Researchers define leadership as a strategic approach towards coping with current and future challenges; it is an essential element of business success (Redman 2006). Similarly to business strategies, leadership strategies focus on the detailed analysis of the conditions and information about the dynamics and changes in the environment (Hellström 2005). Only in this way it is possible to attain the necessary knowledge needed to close the gap between the present situation and the desired future goals.
For a long time, the evaluation of leadership strategies is of significant interest for business practitioners and researchers. Nowadays, many different styles and approaches are known, and each of them has its advantages and disadvantages. The purpose of this paper is the evaluation and comparison of two leadership models: Fiedler’s Contingency Model, and the Normative Decision Model by Vroom and Yetton. The models are based on distinct principles and highlight different aspects of decision-making and analysis. Understanding of the models’ main features my assist businessmen to select the strategy that is more appropriate and effective in a particular context.
Fiedler’s Contingency Model
The model is based on the presumption that the subordinates’ productivity highly depends on the leaders’ ability to control and influence the subordinates in particular situations. According to Fiedler, the main factor for the leader’s success is the management style that may be either task-oriented or employees-oriented.
To identify the leadership style, Fiedler elaborated the employee survey that helps to define the least preferred co-worker (LPC). The survey includes 16 bipolar definitions by which the respondents describe each of their colleagues (Stewart & Latham 1986). Fiedler believed that is a person describes LPC with positive definitions then she is primarily interested in the establishment of favourable relationships with colleagues while if the definitions are negative, then the productivity increase is regarded as the priority (Miller, Butler & Cosentino 2004).
After the leadership style is defined, one needs to evaluate the situation according to three criteria introduced by Fiedler: the pattern of leader-subordinate relations, the task’s structure, and the volume and form of leader’s power (VanGundy & Haynes III 1978). Through the combination of these variables, the basic situations in which a leader can be found are defined. The situations are described as favourable and unfavourable. In this way, the task-oriented leadership is appropriate in highly favourable and highly unfavourable situations while relations-oriented leadership is good in the situations of the moderate kind (Csoka 1975).
The basic style of leadership always remains unchangeable. Nevertheless, a leader can increase the strategic effectiveness through the appointment of a new leader with a more appropriate style of managing or through the change of the situation in a way it will fit the current leadership style.
The researchers found sufficient evidence for the verification of Fiedler’s ideas (Strube & Garcia 1981). However, the model has a few disadvantages. It is observed that the survey may provide subjective data, and the fact that the leadership style is a constant phenomenon is regarded as controversial (Jago & Ragan 1986).
Normative Decision Model
Five basic styles of leadership could be chosen according to the level of the subordinates’ involvement in the decision-making process: 1) leader acts independently, 2) employees provide a leader with information, 3) leader collaborates with the employees and makes a decision by him/herself, 4) the decision is made by the employees, and 5) leader and employees are the equal participants of the decision-making process (Jago & Vroom 1980). These five styles constitute the continuum that starts with the autocratic style of decision-making (AI and AII), then followed by the consultative style (CI and CII), and closed by the total group involvement (GII) (Reber, Auer-Rizzi & Maly 2004). The application of the styles depends on the problem’s characteristics.
To help managers to evaluate the situation, Vroom and Yetton elaborated a set of criteria that are used in the evaluation of the “leader-employee” context. These criteria are knowledge of the decision’s quality, information and experience sufficiency, the structure of the problem, employees’ consent, confidence in the subordinate’s support of the leader’s autonomous decision, the level of employees’ interest, and conflict probability (Clement 1983).
The model introduced by Vroom and Yetton turned to be too complicated for the regular application (Tjosvold, Wedley & Field 1986). However, it allowed the researchers to comprehend the essence of the situational variables that should be considered in the leadership style selection (Field 1982).
Conclusion
Although the Vroom-Yetton model differs from Fiedler approach due to the focus on the decision-making process, the emphasis on the lack of the universal method of influencing the subordinates makes them similar (Duffy 1985). In this way, the optimality of the leadership style always depends on the situational variables.
Even though the situational theory lacks research verification, the fact that the leaders need to choose the strategy according to context cannot be doubted. The mentioned contingency models are focused on the external factors influence, and they complement each other in the understanding of the leadership phenomenon. The contingency approach made a significant contribution to management theories development.
Both models have specific recommendations regarding the application of the ideas in management depending on the level of the situational complexity, external, and internal organizational environment. Through the implementation of models’ principles, the leaders may find the best means for the achievement of objectives. However, it is important to consider that the contingency approach ensures merely a short-term adjustment between the internal and external environments. The long-term adjustment requires detailed strategic planning (Bârgau 2015). The combination of these methods in business regulation is considered a contemporary trend in management.
Reference List
Bârgau, M 2015, ‘Leadership versus management’, Romanian Economic and Business Review, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 197-204.
Clement, P A 1983, An investigation on the validity of the Vroom-Yetton model of leadership, Hofstra University, New York.
Csoka, L S 1975, ‘Relationship between organizational climate and the situational favorableness dimension of Fiedler’s contingency model’, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 273-277.
Duffy, L 1985, Leadership and decision-making styles: a comparison of Fiedler’s contingency model and Vroom-Yetton’s normative model (management, LPC, group interaction, intergroup relations), The University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Field, R 1982, ‘A test of the Vroom-Yetton Normative Model of leadership’, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 67, no. 5, pp. 523.
Hellström, T 2005, ‘A decision model for involvement in vulnerability reduction’, Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 196-205.
Jago, A G & Ragan, J W 1986, ‘The trouble with is that it doesn’t match Fiedler’s contingency model’, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 555-559.
Jago, A G & Vroom, V H 1980, ‘An evaluation of two alternatives to the Vroom/Yetton normative model’, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 347.
Miller, R, Butler, J & Cosentino, C 2004, ‘Followership effectiveness: an extension of Fiedler’s contingency model’, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 362-368.
Reber, G, Auer-Rizzi, W & Maly, M 2004, ‘The behaviour of managers in Austria and the Czech Republic: an intercultural comparison based on the Vroom/Yetton model of leadership and decision making’, Journal for East European Management Studies, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 411-429.
Redman, R 2006, ‘Leadership strategies for uncertain times’, Research and Theory for Nursing Practice, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 273-275.
Stewart, D & Latham, D R 1986, ‘On some psychometric properties of Fiedler’s contingency model of leadership”, Small Group Behavior, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 83.
Strube, M & Garcia, J 1981, ‘A meta-analytic investigation of Fiedler’s contingency model of leadership effectiveness’, Psychological Bulletin, vol. 90, no. 2, pp. 307-321.
Tjosvold, D, Wedley, W C & Field, R H 1986, ‘Constructive controversy, the Vroom-Yetton model, and managerial decision-making’, Journal of Occupational Behaviour, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 125-138.
VanGundy, A & Haynes III, L 1978, ‘A comparison of college presidents using Fiedler’s contingency model’, The Journal of Negro Education, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 215-229.