The Vroom-Yetton-Jago Model - Example

Leadership and Decision Making Student Name: Management Professor: Institution: City: Date The Vroom-Yetton-Jago Model Introduction Taking individuals off their essential duties to take part in groups or other choice making exercises may be great empowerment, however, when unnecessary, it could be very expensive. The Vroom-Yetton-Jago model is a tree that aids in decision-making and empowers a leader to analyze a situation and figure out which style or level of contribution by the subordinates to capture. This model distinguishes five styles along a continuum going from dictatorial to consultative to group based (Field, 1979). By wanting oneself an arrangement from inquiries concerning the way of the issue, choice, and outcomes, the leader can choose exactly how much participation others ought to have in the decision making. This model is an amazing illustration of extracting and demonstrating knowledge. This sort of model could be produced by asking specialists how they settle on a choice. Regularly it is carried out by asking what a definite choice was, and afterward deconstructing it, or asking, what was the step just before your official conclusion; and the step just before that, and so on. One can work counter directionally and recreate the decisional methodology, regardless of the fact that it was to a great extent oblivious. At that point the inquiries that inspire each one phase of the methodology might be detailed. At the point when utilized, the addressing is begun at step one, then utilizing the spreading tree, the client arrives at the best choice focused around answers to the basic inquiries (Field, 1979). My chosen organization is the Australian Vintage Ltd (AVL), a wine producing company founded by the MvGuigans family (Australian Vintage Ltd, 2011). The company produces two of Australia’s greatest brands of wine; Tempus Two and McGuigan. The company is looking into expanding its Asian presence thus the need for an Asian company to distribute the wine. The company has chosen the Chinese COFCO to be its distributor. The focal center of the VYJ decision-making model of Leadership is to survey how the nature of the circumstances, the leader, and the group measure the degree to which the group is to be engaged in the decision-making procedure of whether the distribution agreement should be signed or not. This can be refined by a flowchart-style decision-making method that arrives at a decision. These styles are dictatorial, group, and consultative. The dictatorial involves a tyrant, taking her or his sign from Transactional Leadership routines, which, fundamentally say that the leader asks the group to "comply". The consultative methodology has the leader heading off to the group for recommendations on the most proficient method to undertake any new developments likely to affect operations of AVL. The "group" system for decision-making is the most law based, where the group eventually settles on the choice. The theory expresses that there could be numerous styles of evaluation and no individual type fits all circumstances, along these lines making this a Contingency Theory (Boundless Management, n.d.). A leader weighs up the situation, evaluates the circumstances confronting the group, decides the amount of help the group will provide for the exertion, and after that, impact a style of leadership. There is a mechanical methodology to do this, including seven questions and decision focuses. VYJ found the following questions to be the most critical: 1. Is there a quality necessity? Is the way of the result discriminating? Are there specialized or judicious justifications for selecting among conceivable results? 2. Does the leader have sufficient data to settle on an excellent choice? 3. Is the issue organized? Are the option game plans and routines for their assessment known? 4. Is acknowledgement of the choice by subordinates basic to its usage? 5. On the off chance that the leader was to settle on the choice without anyone else's input, would it say it is sensibly sure that his subordinates would acknowledge it? 6. Does his subordinates impart the hierarchical objectives to be acquired in taking care of this issue? 7. Is clash among subordinates likely in acquiring the favored result? The underlying suspicion of the Vroom-Yetton-Jago Decision Models is that no leadership style or decision-making procedure fits all circumstances. By investigating the circumstances and assessing the issue focused around time, group provision, as well as quality of the decision, a decision about which style best fits the circumstances could be made. The model characterizes an extremely intelligent methodology to which style to embrace and is helpful for administrators and leaders who are attempting to adjust the benefits of participative administration with the need to settle on choices viably. The figure below shows the relationship between the above questions and individual styles of evaluation that can be used (Hill, 2014): Figure 1: The VYJ decision-making criteria (Hill, 2014) From the above, a style of making decisions or offering a good leadership style is shown below. A leader questions how a decision was made and what it was. This process is backtracked through the steps used in making it and finally the original problem and ways of solving it. The following styles can be achieved by AVL by examining the questions above regarding decision-making criteria (Vroom & Jago, 1988): Autocratic (A1): The leader solely makes the decision using the information that is readily available to him at the time. This type is fully autocratic. Autocratic (A2): The leader consults the group to get the information they may have then makes the decision on his own. The decision may thus be or not be shared with the rest of the group. The involvement of the followers is limited to availing the information. Consultative (C1): the leader consults the relevant followers solely seeking their opinions and suggestions and finally makes the decision individually. In this case, the followers do not meet one another and the decision the leader makes may or may not be influenced by the opinions collected from the followers. The involvement of the followers is only providing individual alternatives. Consultative (C2): In this leadership style, the leader seeks the opinions and suggestions of the followers as a group but finally the leader makes the decision alone. In this case, the followers usually meet each other and have discussions on the alternatives thus they all understand each other’s alternatives. The decision the leader makes may or may not be influenced by the followers. The task of the followers in this type of management is helping in decision-making as a group. Collaborative (G2): The leader of AVL holds discussions with the group on the current situation and problem while seeking their suggestions and ideas by brainstorming. The leader then agrees with the decision made by the group without trying to force their idea. In this case, the decision arrived at by the group is the final one. Advantages of the Model The VYJ Model of decision-making and leadership is very flexible in regards to the options available to a leader while they are making decisions that influence the operations of the organization. The choices available to the leader range from very highly dictatorial to very democratic ones. The mechanical procedure behind it makes it very reliable in terms of ensuring the leader makes the best decision (Vroom & Yetton, 1973). The results are usually not achieved by a method that is random but rather a procedure put in place that makes it “objective”. Disadvantages of the Model The applicability of the model when large groups are involved is still in question. The procedures for making decisions may be very mechanical thus fail to take into account other underlying factors such as change in emotions and the overall general change. Some of the questions lack specific answers such as “how important is the quality of the decision?” In this case for example to whom is the quality of the decision-making being mentioned? The period of the questions is also not specified. Critique The VYJ Decision-production Model of Leadership is very mechanical, so mechanical that it may neglect nuances, for example, the mental make-up of the leader, multifaceted nature of assignments, feelings of the group, dubiousness of the terms, (for example, "essentialness" and "quality"), and motion. There is an issue with the legitimacy of the model; it has not been tried sufficiently. The power of leader will be leader oriented and there is lacking consideration paid to leader headed associations. While there is a provision for making decision eventually for fair interest, the attention is on choice making and radiating at first from the leader (Vroom & Yetton, 1973). Where is the provision that the group, itself, may need to start making decisions? Group elements might be very convoluted, and it is not generally clear on how choices ought to be made or whether one is needed. Maybe just a gathering communication is required. While the model gives a detailed choice making method, there are circumstances in which there may not be sufficient time to apply the model, for example, in crisis, or where there are different circumstances that compel time. Further, not every pioneer is inclined or needing to have a choice making system push onto him or her. Truly a decently characterized method can help and be displayed as a goal technique, however it might be regarded excessively mechanical, and a "one size fits all" straightjacket. The only modification I would make to the model is that instead of involving the whole group of employees, I would make it such that only department heads are involved in the consultations as to any changes should be made or not. It is not only tedious but also very time consuming to try to involve every employee in the organization while making decisions. Sometimes also a certain level of secrecy needs to be maintained and this might be lost if every single employee gets involved in every matter regarding the company. This way all employees will still feel part of the decision-making increasing the likelihood of their support. At the Australian Vintage Ltd, that is the only ratification I would make to the model because sometime arriving at any decision might involve as many options at the main decision itself. In some circumstances, it is prudent for the managers to make the decisions on their own, while in some other situations, the opinions of every employee is needed for the best decision to be arrived at. This model avails to Australian Vintage Ltd a way of knowing which of the decisions the top management is better of making on their own to save time and which ones are best made via a consensus of all the employees (Srinivasan, 2008). As a company, they understand the need to make good decisions to enable us arrive at the most successful outcome possible. This is achieved by making sure autocratic decisions are made where ones that are more democratic would have been best given the situation. It will also be futile and time wastage if they concentrated in making all decisions democratically while some would have been best made autocratically. This means that they have been able to adapt leadership styles that best fit the situation. They appreciate that in some circumstances, autocratic styles work best while in some others high participation of all the employees. This Decision Making Model avails to us a proper framework that helps them in identifying the most appropriate leadership style given the situation they are facing (Srinivasan, 2008). Idea evaluation Australian Vintage Ltd has come to an agreement with a China based Company known as COFCO Wine & Spirits Co Ltd. The Chinese company is a part of the largest food processing (ABN Newswire, 2014), manufacturer as well as trader in China. Starting immediately, the contract will have AVL via its key brand, McGuigan Wines, develop the strategic partner for the wine from Australia throughout China using the International Wine division established by COFCO. The VYJ Model will be employed. Before any important decision is made, the company has to understand the degree to which the participation of the subordinates is needed. This is usually determined by the following factors (DhakaTribune, 2013): Quality of the Decision – how essential would it is to arrive at the "right" result? The higher the nature of the choice required, the more you ought to include other individuals in the choice. Subordinate Commitment – how essential would it say it is that your group and others get tied up with the choice? At the point when fellow team members need to grasp the choice you ought to expand the investment levels. Time Constraints – How much time do you need to settle on the choice? The more of an opportunity you have, the more you have the advantage of including others, and of utilizing the choice as an open door for team built decisions. The Collaborative (G2) style of decision-making will employed. The management will arrive at the specific style after having asked themselves the seven key questions which will lead them to believe this is the best way of making such a decision. They will start by asking themselves whether the quality of the decision is important. The answer to this question is a definite yes since it is important that the company make a decision that aligns with its goals and objectives. Everything about the partnership involves quality management from the quality of the wine to the best company that can help distribute it and still maintain the good image AVL has succeeded in calculating so far. It is very important for the company to come up with the right solution for the problem. How right or wrong a decision is determines its quality. The second question answered will be whether the team commitment will be important in such an undertaking. At AVL, we pride ourselves on manufacturing not only outstanding but also innovative wines that are appealing to all individuals who love wine. This can only be achieved if the whole group of employees is fully committed to maintaining the same quality and standards. The answer to the question will thus be a yes since the management need to ensure that all employees are on board in terms of the quality of wine we will be delivering to the Chinese company for further distribution. The management figures that the partnership can only be successful if the quality and standards are delivered as promised and since it is the workers that undertake most of the production, it is only fair if they not only properly understand this but also support the move. The third question the management will ask themselves is whether they have enough information to make the decision on their own. The response to this is negative. The managers need to consult on various issues with the respective department heads that will come into play should the company go ahead and undertake the contract. Such issues include, the level of manpower that would need to be added to support the extra production needed, the quantity of supply in terms raw materials such as the grapes that would need to be added, the appropriate size of the production plant that would support such a move and many other factors. All this is information that will be needed before such a move is made and the most appropriate answers would be with the different department heads that are involved daily operations of the various departments. The management will also have to recognize that the problem is well structured in terms of the extra quantities they will need to produce should they enter into the agreement. There will also be a difference in manufacturing schedules to handle the new demand, the extra employees that will be needed if the agreement will be signed, and the change in quantities of raw materials needed. The proper structuring of the problem will be enabled by the fact that the Chinese company know what quantities they can distribute at any given time. With such knowledge, all the management needs to do is increase every production element proportionally. People are very adamant when it comes to accepting change. The management thus acknowledges that they will not likely receive any support from their juniors should they just introduce such drastic changes without their involvement. Involving the department heads means they seek the opinions of the employees and bring those opinions to the managers. To receive the support they need, they have to find out how the employees feel and their readiness to accept the changes that will be proposed. Some of the changes likely to be brought about by such a move are changes in vacation periods as well changes in their work schedules. The answer to the fifth question in such a case would thus be no. The sixth question is whether the team shares in the organizational goals; the response to this is a definite yes. AVL has grown to what it is now by making sure that their whole team shares in the goals of the organization. If the goals are not shared, there is a likelihood of a disconnect occurring which would interrupt the growth goals of the company. The same case applies in these expansion plans. From the past every growth move has resulted in more benefits for the employees and more job security. In this case, as well, the employees stand to gain as well thus their support for the move. According to the answers to the above questions, the management will need to answer just six out of the even questions. The six questions will lead them to realize that the most appropriate decision-making style is Collaborative (G2). This style will involve the management and the various appointed department heads. Every employee will have his or her opinion represented. Proper presentation of the employees’ opinions means that they will most definitely support the changes the management is looking to implement. Conclusion If the company was to go with the dictatorial way of making the decision, they are likely to meet resistant from the employees. The employees are practically the ones who implement the plans the organization, lack of their support means the company cannot rely on them to implement the changes as well as they should. Such a disconnect means that the company cannot rely on the quality of the final product meeting the standards of quality laid down. Generally speaking, the collaborative style is most efficient when: There is information needed from others. The support of the team is needed for the decision made to work properly. There is enough time for the leaders to manage the decision of the group. All the above factors apply in our current situation making the collaborative method perfect for the company (Vroom & Sternberg, 2002). Though the model might seem complex, it is very useful and efficient. It can be used in new situations or in situation that possess unusual characteristics. An autocratic style of leadership is perfect when: The leader has more knowledge on the subject. The leader is confident about acting alone. The team is most likely to accept the decision made by the leaders without any objections. There lacks enough time for any group discussions to be held on the matter. As such, the dictatorial style of decision making would not be applicable in our case. Reference List ABN Newswire, 2014. Australian Vintage Ltd (ASX:AVG) Signs Distribution Agreement with COFCO. [Online] Available at: http://www.abnnewswire.net/press/en/77927/Australian_Vintage_Ltd_%28ASX:AVG%2 9_Signs_Distribution_Agreement_with_COFCO.html Australian Vintage Ltd, 2011. Our Journey. [Online] Available at: http://www.australianvintage.com.au/OurCompany/OurJourney.aspx Boundless Management, n.d. Leadership and Decision Making: Vroom-Jago. [Online] Available at: https://www.boundless.com/management/textbooks/boundless- management-textbook/leadership-9/contingency-approach-71/leadership-and-decision- making-vroom-jago-354-1411/ DhakaTribune, 2013. Using the Vroom-Yetton-Jago Decision Model to decide how to decide. [Online] Available at: http://www.dhakatribune.com/career/2013/dec/15/using-vroom-yetton-jago- decision-model-decide-how-decide Field, R. H. G., 1979. A Critique of the Vroom-Yetton Contingency Model of Leadership Behavior. The Academy of Management Review, pp. 249-257. Hill, R., 2014. The Vroom-Yetton-Jago Decision Model. [Online] Available at: http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTED_91.htm Srinivasan, B., 2008. Vroom-Yetton-Jago Normative Leadership Decision Model. [Online] Available at: http://leadershipchamps.wordpress.com/2008/11/06/vroom-yetton-jago- normative-leadership-decision-model/ Vroom, V. & Jago, A., 1988. The new leadership: Managing participation in organizations.. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Vroom, V. & Sternberg, R., 2002. Theoretical Letters: The person versus the situation in leadership. The Leadership Quarterly , pp. 301-323. Vroom, V. & Yetton, P., 1973. Leadership and decision-making. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Read More