Testing the Incremental Validity of the Vroom±Jago Versus Vroom±Yetton Models of Participation in Decision Making
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol. 11, 251±261 (1998)
Testing the Incremental Validity of the Vroom±Jago Versus Vroom±Yetton Models of Participation in Decision Making
RICHARD H. G. FIELD* and J. P. ANDREWS
University of Alberta, Canada
ABSTRACT In three samples of manager-reported decisions the Vroom±Jago model 's predictions were supported. Decisions that more closely ®t the recommended decision method were rated as higher in eectiveness. The model was also found to account for more variance in decision eectiveness than the prior Vroom± Yetton model. It was also found that the Vroom±Jago model 's greater precision in situational assessment and derived prescriptions allow for greater discrimination in choice of decision method across all situations. # 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11: 251±261 (1998)
KEY WORDS
Vroom±Yetton; Vroom±Jago; participation; participatory management; leadership
Since Tannenbaum and Schmidt 's classic 1958 article titled `How to Choose a Leadership Pattern ' made explicit that dierent decision methods vary in the amount of participation allowed subordinates, organizational scholars have considered how subordinate decision participation is related to decision eectiveness. At the forefront of this line of inquiry have been the normative models of Vroom and Yetton (1973) and Vroom and Jago (1988a, 1995). The model of Vroom and Yetton took both a situational and a prescriptive stance. In their role as organizational decision makers, leaders were advised to examine the characteristics of each decision situation before making a predecision (Wedley and Field, 1984) of what decision method to select for solving the problem. In its prescriptive form as a decision tree, the Vroom±Yetton model is familiar to most organizational behavior teachers and researchers. In addition to the initial presentation in Vroom and Yetton 's book, the model has been tested and studied many times and has
Testing the Incremental Validity of the Vroom±Jago Versus Vroom±Yetton Models of Participation in Decision Making
RICHARD H. G. FIELD* and J. P. ANDREWS
University of Alberta, Canada
ABSTRACT In three samples of manager-reported decisions the Vroom±Jago model 's predictions were supported. Decisions that more closely ®t the recommended decision method were rated as higher in eectiveness. The model was also found to account for more variance in decision eectiveness than the prior Vroom± Yetton model. It was also found that the Vroom±Jago model 's greater precision in situational assessment and derived prescriptions allow for greater discrimination in choice of decision method across all situations. # 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11: 251±261 (1998)
KEY WORDS
Vroom±Yetton; Vroom±Jago; participation; participatory management; leadership
Since Tannenbaum and Schmidt 's classic 1958 article titled `How to Choose a Leadership Pattern ' made explicit that dierent decision methods vary in the amount of participation allowed subordinates, organizational scholars have considered how subordinate decision participation is related to decision eectiveness. At the forefront of this line of inquiry have been the normative models of Vroom and Yetton (1973) and Vroom and Jago (1988a, 1995). The model of Vroom and Yetton took both a situational and a prescriptive stance. In their role as organizational decision makers, leaders were advised to examine the characteristics of each decision situation before making a predecision (Wedley and Field, 1984) of what decision method to select for solving the problem. In its prescriptive form as a decision tree, the Vroom±Yetton model is familiar to most organizational behavior teachers and researchers. In addition to the initial presentation in Vroom and Yetton 's book, the model has been tested and studied many times and has
References: Abelson, R. P. `A variance explanation paradox: When a little is a lot ', Psychological Bulletin, 97 (1985), 129±133. Biggs, S. F. `Group participation in MIS project teams? Let 's look at the contingencies ®rst! '. MIS Quarterly, March (1978), 19±26. Brown, F. W. and Finstuen, K. `The use of participation in decision making: A consideration of the Vroom±Yetton and Vroom±Jago normative models ', Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 6 (1993), 207±219. Crampton, S. M. and Wagner, J. A., III `Percept-percept in¯ation in microorganizational research: An investigation of prevalence and e€ect ', Journal of Applied Psychology, 79 (1994), 67±76. Field, R. H. G. `A test of the Vroom±Yetton normative model of leadership ', Journal of Applied Psychology, 67 (1982), 523±532. # 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol. 11, 251±261 (1998) R. H. G. Field and J. P. Andrews Models of Participation in Decision Making 261 Field, R. H. G. and House, R. J. `A test of the Vroom±Yetton model using manager and subordinate reports ', Journal of Applied Psychology, 75 (1990), 362±366. Field, R. H. G., Read, P. C. and Louviere, J. J. `The e€ect of situation attributes on decision method choice in the Vroom±Jago model of participation in decision making ', Leadership Quarterly, 1 (1990), 165±176. Jago, A. G. Personal communication. 10 September, (1993). Lewis, D. and Burke, C. J. `The use and misuse of the chi-square test ', Psychological Bulletin, 46 (1949), 433±487. Margerison, C. and Glube, R. `Leadership decision making in a service organization: A ®eld test of the Vroom±Yetton model ', Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62 (1979), 201±211. Pasewark, W. R. and Strawser, J. R. `Subordinate participation in audit budgeting decisions: A comparison of decisions in¯uenced by organizational factors to decisions conforming with the Vroom±Jago model ', Decision Sciences, 25 (1994), 281±299. Paul, R. J. and Ebadi, Y. M. `Leadership decision making in a service organization: A ®eld test of the Vroom± Yetton model '. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62 (1989), 201±211. Prentice, D. A. and Miller, D. T. `When small e€ects are impressive ', Psychological Bulletin, 112 (1992), 160±164. Tannenbaum, R. and Schmidt, W. H. `How to choose a leadership pattern ', Harvard Business Review, March± April (1958), 95±101. Thomas, J. C. `Public involvement in public management: Adapting and testing a borrowed theory ', Public Administration Review, 50 (1990), 435±445. Tjosvold, D., Wedley, W. C. and Field, R. H. G. `Constructive controversy, the Vroom±Yetton model, and managerial decision making ', Journal of Occupational Behavior, 7 (1986), 125±138 Vroom, V. H. `A new look at managerial decision making ', Organizational Dynamics, 1(4) (1973), 66±80. Vroom, V. H. `Decision making and the leadership process ', Journal of Contemporary Business, Autumn (1974), 47±64. Vroom, V. H. `Can leaders learn to lead? ' Organizational Dynamics, 4(3) (1976), 17±28. Vroom, V. H. `Re¯ections on leadership and decision making ', Journal of General Management, 9 (1984), 18±36. Vroom, V. H. and Jago, A. G. `On the validity of the Vroom±Yetton model ', Journal of Applied Psychology, 63 (1978), 151±162. Vroom, V. H. and Jago, A. G. The New Leadership: Managing participation in organizations, Englewood Cli€s, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1988a. Vroom, V. H. and Jago, A. G. `Managing participation: A critical dimension of leadership. Journal of Management Development, 7(5) (1988b), 32±42. Vroom, V. H. and Jago, A. G. `Situation e€ects and levels of analysis in the study of leader participation ', Leadership Quarterly, 6 (1995), 169±181. Vroom, V. H. and Yetton, P. W. Leadership and Decision Making, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1973. Wedley, W. C. and Field, R. H. G. `A predecision support system ', Academy of Management Review, 9 (1984), 696±703. Authors ' biographies : Richard H. G. Field is a Professor of Organizational Analysis in the Faculty of Business at the University of Alberta. His PhD is in Organizational Behaviour from the University of Toronto. His interests are in leadership and decision making. J. P. Andrews is a PhD candidate in the Organizational Analysis Department at the University of Alberta 's Faculty of Business. His interests are in managerial decision making, policy formulation and leadership processes. Authors ' address : Richard H. G. Field and Julian Andrews, Faculty of Business Building, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2R6 Canada. # 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol. 11, 251±261 (1998)