IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jomstd/v16y1979i1p45-55.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Leadership Decision‐Making: An Empirical Test Of The Vroom And Yetton Model

Author

Listed:
  • Charles Margerison
  • Richard Glube

Abstract

Despite the common belief that greater worker participation in decision‐making in industry will increase productivity and worker job satisfaction, the empirical evidence has been most contradictory. As a result, theories have been developed which now suggest that the degree of participation should depend on the particular problem or situation facing the leader. For the practising manager the problem has been the identification of the situation and the subsequent selection of an appropriate decision method. One answer to this problem is the Vroom and Yetton model which gives explicit directions to the leader as to how to categorize the problem and select the appropriate decision method. This paper describes our research to examine the external validity of this model. The sites chosen for the research were forty‐seven owner‐operated, small, non‐unionized, franchised firms, where the leaders had the power and authority to effect organizational outcomes. On these various sites, there was relatively high similarity with regard to the technology employed, tasks performed, number of levels of hierarchy and the external environments. It was found that those leaders who were in high agreement with the Vroom and Yetton model had workers with higher productivity and higher satisfaction with supervision than those leaders who were in low agreement with the model. These findings give strong support for the Vroom and Yetton model. The implication of these findings on the training and selection of managers, and on further research, are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Charles Margerison & Richard Glube, 1979. "Leadership Decision‐Making: An Empirical Test Of The Vroom And Yetton Model," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(1), pages 45-55, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:jomstd:v:16:y:1979:i:1:p:45-55
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.1979.tb00373.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1979.tb00373.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1979.tb00373.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Preston C. Bottger & Philip W. Yetton, 1987. "Managerial Decision Making: Comparison of Participative Decision Methods in Australian and Singaporean/Hong Kong Chinese Samples," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 12(2), pages 185-200, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jomstd:v:16:y:1979:i:1:p:45-55. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0022-2380 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.