
No Probably Maybe Probably Yes
no yes
GC: Goal Congruence
Do subordinates share the organisational goals to be attained in solving this
problem?

1 2 3 4 5
Table II.
No Probably Maybe Probably Yes Problem Attributes in
No yes the Revised Model[3]
 Journal of CO: Subordinate Conflict
Management Is conflict among subordinates over preferred solutions likely?
Development
7,5 1 2 3 4 5
No Probably Maybe Probably Yes
no yes
36
SI: Subordinate Information
*Do subordinates have sufficient information to make a high-quality decision?

1 2 3 4 5
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 02:20 07 August 2015 (PT)

No Probably Maybe Probably Yes

no yes
TC: Time Constraint
*Does a critically severe time constraint limit your ability to involve subordinates?

1 5
No Yes
GD: Geographical Dispersion
*Are the costs involved in bringing together geographically dispersed subordinates
prohibitive?

1 5
No Yes
MT: Motivation-Time
*How important is it to you to minimise the time it takes to make the decision?

1 2 3 4 5
No Low Average High Critical
import import import import import
MD: Motivation-Development
*How important is it to you to maximise the opportunities for subordinate
development?

1 2 3 4 5
No Low Average High Critical
import import import import import
Table II. cont.
Problem Attributes in *New attributes
the Revised Model[3]
 set empty under some circumstances. As a result, our first step was to replace Managing
the existing rules with equations which expressed our beliefs about the manner Participation:
in which each of the four criteria — quality, commitment, time and development A Critical
— were likely to be affected by both the decision process used and by the problem Dimension of
attributes. When we began formulating mathematical equations to express the Leadership
rules, we felt at times as if we were replacing a candle with a laser beam. The
medium enabled us as model builders to do far greater justice to the cause/effect
relationships implied in the original rules and to the accumulating wisdom both 37
from research and from experiences in using the model.
The equations operate on problem attributes which served to moderate the
effects of participation on one or more of the criteria. To the seven problem
attributes of the Vroom-Yetton model have been added five new attributes for a
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 02:20 07 August 2015 (PT)

total of 12. Table II lists the entire set of problem attributes along with acceptable
responses.
As shown in Table II, most of the problem attributes permit five levels of
response. The four questions pertaining to the importance of criteria require
estimates ranging from no importance to critical importance. Six other attributes
lending themselves to probability estimates permit five levels ranging from No
through Maybe to Yes. Finally, the remaining two attributes, time constraints and
geographical dispersion, permit only dichotomous responses of No and Yes.
The reader has undoubtedly realised that the new model is substantially more
complex than the old. The key question is the benefit realised from this added
complexity. Is the new model more valid than its predecessor? Jago, Ettling and
Vroom[5] conducted an experiment designed to answer that question. The results
of this comparison, reported in Figure 1, are very encouraging. The structural
changes introduced to remedy the problems previously noted appear to have
resulted in a model far more predictive of both decision quality and decision
commitment.
While the new model would seem to be a distinct improvement over its
predecessor, it remains to be seen whether it is as usable as its simpler
predecessor. Managers accustomed to the simple decision trees of the Vroom-
Yetton model are not likely to view complex equations in the same "user friendly"
spirit!
In spite of its complexity, three ways have been found to put the new model
within reach of most managers. The first method is a set of "rules of thumb",
which social scientists interested in complex decision making have termed
"heuristics". There are four sets of heuristics corresponding to the four criteria
of decision effectiveness. Each set parallels the equation for a single criterion with
words replacing the mathematical symbols. Table III shows the heuristic pertaining
to decision quality.
The reader familiar with the Vroom-Yetton model will note the similarity in form
and substance of these heuristics to the quality rules in the earlier model. The
heuristics are useful in explaining the component mechanisms of the model. They
fall short, however, in enabling managers to put together these components to
figure out the optimal method to use in particular circumstances.
 Journal of
Management
Development
7,5

38
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 02:20 07 August 2015 (PT)

For Group Problems, to Improve Decision Quality:

(1) Avoid the use of Al when:

a. the leader lacks the necessary information.
(2) Avoid the use ofGllwhen:
a. subordinates do not share the organisational goals, and/or
b. subordinates do not have the necessary information.
(3) Avoid the use of All and Cl when:
a. the leader lacks the necessary information, and
b. the problem is unstructured.
(4) Move towards Gll when:
a. the leader lacks the necessary information
Table III. b. subordinates share the organisational goals, and
Heuristics for c. there is conflict among subordinates over preferred solutions.
Decision Quality[3]
This purpose is best achieved by a computer program which makes the
computations called for in the equations. In their new book, Vroom and Jago[3]
describe an expert system which enables a manager to analyse a decision problem
extremely quickly and to determine the model's advice. Each of the diagnostic
questions shown in Table II appears on the screen along with the range of
 possible responses to that question. Upon request, help screens are available that Managing
explain the meaning of the question and the types of situations for which each Participation:
response is appropriate. When all questions have been answered, the screen A Critical
indicates the model's choice of a decision process considering all four criteria Dimension of
weighted in the manner indicated by the manager's answers. In addition one can Leadership
see the optimal choice for each of the four criteria considered alone.
Additional output is available after the model's choice is displayed. A complete 39
definition of the recommended process and bar graphs showing the relative
effectiveness of the five processes are but two of about a dozen available options
for the user. Managers with just a few hours of training with the new model or
its predecessor can learn to use the software quickly and easily.
The third method of making the complex new model accessible to managers
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 02:20 07 August 2015 (PT)

involves a return to the decision tree concept of the earlier model. A decision
tree representation of the new model is possible if two simplified assumptions
are made. Both of these assumptions were made explicitly in the original Vroom-
Yetton model. The first assumption is that there are no "shades of grey". The
decision tree can only be used when the presence or absence of attributes is
clear cut and only yes/no answers exist. The second assumption is that there
are no critically severe time constraints and that subordinates are not geographically
dispersed.
Decision trees have been created for a Time-Driven model (Time is critically
important and Development is unimportant) and for a Development Driven model
(Development is critically important and Time is unimportant). The former is shown
in Figure 2.
Training in Managing Participation. These three mechanisms (heuristics, a
computer based expert system and decision tree) make the more complex, newer,
model at least as accessible as its predecessor. We continue to view the models,
both new and old, as a useful ingredient in management training programmes
intended to help managers to adapt their style to situational demands.
Over the last 15 years, thousands of managers have taken part in residential
training programmes on the Vroom-Yetton model. Many of these programmes have
been conducted by the training staff of Kepner-Tregoe or by leadership counsellors
trained and licensed by the firm. Called Telos, or more recently Management
Involvement, these courses are typically attended by managers from a single
organisation. Other courses have been conducted at universities in the US, UK,
Austria and Norway. Typically these include managers from many different
organisations.
A common ingredient in virtually all progammes has been the use of a problem
set as a basis for helping participants to view similarities and differences between
their style, and both other managers and the model. A typical problem set is made
up of 30 cases, each describing a leader faced with a specific decision to make.
Managers work on these cases in advance of the training programme and decide
which of the alternative decision processes shown in Table I, they would employ
if they were in that situation. These choices then become the basis for an
individualised analysis of each manager's style. In four pages, a manager can view
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 02:20 07 August 2015 (PT)

40
7,5
Journal of
Management
Development
 the similarities and differences between his/her use of participation and that of Managing
other managers as well as similarities and differences with the time driven and Participation:
development driven models. The expected consequences of the manager's choices A Critica
on decision quality, commitment, time and development are computed and cases Dimension o:
flagged for restudy where the choice is deemed to be less than optimal. Finally
managers can see the problem attributes which affect their behaviour. Leadership
This powerful and effective training method has been shown to cause managers
to be more participative in this management style, to be more cognisant of the 41
need to adopt their style to situational demands, and pay more attention to
development of subordinates. These effects have been shown for time periods
between six months and three years after the original training.
The essential features of the training are unchanged with the new model. The
concepts of the feasible set and rules are replaced by heuristics, and new decision
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 02:20 07 August 2015 (PT)

trees replace those of the old model. In addition, new problem sets have been
developed to reflect the larger number of problem attributes and new computer
programs written to take advantage of the greater analytical possibilities of the
new model.
So far more than a thousand managers have received training in the new model.
Based on results with this training, we have become convinced that it is a significant
advance over its much publicised predecessor. Managers faced with the task of
solving the enormous challenges of today's organisations should find its
prescriptions much more specific and of greater value than those of its older brother.
While the computer version undoubtedly provides the most information and is
of greatest value, the decision trees provide potentially useful guidance on how
effectively to match one's behaviour with situational demands.
The greater precision of the new model should also be of benefit to the many
hundreds of trainers who have tried to make the old model "come alive" to the
managers they train. In fact, we have found the new model somewhat easier to
teach than the old. It is totally unnecessary for managers to be exposed to the
equations. Managers do need to understand the model's four subcriteria (quality,
commitment, time and development). They must also understand the problem
attributes that provide the basis for selecting the process most likely to be effective
and the heuristics or rules of thumb applicable to that problem. However, these
are easily mastered concepts that are sufficient for one to grasp the fundamental
logic behind the decision trees or computer program.
Compared to its predecessor, the new model is a more powerful device for use
after training and, with the aid of the kind of computer feedback we have described,
provides a more accurate and more diagnostic framework during training for
understanding managers' choice on a problem set. Although the model is not the
final answer to the management of participation, we feel confident that it is the
best answer available at this time.
The ultimate test of the worth of the ideas, including the applications to training,
is the extent to which they encourage thought by the managers who are exposed
to them. We do not envision a world in which managers cannot make a decision
without referral to a decision tree, calculator, or personal computer. Rather, we
see these pieces of technology as adjuncts and extensions to a learning process
 Journal of that emphasises an awareness of alternatives and informed judgements about the
Management consequences of those alternatives.
Development Although there is much evidence pointing to managers' abilities to adapt this
7,5 leadership style to situational demands, we believe that behaviour can become
a matter of habit rather than choice. Most managers have been making decisions
for such long periods of time that the processes can become automatic. Methods
and actions are selected without reflecting on their implications.
42 Habituation of action obviously has a function. Habits reduce the need to make
choices and enable us to act quickly. We don't have to think when it is time to
brush our teeth or to tie our shoes. However, habits have another property that
can be somewhat troublesome. At best, they reflect the learning environment
at the time the habit was formed. If the environment remains constant, they are
likely to continue to be effective. But if the environment changes markedly, habit
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 02:20 07 August 2015 (PT)

