Scribd
Upload
240 views2 pages

Vroom Yetton Model

The Vroom-Yetton-Jago Normative Decision Model provides a framework for leaders to determine the appropriate level of follower involvement in decision-making based on situational factors. The model outlines five leadership styles ranging from autocratic to fully group-based. Leaders are to answer seven questions to assess decision quality requirements, information availability, problem structure, acceptance needs, and conflict potential to determine which style is most suitable.

Uploaded by

LAKHAN TRIVEDI
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
240 views2 pages

Vroom Yetton Model

The Vroom-Yetton-Jago Normative Decision Model provides a framework for leaders to determine the appropriate level of follower involvement in decision-making based on situational factors. The model outlines five leadership styles ranging from autocratic to fully group-based. Leaders are to answer seven questions to assess decision quality requirements, information availability, problem structure, acceptance needs, and conflict potential to determine which style is most suitable.

Uploaded by

LAKHAN TRIVEDI
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Vroom–Yetton decision model

The Vroom–Yetton contingency model is a situational leadership theory of industrial and


organizational psychology developed by Victor Vroom, in collaboration with Phillip Yetton (1973)
and later with Arthur Jago (1988). The situational theory argues the best style of leadership is
contingent to the situation. This model suggests the selection of a leadership style of groups
decision-making.

Leader Styles
The Vroom-Yetton-Jago Normative Decision Model helps to answer above questions. This
model identifies five different styles (ranging from autocratic to consultative to group-based
decisions) on the situation and level of involvement. They are:

Autocratic Type 1 (AI)


Leader makes own decision using information that is readily available to him or her 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 and
suggestions and makes decision alone. Here followers do not meet each other and the
leader’s decision may or may not reflect his 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 and
suggestions and makes decision alone. Here followers meet each other, and through
discussions they understand other alternatives. But the leader’s decision may or may not
reflect the 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 and situation with followers as a group and seeks their ideas
and suggestions through brainstorming. Leader accepts any decision and does not try to
force his or her idea. Decision accepted by the group is the final one.
Vroom and Yetton formulated the 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.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy