Normative Leadership Style
In this article have analyzed Normative Leadership theory, a theory that is theoretically elegant and characteristically practical. Even in today’s increasingly changing global business scenarios, this robust theory enables Leader to select one of the five leadership styles namely decide, consult individually, consult group, facilitate and delegate by using the model’s time-driven and development-driven decision tree. Trait and Behavioural Theory Timeline: In the 1930s leadership theories were based on leaders’ traits. Two dimensional behavioral theory (autocratic versus democratic) was published at University of Iowa in 1939.
In 1940s University of Michigan published Job centered versus employee centered theories and in mid 1950s University of Ohio published considerations versus structure theories. In 1960s Fredrick came out with two factor theory maintenance or extrinsic factor versus motivators or intrinsic factors. In 1967 McGregor suggested leadership behaviors based on different assumptions on employee motivations in describing his “Theory X” and “Theory Y”. Birth of Contingency Leadership Theory: In 1970s, it became evident that no single leadership style is best for all situations; leaders need to change their leadership style to suit situation.
Researchers then started working on situational and contingency factors which led to the development of contingency theories such as Fiedler theory (1967), Leadership continuum theory (Tannenbaum & Schmidt, 1973), Path goal theory (House & Mitchell, 1974) and Normative theory (Vroom & Yetton, 1973; Vroom & Jago, 1988, 1995). While Fiedler theory recommends changing the situation rather than changing leadership style, rest of the contingency theories recommend using right style at right situation to deliver effective leadership.
Normative Leadership Theory: In 1973 Vroom and Yetton developed a contingency model based on the leader’s choice of autocratic versus participative responses to decision making situations. Extensive validation research of the model resulted in the development of Vroom-Jago model in 1988 (again updated in 1995). The research aimed to develop taxonomy for describing leadership situations, which could be used in a normative model linking situations to the leadership styles.
A set of seven situational variables were used (Vroom & Yetton, 1973) to predict which among the five leadership styles would be the most effective to deal with the situation. Vroom conducted extensive empirical studies to investigate how leader’s behavior is affected by situation faced by leader keep. The studies were conducted with a focus on the leadership role and on how differences in the challenges that leader face would affect leader’s behavior. The five leadership styles are (1) Decide: The leader makes the decision and announces it or sells it to the followers.
Leader may gather information from others within the group and outside the group without specifying the problem, (2) Consult Individually: The leader explains follower individually about the problem, gathers information and suggestions and then makes the decision, (3) Consult Group: The leader holds a group meeting, explains followers the problems, gathers information and suggestions and then makes the decision, (4) Facilitate: The leader holds a group meeting and acts as a facilitator to define the problem and the limits within which a decision must be made.
The leader seeks participation and concurrence on the decision without pushing his or her ideas and (5) Delegate: The leader lets the group diagnose the problem and make the decision within stated limits. The role of the leader is to answer questions, provide encouragement and resources. Originally seven situational variables were identified to answer the questions with high (H) or low (L) score. These are (1) Decision significance: How important is the decision to the success of the project or organization high or low? 2) Importance of Commitment: How important is the follower commitment to implement the decision high or low? (3) Leader Expertise: How much knowledge and expertise does the leader have with this specific decision high or low? (4) Likelihood of commitment: If the leader were to make the decision alone, is the certainty that the followers would be committed to the decision high or low? (5) Group support for objectives: Do followers have high or low support for the team or organizational goals to be attained in solving the problems? 6) Group Expertise: How much knowledge and expertise do the individual followers have with this specific decision high or low? and (7) Team Competence: Is the ability of the individuals to work together as a team to solve the problem high or low? Not all seven variables/ questions above are relevant to all decisions. A minimum of two and maximum of seven questions are needed to select the most appropriate leadership style in a given situation.
During year 2000, Vroom revised the model with eleven variables. Each of these eleven is a moderator variables linking leadership style with components of decision effectiveness. Most of these eleven variables have also been used in empirical studies to investigate how leader behavior is affected by the situation faced by the leader. Both Time-Driven Model and Development-Driven Model using seven variables are presented in Appendix 1 along-with instruction how to use the model.
Vroom’s theory has also been criticized by many raising questions such as (1) whether small set of seven or eleven factors really determines how one should use the answers (2) will answers depend on the quality of the person who is answering (3) will answer vary from person to person and time to time and (4) will use of tacit knowledge in evaluating a situation; weaken the outcome of the model? These criticisms have resulted in further research and deliberation on the model.
All parties (both followers and critics) agreed on the importance of matching of personal qualities and situational requirement towards delivering effective leadership in an Organization. They also agreed that leadership effectiveness will depend on the use of realistic scenarios describing actual situations confronting a leader in an organization. Conclusion: The powerful model which Vroom and his colleagues at Yale University developed after interacting with more than 100,000 managers making decisions has proved to be a robust and useful model even in today’s dynamic business context.
The model has identified the following three distinct roles that situational variables play in the leadership process. 1. Leadership effectiveness leading to Organizational effectiveness is affected by situational factors not under leader’s control 2. Situations shape how leaders behave and 3. Situations influence the consequences of leader behavior. Appendix 1 Instruction how to use the model: 1. Select one of the two models based on whether the situation is driven by importance of time or development of followers, i. e. short term or long term. 2. Define problem statement. 3.
Answer the question from left to right skipping question not appropriate to the situation and avoiding crossing any horizontal line. The last column will prescribe the appropriate leadership participation decision-making style for the situation. Normative Leadership Time-Driven Model | Decision Significance? | Importance of Commitment? | Leader Expertise? | Likelihood of Commitment? | Group Support? | Group Expertise? | Team Competence? | | PROBLEMSTATEMENT| H| H| H| H| -| -| -| Decide| LEADERSHIPSTYLE| | | | | L| H| H| H| Delegate| | | | | | | | | L| Consult (Group)| | | | | | | | L| -| | | | | | | L| -| -| | | | | | L| H| H| H| H| Facilitate| | | | | | | | | L| Consult (Individually)| | | | | | | | L| -| | | | | | | | L| -| -| | | | | | | L| H| H| H| Facilitate| | | | | | | | | L| Consult (Group)| | | | | | | | L| -| | | | | | | | L| -| -| | | | | L| H| -| -| -| -| Decide| | | | | L| -| H| H| H| Facilitate| | | | | | | | | L| Consult (Individually)| | | | | | | | L| -| | | | | | | | L| -| -| | | | L| H| -| H| | -| -| Decide| | | | | | L| -| -| H| Delegate| | | | | | | | | L| Facilitate| | | | L| -| -| -| -| -| Decide| | Normative Leadership Development-Driven Model | Decision Significance? Importance of Commitment? | Leader Expertise? | Likelihood of Commitment? | Group Support? | Group Expertise? | Team Competence? | | PROBLEMSTATEMENT| H| H| -| H| H| H| H| Delegate| LEADERSHIPSTYLE| | | | | | | | L| Facilitate| | | | | | | | L| -| Consult (Group)| | | | | | | L| -| -| | | | | | | L| H| H| H| Delegate| | | | | | | | | L| Facilitate| | | | | | | | L| -| | | | | | | | L| -| -| Consult (Group)| | | | L| -| -| H| H| H| Delegate| | | | | | | | | L| Facilitate| | | | | | | | L| -| Consult (Group)| | | | | | | L| -| -| | | | L| H| -| H| -| -| -| Decide| | | | | | L| -| -| -| Delegate| | | L| -| -| -| -| -| Decide| | References: Achua, Christopher F and Lussier, Robert N. : Effective Leadership, 4th Edition, South- Western Cengage Learning Chan, Patrick Dr. , Class Lecture Notes Palanski, Michael E. and Yammarino, Francis J. : Integrity and Leadership: A multi-level conceptual framework: The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 405-420 Vroom, Victor H, Yale University and Jago, Arthur G, University of Missouri. Situation Effects and Levels of Analysis in the Study of Leader Participation: Leadership Quarterly Vol. 6 No. 2 1995 Vroom, Victor H. Research: A New Look at Managerial Decision Making