Printer Friendly

The moderating effects of leadership style on subordinates' perceptions of decision effectiveness: a partial test of the Vroom-Yetton model.

ABSTRACT

To investigate if a manager's basic leadership style moderates subordinates' perceptions of decision effectiveness, an experiment involving 258 students was conducted. Leadership style (transformational or transactional) and decision-making behavior ("consistent" or "inconsistent" with the Vroom-Yetton contingency model) were manipulated. Managers profiled as transformational leaders were rated significantly higher than those in the transactional and control conditions were, even when they engaged in autocratic behavior when the Vroom-Yetton model prescribed a group approach to decision making.

INTRODUCTION

The Vroom and Yetton (1973) leadership model is perhaps the best example of systematic research focusing on situational determinants of participative decision making (PDM) (Bass, 1990; Yukl, 1989a; Schweiger & Leana, 1986). The model identifies five approaches to decision making, which are gradations in the level of subordinate participation in decision making. These approaches range from autocratic through to joint decision making between superior and subordinate(s). Seven situational factors determine the conditions under which each of the five approaches to decision-making are considered appropriate.

By encompassing situational factors as moderating variables of the level of subordinate participation required in the decision-making process, the Vroom and Yetton (1973) leadership model has made a significant contribution to management theory and practice (Yukl, 1989b). In general, research has supported the model and its underlying premise that the situation moderates the PDM-decision effectiveness relationship (Field & House, 1990; Vroom & Jago, 1988). However, the model has been tested mainly using manager self-reports, with little support for the model coming from studies using subordinate self-reports (Field & House, 1990; Field, 1982; Field, 1979). Field (1979) argues that relying on manager self-reports is problematic. Social desirability may bias managers towards over reporting use of participative decision-making approaches, when describing decisions that resulted in successful outcomes. This bias occurs because participative approaches to decision making are included in the Vroom-Yetton feasible set more often than autocratic approaches. In addition, studies show (e.g., Field & House, 1990; Jago & Vroom, 1975) that subordinates' perceptions of managerial behavior do not correlate significantly with their superior's own descriptions of the same behavior. Such findings also call into question the validity of manager self-reports.

A major threat to the utility of the Vroom-Yetton (1973) model is that it deals with only one facet of leader behavior--that that of selecting a decision process for a particular problem situation. As Vroom and Jago point out, "... it (does) not profess to deal with all of leadership or of what leaders do. Instead it concentrates only on those aspects bearing on power sharing by leaders and on participation and influence by those who work with them." (1988, p.54) As a result, the model assumes that the degree of participation is the sole leadership behavior that influences decision effectiveness.

Locke and Schweiger's (1979) model of participative decision making identifies three groups of intervening mechanisms that impact on the PDM-outcome relationship: subordinate value attainment, cognitive factors, and motivational factors. Some researchers have argued that participation alone is not sufficient to activate these intervening mechanisms (Latham, Erez & Locke, 1988; Locke, Feren, McCaleb, Shaw & Denny, 1980; Locke & Schweiger, 1979). Moreover, the Vroom-Yetton (1973) model ignores the managerial skills required to identify situational factors and use each of the decision-making approaches effectively. For example, Field argues, "autocratic decisions require leader task knowledge and communication skills, while group participation decisions require leader discussion and conference skills." (1979, p.254).

Sashkin and Fulmer (1988) argue that leaders vary in their cognitive capacity to perceive and deal effectively with given situational factors, suggesting that leadership styles are likely to play an important moderating role in the Vroom-Yetton framework. Transformational leadership theory has largely focused on subordinates' satisfaction, perceived leader effectiveness, and performance (e.g., Niehoff, En & Grover, 1990; Waldman, Bass & Yammarino, 1990; Avolio & Bass, 1988; Howell & Avolio, 1993). Unfortunately, development of theory concerning the impact of leadership behavior on links between subordinate participation in decision-making and decision effectiveness has not been forthcoming (Yammarino & Bass, 1990).

Transformational leadership also affects the three intervening PDM mechanisms identified by Locke and Schweiger (1979). With regard to subordinate value attainment, Locke and Schweiger (1979) suggest that PDM allows increased opportunity for subordinates to attain their personal goals. Transformational leader behavior has also been found to influence subordinates' goal attainment (Niehoff & Moorman, 1996). Howell and Avolio (1993) argue that transformational leaders encourage subordinates to transcend their personal role requirements and to cultivate a greater sense of community and shared values.

Concerning the cognitive intervening mechanisms, better upward communication and better understanding of both job and decisions have received strong research support as being facilitated through the implementation of PDM (Bass, 1990; Yukl, 1989a). Transformational leaders exhibit interpersonal skills that ensure individuals are committed and willing to be involved in decisions, and are ready to share their skills and information with the rest of the group involved in the decision-making process.

Finally, for motivational intervening factors, an important component is greater ego involvement and identification with the organization. Shamir, House, and Arther (1993) suggest that the charismatic component of transformational behavior enhances the intrinsic valence of contribution by making participation in the effort an expression of a collective identity, thus making the effort more meaningful for the followers. Furthermore, subordinates transcend their own personal goals and agendas, instead focusing on those of the organization (Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987).

Additional motivational factors in the Locke and Schweiger (1979) model include increased trust and sense of control. In a pilot study, Bass found "frequent reactions of followers to the transforming leader included trust, strong liking, admiration, loyalty, and respect" (1985, p.30). This was confirmed by Niehoff and Moorman, who found that a transformational leader "arouses excitement, involvement, commitment, and ultimately trust, in followers" (1996, p. 944).

PDM is also argued to increase subordinates' motivation by directly encouraging them to set higher individual and group goals (Yukl, 1989a). Transformational leaders set challenging goals, seek performance improvements, emphasize excellence in performance, and make clear the requirements expected from each subordinate (Bass, 1985). Dubinsky, Yammarino, Jolson, and Spangler (1995) found that by exhibiting these behaviors such leaders brought forth powerful messages that no goal is beyond the reach of the subordinate.

This brief review of the literature indicates the importance of transformational leadership on the intervening mechanisms of the PDM-outcome relationship. However, the possible moderating effects of leadership style on the Vroom-Yetton (1973) model remain untested. This study contributes to existing knowledge on PDM by investigating how leadership style moderates subordinates' perceptions of the effectiveness of various decision-making approaches as prescribed by the Vroom-Yetton model. Bass' (1985) theory of transactional and transformational leadership will be used in this study to operationalize different leader styles.

This study, therefore, tests the following hypotheses:

H1: Given various hypothetical decision scenarios, leadership style will significantly moderate the relationship between subordinate participation in the decision-making process and decision effectiveness, as measured by subordinate self-reports.

While the focus of this study is on the moderating effect of leadership style, the following hypotheses regarding PDM, the Vroom-Yetton model, and transformational leadership will also be tested:

H2: A significant positive relationship will exist between the degree of subordinate participation in the decision-making process and decision effectiveness.

H3: The Vroom-Yetton situational variables will significantly moderate the relationship between the degree of subordinate participation in the decision-making process and decision effectiveness.

H4: Transformational leaders will receive significantly higher ratings of decision effectiveness than transactional leaders.

The second hypothesis is consistent with past research into PDM (e.g., Tjosvold, 1987; Bass, 1990, Sagie, 1994). The third hypothesis tests the basic Vroom-Yetton situation contingencies, while hypothesis four is based on support for the augmentation effect of transformational leadership (e.g., Bass & Avolio, 1993; Hater & Bass, 1988; Yammarino & Bass, 1990). In each case, decision effectiveness will be measured by the use of subordinate self-reports.

METHODS

The research conducted in this study was survey-based. The target sample comprised 258 undergraduate and postgraduate students (132 men and 126 women) enrolled in five third-year commerce classes. During class the students were randomly assigned to one of the eighteen conditions in a 3 x 2 x 3 between- and within-groups factorial design, with leadership style (transformational, transactional, no profile) as the between-groups factor and scenario (autocratic or group) and decision-making approach (autocratic, consultative, or group) the within-group factors. Students were asked to complete the questionnaire from the perspective of subordinates in the company depicted in the survey instrument scenarios. Each questionnaire contained detailed written instructions and no discussion occurred once the questionnaire was distributed.

After reading the profile of their manager's leadership style, each respondent was exposed to six scenarios. Each scenario outlined an organizational problem arising from a particular situation that required their manager to make a decision. At the end of each scenario, subjects were told that their manager (as described in the profile) employed an autocratic, a consultative, or a participative decision-making approach to solve the problem described in the scenario. Finally, respondents rated both their satisfaction with the decision-making approach selected by their manager, and the likely effectiveness of the decision.

The manipulation consisted of three parts as represented graphically in Figure 1. Two extreme profiles were used: one that described the manager's leadership style as transactional and one that described the manager's leadership style as transformational. In addition, a third control questionnaire was used which did not provide a profile of the manager. The manipulations of leader profile were used to test the effect of leadership style on the respondents' perceptions of decision effectiveness. Therefore, as shown in Figure 1, this manipulation of the profile of the manager's leadership style made it necessary to have three versions of the survey instrument.

The theoretically prescribed optimal decision-making approach, autocratic or group, was introduced through situational problem scenarios developed by Yetton (1972) in accordance with the problem attributes of the Vroom-Yetton model. As shown in Figure 1, each of the three versions of the questionnaire (transformational, transactional, and control) contained the same set of six problem scenarios, three describing situations in which the Vroom-Yetton model prescribes the use of an autocratic decision-making approach ('autocratic scenario'), and three in which a group decision-making approach is prescribed ('group scenario').

At the end of each scenario, the manager was described as having made a decision using one of three approaches (autocratic, consultative, or group) associated with the Vroom-Yetton model of decision-making. The decision-making process employed by the manager is displayed in Figure 1 under the heading 'Decision Approach Used by Manager in the Scenario'.

As previously mentioned, three of the six problem scenarios described situations that Vroom and Yetton (1973) argue require an autocratic decision-making approach for optimal decision effectiveness, while the remaining three scenarios require a group decision-making approach. At the end of each scenario, respondents were told which of three decision-making approaches (autocratic, consultative, or group) the manager decided to use. As shown in the final column of Figure 1, there were only two scenarios in each questionnaire where the actual and prescribed approaches coincided; in the other four cases, they did not.

Decision effectiveness was assessed following each problem scenario using a series of nine 9-point bipolar adjective scales measuring subjects' perceived satisfaction with the decision-making approach used by the manager and their projections about the likely effectiveness of the decision.

This study used four criteria to measure projections of the likely effectiveness of each decision: decision quality, decision acceptance, decision creativity, and effect on team morale. These measures were originally developed by Field and House (1990). Heilman, Hornstein, Cage, and Herschlag's (1984) original evaluating scales were employed to measure subjects' perceived satisfaction with the decision-making approach adopted. This instrument uses five evaluating items: good-bad, appropriate-inappropriate, wise-foolish, effective-ineffective, and used time well-used time poorly to determine perceived satisfaction. Heilman et al. (1984) found these items to be highly correlated with a coefficient alpha of 0.945 and therefore combined them to create a single scale. Similarly, the five evaluating items were found to be highly correlated (r = 0.925) in this study and thus were combined to form a single measure of satisfaction.

RESULTS

Repeated measures analysis of variance for a combined within- and between-subject design was conducted (3 x 2 x 3 ANOVA with repeated measures on three factors). Tukey analysis was also employed to compare differences between individual cell means, thereby providing further clarification of the results. Additional analyses using protected t tests were also conducted to test whether they would yield identical results in terms of statistical significance as the Tukey tests. Table 1 summarizes the means, post hoc Tukey tests and protected t-tests for behavior, situation, and leadership style.

The results include a mix of main and interactive effects. Hypothesis 1 involves an interaction effect, but for simplicity of exposition, the main effects will be discussed first.

Subordinate Participation

Analysis of variance revealed a main effect for behavior (i.e., the degree of subordinate participation in the decision-making process) F(2, 470) = 90.65, 97.64, 85.28, 114.72, and 87.84, all p < 0.01, on decision quality, decision acceptance, creativity, morale, and satisfaction with the decision process, respectively (see Table 2). Subsequent Tukey tests clarified that as the level of subordinate participation in the decision-making process increased, subjects' ratings of the decision effectiveness variables increased. This result supports Hypothesis 2.

Situational Factors

The F-values reported in Table 2 indicate that situational factors, as manipulated in the Vroom and Yetton (1973) problem cases, did not have a significant main effect on any of the decision effectiveness variables used in this study, p > 0.05. However, significant two-way interaction effects between situation and behavior for all dependent variables, p < 0.01, were found. Regardless of the scenario type (group or autocratic), a group approach to decision-making was rated most effective (followed by consultative and autocratic). This conflicts with the Vroom-Yetton model, which prescribes autocratic behavior as being most effective for autocratic scenarios.

Table 1 indicates that across all three leadership style conditions, an autocratic approach to decision making in group scenarios was rated significantly lower than consultative and group approaches. This finding reinforces the Vroom-Yetton prescription that autocratic behavior in response to situations calling for a group approach to decision making is regarded very negatively; in this case it significantly reduced ratings on all decision effectiveness criteria. In the case of autocratic scenarios, however, the participation-effectiveness relationship was moderated by leadership style. This is indicated by the significant three-way behavior x leadership x situation interaction in Table 2.

In autocratic scenarios, subjects were more willing to accept autocratic behavior from transformational leaders than from transactional leaders. In addition, autocratic behavior was rated as significantly less effective than group behavior for transactional leaders. In contrast, regardless of the decision making approach (autocratic, consultative, or group) adopted by transformational leaders, no significant differences were found in the measures of decision effectiveness. Hence, transformational leaders were able to conform to the Vroom-Yetton model. However, subject ratings under the transactional or control conditions were not consistent with the Vroom-Yetton model.

This finding, therefore, gives partial support to Hypothesis 3, which states that the Vroom-Yetton situational variables will significantly moderate the participation-effectiveness relationship.

Transformational and Transactional Leadership Styles

The ANOVA results presented in Table 2 revealed a main effect for leadership, F (2, 235) = 8.21, 9.07, 9.35, and 9.79, all p <.01, on decision quality, decision acceptance, creativity, and morale respectively. Tukey analysis was again conducted and revealed that managers described as being transformational obtained decision effectiveness ratings for decision quality, acceptance, and creativity that were significantly higher than those for managers who were profiled as being transactional were. The respondents in the control condition (i.e., no leader description provided) gave the lowest ratings. Tukey analysis also demonstrated that managers identified as being transformational and transactional obtained higher ratings of morale than the control condition. No main effect of leadership, F(2, 235) = 2.62, p > 0.05, was found in relation to satisfaction with the decision process, indicating that leadership style did not significantly affect subjects' satisfaction with the decision process chosen by their manager. However, two-way interaction effects and Tukey analyses indicate that this was due to respondents in the transformational condition rating group behavior in autocratic scenarios significantly lower than respondents under the transactional and control conditions did. In other words, subjects with transformational leaders recognized that their participation in the decision process (under autocratic scenarios) was not needed. This indicates that transformational leaders are able to follow the precepts of the Vroom-Yetton model without incurring negative ratings by subordinates.

Table 3 indicates that transformational leaders using autocratic or consultative decision processes elicited significantly higher ratings of decision quality, acceptance, creativity, morale, and satisfaction than managers in the transactional or control conditions did. Additional Tukey analyses found no significant differences between the three leadership styles for decision quality, acceptance, creativity, morale, or satisfaction with the decision process when managers used group behavior in group scenarios. However, when group behavior was used in autocratic scenarios, respondents in the control condition (i.e., no leader profile provided) rated all the decision effectiveness variables significantly higher.

The presence of a three-way interaction and an examination of the means revealed that leadership style significantly influences the behavior-situation relationship. Mean variable scores across the three leadership conditions show that subjects with transformational managers rated group scenarios more favorably than autocratic scenarios. Tukey tests show that this higher rating was due to subjects in the transformational condition rating both autocratic and consultative behaviors significantly higher in group scenarios, than respondents in the transactional or the control conditions. That is, managers profiled as transformational leaders were rated significantly higher than those in the transactional or control conditions were, even when their chosen approach to decision-making was in violation of the Vroom-Yetton model. Thus, leadership style significantly moderated the relationship between the degree of subordinate participation in the decision-making process and decision effectiveness. This provides support for Hypothesis 1. Furthermore, managers profiled as exhibiting a transformational leadership style received significantly higher ratings of decision effectiveness than those profiled as being transactional. This provides support for Hypothesis 4.

DISCUSSION

Subordinate Participation in Decision Making (PDM)

Increased use of subordinate participation in the decision-making process resulted in increased ratings of decision quality, decision acceptance, decision creativity, team morale, and subject satisfaction with the decision-making process. The scenarios used in the survey instrument were problems where the outcome of the decision directly affected the respondent. Thus, the finding of this study are consistent with Bass' (1990) observation that employees express the greatest interest in participating in decisions that are directly related to their jobs. However, the relationship between the degree of subordinate participation in the decision-making process and decision effectiveness was moderated by the other two independent variables: situation and leadership style. These moderating effects are discussed in the following subsections.

Moderating Effect of Situation

Respondents in this study discriminated between managerial behaviors in a manner consistent with the Vroom-Yetton model only when confronted with group scenarios. This finding is clear and unambiguous: Acting autocratically when participative behavior was called for had a negative impact on subordinates' perceived satisfaction with the decision-making approach and their projections about the likely effectiveness of the decision. Thus, respondents' evaluations of autocratic, consultative and group behavior in group situations were consistent with the precepts of the Vroom-Yetton model. However, in situations for which the Vroom-Yetton model prescribed autocratic behavior, the findings were more complicated.

For autocratic situations, subjects under the transactional and control conditions provided ratings of decision effectiveness that were inconsistent with the Vroom-Yetton model. The subjects rated managers who used a group approach as being more effective than those who used an autocratic approach. In contrast, subjects in the transformational condition were accepting of an autocratic decision-making approach when the situation called for such behavior. In other words, acting autocratically when autocratic behavior was prescribed by the Vroom-Yetton model was viewed by subjects with transformational leaders as having no detrimental impact on decision quality, decision acceptance, creativity, team morale, or subordinate satisfaction with the decision process. This was also reflected in the low ratings of satisfaction with group decision making when the situation favored an autocratic approach.

Moderating Effect of Leadership Style

This study's finding that transformational managers received higher ratings than transactional managers is consistent with the findings of previous studies. For example, studies have found support for the augmenting effect of transformational leadership over transactional leadership, with transformational leaders being more positively rated by subordinates in regard to perceptions of supervisors' performance and effectiveness than transactional leaders (e.g., Bass, 1985, 1990; Bass & Avolio, 1993; Yammarino & Bass, 1990; Koh, 1990; Yukl, 1989b; Avolio & Bass, 1988; Hater & Bass, 1988).

The results also make it clear that leadership style does influence how subordinates evaluate decision quality, acceptance, creativity, effect on team morale, and satisfaction with the decision-making process. In particular, leadership style appears to alter the extent to which subordinates' ratings of decision effectiveness are consistent with the precepts of the Vroom-Yetton model. Subjects in the transformational condition, like subjects in the transactional and control conditions, evaluated effectiveness of the managers' behavior in accordance with the Vroom-Yetton model when the situation required a group approach. However, for autocratic situations, transactional leaders who acted autocratically received significantly lower ratings than when they used a group approach, while subjects with transformational managers gave autocratic behavior the same effectiveness ratings as group behavior.

Interestingly, subjects of transformational managers rated satisfaction with the decision-making process significantly lower than subjects under the transactional or control conditions, when the managers acted participatively in situations requiring autocratic behavior. This suggests that subjects were indeed evaluating each of the situational problems described, and were not rating decision effectiveness solely on decision approach or leadership style. However, for autocratic situations, only subjects of transformational managers felt that autocratic decisions would be effective. This finding is consistent with the Vroom and Yetton model in which situation moderates the degree of subordinate participation needed in the decision-making process in order to achieve optimal decision effectiveness. Furthermore, this finding is consistent with Bass' (1985) theory of transformational leadership that suggests that such leaders have the ability to provoke changes in the attitudes, beliefs, and goals of followers, getting them to transcend their own self-interest for the sake of the team.

Transformational leadership is advocated as effective in initiating rapid change (e.g., Bass, 1985, 1990; Yukl, 1989a; Sashkin & Fulmer, 1988). The findings of this study support this viewpoint and offer possible additional reasons as to why this form of leadership is so powerful in times of change. This study showed how transformational leaders were able to act autocratically while still obtaining decision effectiveness ratings comparable to those of transactional leaders using a consultative approach. Thus, transformational managers could make swift decisions, without engaging in participative approaches that are generally more time consuming, while not jeopardizing subjects' perceptions of decision effectiveness.

It should be noted that subjects acting as subordinates never rated autocratic behavior as more effective than group behavior. The moderating effects of leadership style may provide an explanation for this finding. Under the transactional and control conditions, subjects may have believed that their managers lacked the ability to make effective decisions without subordinate input. Consequently, increasing the level of participation (and therefore the amount of subordinate input) was seen to overcome differences in perspectives, thus increasing decision effectiveness ratings. This view is shared by Kuhnert and Lewis (1987) who assert that subordinates with transactional managers may believe that their manager is making decisions based on his or her own personal goals or agendas, and not in the best interests of either the subordinates or the organization. On the other hand, subjects in the transformational condition may have had greater trust and faith in their manager's ability, and thus they were more willing to accept an autocratic approach to decision-making. This would be consistent with past research, which found that subordinates place greater trust and faith in their supervisor's performance and effectiveness when they display transformational qualities (e.g., Bass, 1985; Niehoff & Moorman, 1996; Avolio & Bass, 1995).

One more finding is of note. The Vroom-Yetton model is designed to determine the most effective level of subordinate participation in the decision-making process for a given situation. Therefore, this study's finding that subjects under transformational managers rated autocratic behavior significantly higher than under either the transactional or control conditions is of importance. Additional Tukey analyses indicated that transformational leaders could behave in an autocratic manner, while still achieving ratings of decision effectiveness that were equal or better than autocratic and consultative behavior under the transactional or control conditions. In previous studies testing the Vroom-Yetton model, autocratic behavior was found to decrease the decision effectiveness ratings of subordinates' (Heilman et al., 1984; Vroom & Jago, 1988). Thus leadership style appears to moderate the effect of situation and level of subordinate participation on decision effectiveness. In situations requiring a group approach to decision making, subordinates of transformational leaders will accept lower influence over the outcome of the decision because of their apparent loyalty and faith in their transformational leader. Transformational leaders, therefore, appear to have greater leeway in their choice of participation levels than is prescribed by the Vroom-Yetton model.

To summarize, transformational leaders who behaved consistently with the Vroom-Yetton model when autocratic decision-making was prescribed received significantly higher ratings of decision effectiveness and satisfaction from subordinates than managers in transactional or control (no profile) conditions did. Even when transformational managers engaged in autocratic behavior when the Vroom-Yetton model called for a group approach, decision effectiveness and satisfaction were still rated highly. These findings suggest that leadership style does moderate subordinates' perceptions of decision effectiveness and a manager's effective application of the Vroom-Yetton model.

The findings of this study must be viewed in the light of the disadvantages associated with the employment of a convenience sample, and the use of paper-and-pencil stimulus materials and measures. Nonetheless, the fact that this study obtained differential patterns of reactions to leaders with such a low impact manipulation of leader profile is suggestive of just how potent this variable may be in determining subordinate attitudes towards decision effectiveness.

The literature on contingency theories of leadership suggests that leadership personality is not nearly as important to leader effectiveness as selecting the right approach to decision making for a given situation. However, the findings of this study are consistent with Lord, DeVader, and Alliger (1986) and Bass (1996) who argue that the relationship between personality and leadership is stronger and more consistent than many contemporary writers believe is the case. The fact that this current study found that subordinates' strong and systematic bias in favor of participative decision-making was moderated through heightened leader personality and interpersonal skill indicates further research is warranted into the combined impact of situation, behavior, personality and their interaction.

REFERENCES

Avolio, B. J., & B. M. Bass (1988). Transformational leadership, charisma, and beyond. In J. G. Hunt, B. R. Baliga, H. P. Dachler & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas (pp. 29-49). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, DC Heath.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill's handbook of leadership (Third Edition). New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1996). Is there universality in the full range model of leadership? International Journal of Public Administration, 19(6), 731-762.

Bass, B. M., & B. J. Avolio, 1993. Transformational leadership: A response to critiques. In M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions. (pp. 49-80). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Dubinsky, A. J., F. J. Yammarino, M. A. Jolson & W. D. Spangler (1995). Transformational leadership: An initial investigation in sales management. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 15(2), 17-31.

Field, R. H. G. (1979). A critique of the Vroom-Yetton contingency model of leader behavior. Academy of Management Review, 4(2), 249-257.

Field, R. H. G. (1982). A test of the Vroom-Yetton normative model of leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(5), 523-532.

Field, R. H. G. & R. J. House (1990). A test of the Vroom-Yetton model using manager and subordinate reports. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(3), 362-366.

Hater, J. J. & B. M. Bass (1988). Superiors' evaluations and subordinates' perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(4), 695-702.

Heilman, M. E., H. A. Hornstein, J. H. Cage & J. K. Herschlag (1984). Reactions to prescribed leader behavior as a function of role perspective: The case of the Vroom-Yetton model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1), 50-60.

Howell, J. M. & B. J. Avolio (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: key predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6), 891-902.

Jago, A. G. & V. H. Vroom (1975). Perceptions of leadership style: Superior and subordinate descriptions of decision making behavior. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership Frontiers. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.

Kol, W. L., R. M. Steers & J. R. Terborg (1995). The effects of transformational leadership on teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(4), 319-333.

Kuhnert, K. W. & P. Lewis (1987). Transformational and transactional leadership: A constructive/developmental analysis. Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 648-657.

Latham, G. P., M. Erez & E. A. Locke (1988). Resolving scientific disputes by the joint design of crucial experiments by the antagonists: Application to the Erez-Latham dispute regarding participation in goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(4), 753-772.

Locke, E. A. & D. M. Schweiger (1979). Participation in decision-making: One more look. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (Volume 1) (pp. 265-339). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Locke, E. A., D. B. Feren, V. M. McCaleb, K. N. Shaw & A. T. Denny (1980). The relative effectiveness of four methods of motivating employee performance. In K. D. Duncan, M. M. Gruneberg & D. Wallis (Eds.), Changes in working life (363-388). New York: Wiley.

Lord, R., C. DeVader & G. Alliger (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), (402-410).

Niehoff, B. P., C. A. En, & R. A. Grover (1990). The impact of top-management actions on employee attitudes and perceptions. Group and Organizational Studies, 15(3), 337-352.

Niehoff, B. P. & R. H. Moorman (1996). Exploring the relationships between top management behaviors and employee perceptions of fairness. International Journal of Public Administration, 19(6), 941-962.

Sagie, A. (1994). Participative decision making and performance: A moderator analysis. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 30(2), 227-246.

Sashkin, M. & R. M. Fulmer (1988). Toward an organizational leadership theory. In J. G. Hunt, B. R. Baliga, H. P. Dachler & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas (pp.51-65). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, DC Heath.

Schweiger, D. M. & C. R. Leana (1986). Participation in decision making. In E. A. Locke (Ed.), Generalizing from laboratory to field settings: Research findings from industrial-organizational psychology, organizational behavior, and human resource management (pp. 147-166). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, DC Health.

Shamir, B., R. J. House & M. B. Arthur (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4(4), 577-594.

Tjosvold, D. (1987). Participation: A close look at its dynamics. Journal of Management, 13(4), 739-750.

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

Vroom, V. H. & A. G. Jago (1988). The new leadership: Managing participation in organizations. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Waldman, D. A., B. M. Bass & F. J. Yammarino (1990). Adding to contingent-reward behavior: The augmenting effect of charismatic leadership. Group and Organization Studies, 15(4), 381-394.

Yammarino, F., & B. M. Bass (1990). Transformational leadership and multiple levels of analysis. Human Relation, 43(10), 975-995.

Yukl, G. A. (1989a). Leadership in organizations (Second Edition). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Yukl, G. A. (1989b). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Journal of Management, 15(2), 251-289.

Daniel A. Sauers, Winona State University Jeffrey C. Kennedy, Nanyang Business School Simon C. Holland, Merck & Co., Inc.
Table 1
Mean Ratings and Post Hoc Tukey Tests / Protected t-tests for Behavior

Experimental Satisfaction Quality
Condition

Control Condition (no profile)

Prescription: autocratic
Autocratic behavior 3.21 (ab) 3.22 (ab)
Consultative behavior 3.77 (c) 4.07 (c)
Group behavior 5.46 5.67

Prescription: group
Autocratic behavior 2.53 (ab) 2.93 (ab)
Consultative behavior 3.96 (c) 4.07 (c)
Group behavior 5.48 5.63
Transactional profile
Prescription: autocratic 3.94 (b) 3.88 (b)
Autocratic behavior 4.12 (c) 4.48 (c)
Consultative behavior 5.03 5.22
Group behavior
Prescription: group
Autocratic behavior 3.20 (b) 3.29 (ab)
Consultative behavior 3.71 (c) 4.14 (c)
Group behavior 5.22 5.52
Transformational profile
Prescription: autocratic 4.17 4.52
Autocratic behavior 4.43 4.80
Consultative behavior 4.22 4.72
Group behavior
Prescription: group
Autocratic behavior 3.36 (ab) 4.14 (ab)
Consultative behavior 4.33 (c) 4.76 (c)
Group behavior 5.32 5.82

Experimental Acceptance Creativity Morale
Condition

Control Condition (no profile)

Prescription: autocratic
Autocratic behavior 3.29 (ab) 2.82 (ab) 2.71 (ab)
Consultative behavior 4.18 (c) 3.70 (c) 3.39 (c)
Group behavior 5.97 5.29 5.63

Prescription: group
Autocratic behavior 3.05 (ab) 2.64 (ab) 2.06 (ab)
Consultative behavior 4.05 (c) 3.86 (c) 3.48 (c)
Group behavior 5.77 5.43 5.48
Transactional profile
Prescription: autocratic 3.97 (b) 3.66 (b) 3.76 (b)
Autocratic behavior 4.47 (c) 4.29 4.26 (c)
Consultative behavior 5.36 4.85 4.91
Group behavior
Prescription: group
Autocratic behavior 3.35 (ab) 3.35 (b) 3.17 (b)
Consultative behavior 4.17 (c) 3.66 (c) 3.55 (c)
Group behavior 5.41 5.39 5.60
Transformational profile
Prescription: autocratic 4.80 4.14 (a) 4.02 (a)
Autocratic behavior 4.95 4.54 4.51
Consultative behavior 4.85 4.31 4.39
Group behavior
Prescription: group
Autocratic behavior 4.13 (ab) 4.16 (b) 3.67 (ab)
Consultative behavior 4.94 (c) 4.45 (c) 4.29 (c)
Group behavior 6.02 5.63 5.74

Note: The higher the mean, the more favorable the rating.

(a) Autocratic behavior mean score is significantly different to
Consultative behavior mean score (p < 0.05).

(b) Autocratic behavior mean score is significantly different to
Group behavior mean score (p < 0.05).

(c) Consultative behavior mean score is significantly different
to Group behavior mean score (p < 0.05).

Table 2
Main and Interaction Effects

Main / Interaction Effects Quality Acceptance

Behavior 90.65 ** 97.64 **
Situation 0.14 1.70
Leadership 8.21 ** 9.07 **
Situation x Behavior 11.25 ** 10.32 **
Leadership x Situation 2.88 3.32 *
Behavior x Leadership 7.86 ** 9.45 **
Behavior x Leadership x Situation 2.70 * 4.78 **

Main / Interaction Effects Creativity Morale

Behavior 85.28 ** 114.72 **
Situation 2.51 0.53
Leadership 9.35 ** 9.79 **
Situation x Behavior 15.21 ** 20.95 **
Leadership x Situation 5.82 ** 4.20 *
Behavior x Leadership 9.68 ** 11.01 **
Behavior x Leadership x Situation 3.94 ** 5.45 **

Main / Interaction Effects Satisfaction

Behavior 87.84 **
Situation 3.2
Leadership 2.62
Situation x Behavior 19.60 **
Leadership x Situation 1.97
Behavior x Leadership 8.28 **
Behavior x Leadership x Situation 3.72 **

* p < 0.05

** p < 0.01

Table 3
Post Hoc Tukey Tests / Protected t-tests for Mean
Differences of Decision Effectiveness between Leadership Styles

Experimental Condition Control Transactional Transformational

Prescription: autocratic n.s. n.s. (abc) *
Autocratic behavior n.s. n.s. (b) *
Consultative behavior * n.s. (c) n.s.
Group behavior
Prescription: group
Autocratic behavior n.s. n.s. (b) *
Consultative behavior n.s. n.s. * (d)
Group behavior n.s. n.s. n.s.

* Ratings of dependent variables were significantly higher than the
other two leadership styles, p < .05 n.s. Ratings of dependent
variables were not significantly higher than the other two leadership
styles, p > .05

(a) Ratings of creativity were significantly different from the other
two leadership styles, p < 0.05

(b) Ratings of morale were significantly different from the other two
leadership styles, p < 0.05

(c) Ratings of satisfaction were significantly different from the
other two leadership styles, p < 0.05

(d) Ratings of satisfaction were not significantly different than the
other two leadership styles, p > 0.05

Figure 1: Graphical Representation of the Experimental Manipulation
and Survey Instrument

Version of Survey Profile of Optimal Decision Approach
Instrument Manager's Lea- Prescribed in Vroom-Yetton
 dership Style Situational Problem Scenarios

Questionnaire I No Leadership Case One: Autocratic
 (Profile (Control) Situation (AI)#
 Case Two: Autocratic
 Situation (AI)
 Case Three: Autocratic
 Situation (AI)

 Case Four: Group Situation
 (GII)
 Case Five: Group Situation
 (GII)
 Case Six: Group Situation
 (GII)#

Questionnaire II Transactional Case One: Autocratic
 Leadership Situation (AI)#
 Profile Case Two: Autocratic
 Situation (AI)
 Case Three: Autocratic
 Situation (AI)#

 Case Four: Group Situation
 (GII)
 Case Five: Group Situation
 (GII)
 Case Six: Group Situation
 (GII)#

Questionnaire III Transformational Case One: Autocratic
 Leadership Situation (AI)#
 Profile Case Two: Autocratic
 Situation (AI)
 Case Three: Autocratic
 Situation (AI)

 Case Four: Group Situation
 (GII)
 Case Five: Group Situation
 (GII)
 Case Six: Group Situation
 (GII)#

Optimal Decision Approach Prescribed Decision Approach Used by
in Vroom-Yetton Situational Problem Manager in the Scenario
Scenarios

Case One: Autocratic Situation (AI)# Autocratic Decision
 Process (AI)#
Case Two: Autocratic Situation (AI) Consultative Decision
 Process (CI)
Case Three: Autocratic Situation (AI) Group Decision Process (GII)

Case Four: Group Situation (GII) Autocratic Decision
 Process (AI)
Case Five: Group Situation (GII) Consultative Decision
 Process (CI)
Case Six: Group Situation (GII)# Group Decision Process (GII)#

Case One: Autocratic Situation (AI)# Autocratic Decision
 Process (AI)#
Case Two: Autocratic Situation (AI) Consultative Decision
 Process (CI)
Case Three: Autocratic Situation (AI)# Group Decision Process (GII)#

Case Four: Group Situation (GII) Autocratic Decision
 Process (AI)
Case Five: Group Situation (GII) Consultative Decision
 Process (CI)
Case Six: Group Situation (GII)# Group Decision Process (GII)#

Case One: Autocratic Situation (AI)# Autocratic Decision
 Process (AI)#
Case Two: Autocratic Situation (AI) Consultative Decision
 Process (CI)
Case Three: Autocratic Situation (AI) Group Decision Process (GII)

Case Four: Group Situation (GII) Autocratic Decision
 Process (AI)
Case Five: Group Situation (GII) Consultative Decision
 Process (CI)
Case Six: Group Situation (GII)# Group Decision Process (GII)#

Optimal Decision Approach Prescribed Match Between Actual and
in Vroom-Yetton Situational Problem Prescribed Decision
Scenarios Approach (a)

Case One: Autocratic Situation (AI)# Match#
Case Two: Autocratic Situation (AI) No Match
Case Three: Autocratic Situation (AI) No Match

Case Four: Group Situation (GII) No Match
Case Five: Group Situation (GII) No Match
Case Six: Group Situation (GII)# Match#

Case One: Autocratic Situation (AI)# Match#
Case Two: Autocratic Situation (AI) No Match
Case Three: Autocratic Situation (AI)# No Match#

Case Four: Group Situation (GII) No Match
Case Five: Group Situation (GII) No Match
Case Six: Group Situation (GII)# Match#

Case One: Autocratic Situation (AI)# Match#
Case Two: Autocratic Situation (AI) No Match
Case Three: Autocratic Situation (AI) No Match

Case Four: Group Situation (GII) No Match
Case Five: Group Situation (GII) No Match
Case Six: Group Situation (GII)# Match#

(a) Italics are used to indicate cases where the actual manager
behavior and the model-prescribed behavior are in agreement

Note: Cases where the actual manager behavior and the
model-prescribed behavior are in agreement indicated with #.
COPYRIGHT 2005 The DreamCatchers Group, LLC
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2005 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

 Reader Opinion

Title:

Comment:



 

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Sauers, Daniel A.; Kennedy, Jeffrey C.; Holland, Simon C.
Publication:Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Jul 1, 2005
Words:6528
Previous Article:Developing a model of leadership in the teleworking environment: a qualitative study.
Next Article:Silent messages in negotiations: the role of nonverbal communication in cross-cultural business negotiations.
Topics:

Terms of use | Copyright © 2014 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters