I recently came across the Vroom-Yetton-Jago decision-making model. The model is a roadmap for making a decision and how much subordinate involvement should be in the decision-making process. Once the problem is defined, then the decision-maker moves through a sequence of questions to:
1. Quality Requirement (QR): How important is the technical quality of the decision?
2. Commitment Requirement (CR): How necessary is a subordinate commitment to the decision?
3. Leader's Information (LI): Do you (the leader) have sufficient information to make a high-quality decision on your own?
4. Problem Structure (ST): Is the problem well structured (e.g., defined, apparent, organized, lend itself to a solution, time-limited, etc.)?
5. Commitment Probability (CP): If you were to decide by yourself, are your subordinates reasonably sure to be committed to the decision?
6. Goal Congruence (GC): Do subordinates share the organizational goals of solving the problem?
7. Subordinate conflict (CO): Is conflict among subordinates over preferred solutions likely?
8. Subordinate information (SI): Do subordinates have sufficient information to make a high-quality decision?
Vroom-Yetton-Jago model demonstrates that most leaders make decisions under a consult or group decision-making style. Autocratic decisions are made only under specific circumstances. The autocratic two decision has the least number of options. Leaders who make the autocratic decision receive information from group members, but then the leader decides independently. The quality requirement is high, and the commitment required is also high. The leader's information is already high when going into the decision-making process. Finally, the leader can decide when the commitment probability is also high. The model also points to circumstances with low goal congruence and low subordinate conflict where a leader can make an A2 decision. But overall A2 decisions again require specific circumstances.
Autocratic one decisions have limited pathways. For example:
When the quality requirements are high, but the commitment required is low, and the level of leader information is also high, this can lead to an A1 decision.
When the quality requirement is low but the commitment required is low, this can also lead directly to an A1 decision.
When the quality requirement is low, and the commitment required is high, there needs to be a high commitment probability for an A1 decision.
Overall, I think this exercise is helpful as an initial strategy step. Finding a real-life example in my experience is a challenging task as most of the managerial decisions of my superiors use the stakeholder model of decision making.
I see two things wrong with this model, and precisely this example. The first thing is that the model based on this pathway eliminated subordinate information from the decision matrix. If you look at the chart, SI is not even factored in. It would only factor in if the commitment probability were low. However, its subordinate information is a critical part of this decision; hence, if the subordinate leader does not have sufficient information, this model does not have a solution except for the leader to make a decision independently. Secondly, this model does not consider the speed of decisions or the team's dynamics (Mindtools, 2022). Also, how does this model work with a tall vs. flat structure? How does it work with decentralized command?
I found it interesting that four of the five decision-making styles still require the leader to decide on their own. There are various levels of employee participation in the decision, but ultimately the leader makes the decision. It also shows that leadership does need input from their employees but at varying levels. This model does insulate employees from mundane or noncritical decisional information. Using this model could also reduce the number of meetings and allow employees to have more productivity. But again, this is an exercise. I am not sure how you can implement this in music, production, or broadcast. Yet, I see an opportunity in education for senior leadership to have more shared governance. Each of these steps should include another department or another union to gain valuable input into the decision-making process. Something that is often lacking in education. This model has the potential to show that a significant decision is coming and explain the decision-making process. Using parts of this model might build trust and leadership capital between management and employees.
Dr. Mike Testa