patterns have to be re-evaluated.

Managers seldom live in an unchanging world. They change jobs, change
organisations, move from one country to another, or from public sector to private,
or vice versa. Such changes bring with them new challenges, new opportunities,
and new situational demands on leadership. Old approaches need to be re-thought
and new habits substituted for old.
While mobility requires change, it is by no means its only cause. Deregulation,
foreign competition and new tax laws have brought with them massive changes
in the way in which corporations have to be structured and managed. Managerial
leadership is no longer maintaining the status quo. Old habits must be discarded
if one is to respond to today's challenges and opportunities.
To meet these challenges, managers must have the capabilities of being both
participative and autocratic and of knowing when to employ each. They must be
capable of identifying situational demands, of selecting or designing appropriate
methods of dealing with them, and they must have the skills necessary to implement
their choices. Our experience in working with managers over the last 15 years
suggests that training focused on analytical models of participation contributes
to these critical components of effective leadership.

References
1. Vroom, V.H. and Yetton, P.W., Leadership and Decision-Making, University of Pittsburgh
Press, Pittsburgh, 1973.
2. Vroom, V.H., "Can Leaders Learn to Learn", Organizational Dynamics, Winter, 1976, pp. 17-28.
3. Vroom, V.H. and Jago, A.G., The New Leadership: Managing Participation in Organizations,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1988.
4. Vroom, V.H. and Jago, A.G., "On the Validity of the Vroom/Yetton Model", Journal ofApplied
Psychology, No. 63, 1978, pp. 151-62.
5. Jago, A.G., Ettling, J.T. and Vroom, V.H., "Validating a Revision to the Vroom/Yetton Model:
First Evidence", Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management,
1985, pp. 220-3.
 This article has been cited by:

1. Gianluca D'Agostino, manuela S. Macinati, Marco G. Rizzo. 2015. Partecipazione al processo di

budget, accuratezza e utilità delle informazioni di budget e performance. I risultati di un caso studi.
MECOSAN 55-75. [CrossRef]
2. References 129-135. [CrossRef]
3. Léan V. OBrien, Craig McGarty. 2009. Political disagreement in intergroup terms: Contextual
variation and the influence of power. British Journal of Social Psychology 48, 77-98. [CrossRef]
4. Mario Bourgault, Nathalie Drouin, Émilie Hamel. 2008. Decision making within distributed project
teams: An exploration of formalization and autonomy as determinants of success. Project Management
Journal 39, S97-S110. [CrossRef]
5. Cynthia T. Matthew, Robert J. SternbergLeading Innovation through Collaboration 27-52.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
6. Barrie O. Pettman, Richard Dobbins. 2002. Leadership: a selected bibliography. Equal Opportunities
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 02:20 07 August 2015 (PT)

International 21:4/5/6, 1-192. [Abstract] [PDF]

7. Fiona Lee, Larissa Z. Tiedens. 2001. 2. Is it lonely at the top?: The independence and
interdependence of power holders. Research in Organizational Behavior 23, 43-91. [CrossRef]
8. F. William Brown, Kenn Finstuen. 1993. The use of participation in decision making: A
consideration of the vroom-yetton and vroom-jago normative models. Journal of Behavioral Decision
Making 6:10.1002/bdm.v6:3, 207-219. [CrossRef]
9. James C. Sarros, Don S. Woodman. 1993. Leadership in Australia and Its Organizational Outcomes.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal 14:4, 3-9. [Abstract] [PDF]