UPI Study › Courses › Foundations of Leadership › Free lessons › Lesson 7.4 Free with a free account
The Vroom-Yetton Model
Foundations of Leadership · Chapter 7: Decision-Making ModuleSection 7.4 · lesson 41 of 9010 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Foundations of Leadership.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Foundations of Leadership
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: The Incremental Model →← Seven Steps to Effective Decision MakingNext lesson: The Incremental Model →
In this lesson
Not what to decide, but who should be involved, how much, and on what basis.
- Name the five decision styles from AI to GII
- Work the seven situational questions
- Separate decision quality from decision acceptance
- Choose within a feasible set, and justify it
Free study notes
Get this lesson's notes by email
The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.
One email. Unsubscribe in one click.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,421 words). Read along, or search it.
Decision-Making Module
The Vroom-Yetton Model
Every framework in this module so far has been about the content of a decision. What gets chosen, and on what grounds. Victor Vroom and Philip Yetton asked a different question in nineteen seventy-three. How should the decision be made, and with whom? Their insight was that there is no single best leadership style for deciding. Sometimes an autocratic call is entirely appropriate. Sometimes a consultative process is essential. And sometimes the decision has to be made jointly with the team. The model turns that intuition into a decision tree of its own. A structured set of diagnostic questions that recommends a style for a situation. It remains one of the most empirically tested contingency models in the literature.
The Question
A Different Thing to Get Right
To see why the model was needed, look at where the field stood in the late nineteen sixties. Leadership scholarship had already moved past one assumption. The assumption that a single style was universally best. Democratic, participative, charismatic. None of them held up as a universal answer. The behavioural turn had shown that styles could be learned. The contingency turn had shown that the right style depended on the situation. So the gap was practical, not theoretical. There was no usable model that told a manager, in a specific case, which style to adopt. Vroom and Yetton built exactly that. And Vroom, with Arthur Jago, refined it in nineteen eighty-eight.
Two Failures
A Decision Can Be Wrong in Two Unrelated Ways
Their starting point was that a decision can fail in two completely unrelated ways. It can be technically wrong. The analysis was flawed, or the chosen alternative was inferior. That is a failure of decision quality. Or it can be technically right, and still operationally unworkable. Because the people responsible for executing it never accepted it. That is a failure of decision acceptance. Treating these two as separate criteria is the model's key analytical move. Because different situations weight them very differently. Some decisions need only quality. A routine technical fix, with no one to convince. Some need only acceptance. A scheduling change where several options all work. And many need both, in which case the process has to serve both. The recommended style follows from which combination the situation actually requires.
Five Styles
From Deciding Alone to Deciding Together
Vroom and Yetton defined five styles, on a spectrum from highly autocratic to fully group-based. The labels use a two-character code. A for autocratic, C for consultative, G for group. In A one, the leader decides alone, using information already available to them. In A two, the leader obtains information from team members, but still decides alone. And the team may not even know what the issue is. In C one, the leader shares the problem with each team member individually, then decides alone. In C two, the leader shares the problem with the team as a group, then decides alone. Notice that both consultative styles still end with the leader deciding. Only in G two do the leader and the team share the problem and reach a consensus together. That distinction, between consulting and sharing authority, is the one people most often blur.
The Route
How the Diagnosis Runs
To recommend a style, the model asks the manager seven yes-or-no questions about the situation. Those answers drive a path through a branching decision tree. Each answer narrows the set of styles that remain acceptable. The questions fall into three families. Quality requirements. Is a technically right answer needed here? Information adequacy. Does the leader already have what they need? And acceptance and commitment. Will the team buy in? What comes out at the end of the tree is worth noting carefully. It is not a single style. It is a set of styles that would all work. The leader still has a choice to make inside that set.
Questions One to Three
Quality, Information, Structure
Take the first three questions, which are all about getting the answer right. Question one. Is there a quality requirement? If there is not, almost any style works, so lean toward the fastest one. Question two. Does the leader have enough information to decide alone? If not, consultation becomes necessary for quality. That is worth emphasising. Consultation here is not politeness. It is an information strategy. Question three. Is the problem structured? Unstructured problems benefit from group input, because the shape of the problem is itself in doubt. Notice what these three questions do not ask about. They say nothing at all about whether anyone will act on the answer.
Questions Four to Seven
Acceptance, Alignment, Conflict
The remaining four questions handle exactly that. Question four. Is team acceptance critical to implementation? If yes, autocratic styles risk implementation failure, whatever the quality of the answer. Question five. Would the team accept an autocratic decision anyway? If not, consultative or group styles become necessary. Question six. Do team members share the organisation's goals on this issue? Shared goals make group decision-making safer. That question quietly rules something out that people assume is always safe. Consensus is not automatically the responsible choice. Handing a decision to a group whose goals diverge from the organisation's imports that divergence. And question seven. Is conflict likely among team members? High conflict does not forbid participation. It requires careful process design.
The Subtlety
The Tree Gives You a Set, Not an Answer
Here is the subtlety that most summaries of the model miss. The tree usually produces a feasible set, rather than one recommended style. Two or more styles, all of them acceptable for this situation. So the leader still has to choose within the set. The original nineteen seventy-three model recommends the style that takes the least time. Which is usually the most autocratic option remaining. That rule reflects the original emphasis on managerial productivity. The nineteen eighty-eight revision by Vroom and Jago added a second rule. A time-investment, or development-oriented, option. It recommends moving toward the more participative end of the feasible set. When developing the team's capability is itself an important goal. A leader who always picks the fast end is making a real trade, whether or not they notice. Time saved now, against capability never built. The revision exists because the original rule made that trade invisible.
Case
October or January
A worked example, from a consumer-electronics firm in Bangalore, in twenty twenty-three. The choice was when to launch a new earbud line. October, catching the festive market. Or January, allowing more thorough testing. The product manager ran the Vroom-Yetton questions. There was a quality requirement, so question one was yes. The manager did not have full information about supply readiness, so question two was no. Acceptance by the engineering team was critical to a successful launch. Question four, yes. And the engineering team would not accept an autocratic call. Question five, no. That narrowed the feasible set to C two and G two. The manager chose C two, on the grounds that the decision was time-sensitive. The problem was shared with the full engineering team in a single meeting, and then decided. The launch went ahead in January. And post-launch engineering surveys confirmed strong commitment to the schedule.
Evidence and Limits
It Tests Well. It Also Assumes a Lot.
The model has held up unusually well to empirical testing. Multiple studies from the nineteen seventies onward point the same way. Managers who follow the model's recommendations make decisions their teams rate as more effective. More effective than the decisions of managers who ignore it. Its specificity is a major reason for that durability. Concrete styles, concrete questions, a concrete recommendation. The limitations are just as worth stating. Seven yes-or-no questions oversimplify situations that are usually more nuanced. Many real decisions sit right on the line between yes and no. The model also treats the leader as the sole agent who decides how to decide. That fits a hierarchical organisation. It is awkward in flatter, networked teams. And the original time-efficient rule can encourage premature autocratic decisions. In exactly the settings where developing team capability matters more than short-run speed.
Consolidate
Forty-Five Minutes Nobody Could Spare
One last case, because it tests the model under the worst conditions available. During the second wave of the Covid nineteen pandemic in twenty twenty-one. The medical director of a tertiary hospital in Mumbai had to reallocate intensive care beds. Between Covid and non-Covid patients. Quality requirements were extreme. The director had reasonable information, but not complete data. And acceptance by senior clinicians was essential. The director chose a C two process. A forty-five minute meeting. Department heads were briefed on the problem and asked for input. After which the director made the call. A full consensus process would have taken too long, given the rate new admissions were arriving. That is the case that answers the obvious objection about speed. The value of even briefly consulting the people who must implement a decision. It dwarfs the cost of the consultation itself.
About Foundations of Leadership at UPI Study
Foundations of Leadership (Business 205) is a self-paced online course of 90 video lessons in 12 chapters, from the roots of leadership theory and the trait, situational and transformational approaches to power, decision-making, communication, teams, conflict, diversity and global leadership. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Business courses Every course with PRO →
Compare: Management and leadership courses · Foundations of Leadership vs Leadership and OB
Why take it here
Why students take Foundations of Leadership with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Foundations of Leadership carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About The Vroom-Yetton Model
What is the Vroom-Yetton model of leadership?
What are the five decision-making styles in the Vroom-Yetton model?
What is the difference between decision quality and decision acceptance?
How does a leader choose between acceptable styles in the Vroom-Yetton model?
About the Foundations of Leadership course
How many college credits is Foundations of Leadership?
How much does Foundations of Leadership cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Foundations of Leadership take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Foundations of Leadership.
90 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →