1. Leadership as a Contingency: “It Depends on the Situation” An Example of a Model

2. Assets and Liabilities of Group Decision Making More complete information and knowledge More complete information and knowledge More diversity of views; more creative. More diversity of views; more creative. Increased acceptance of the decision Increased acceptance of the decision Increased understanding of decisions Increased understanding of decisions Job satisfaction Job satisfaction Personal development Personal development Pressures for conformity Pressures for conformity Domination by the few Domination by the few Ambiguous authority Ambiguous authority Winning the argument Winning the argument More time to reach decision More time to reach decision Groupthink Groupthink Potential for conflict & misunderstanding Potential for conflict & misunderstanding Social loafing Social loafing AssetsLiabilities

4. Buy now http://www.teleometrics.com/frontEnd/cm_catalogPage.jsp?categoryID=21 http://www.teleometrics.com/frontEnd/cm_catalogPage.jsp?categoryID=21

5. NO CONTINGENCIES or SITUATIONAL FACTORS IDENTIFIED

6. Why Trait and Behavior Approaches Fall Short Behavioral approaches attempt to specify which kinds of leader behaviors are necessary for effective leadership. Behavioral approaches attempt to specify which kinds of leader behaviors are necessary for effective leadership. Trait approaches consider personal characteristics of the leader that may be important in achieving success in a leadership role. Trait approaches consider personal characteristics of the leader that may be important in achieving success in a leadership role. Fail to take into account the interaction between: 1. leaders behavior, and 2. tasks, and The situation, the “contingencies ” Fail to take into account the interaction between: 1. leaders behavior, and 2. tasks, and The situation, the “contingencies ”

7. A Contingency Model Participation in Decision Making: Vroom et. al. http://mba.yale.edu/framesets/faculty.asp?/faculty/professors/vroom.htm http://mba.yale.edu/framesets/faculty.asp?/faculty/professors/vroom.htm

8. Criteria for Judging Decision Effectiveness The quality or rationality of the decision defined as the extent to which decisions influence employee performance and the further attainment of organizational goals. The quality or rationality of the decision defined as the extent to which decisions influence employee performance and the further attainment of organizational goals. The acceptance of the decision, defined as the degree of employee commitment to executing the decision effectively. The acceptance of the decision, defined as the degree of employee commitment to executing the decision effectively. The amount of time available to make the decision, in other words, efficiency. The amount of time available to make the decision, in other words, efficiency. Source: The work of Victor Vroom

9. FIVE DECISION STYLES A MANAGER CAN CHOOSE DECISION STYLEDEFINITION AIManager makes the decision alone. Manager asks for information from subordinates but makes the decision alone. Subordinates may or may not be informed about what the problem is. Manager shares the problems with subordinates and asks for information and evaluations. Meetings take place as dyads, not as a group, and the manager then goes off alone and makes the decision. Manager and subordinates meet as a group to discuss the problem, but the manager makes the decision. Manager and subordinates meet as a group to discuss the problem, and the group makes the decision. NOTE: A = Autocratic; C = Consultation; G Group Source: Victor H. Vroom and Phillip W. Yetton, Leadership and Decision Making (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1973). AII CI CII GII

10. G. Is conflict among subordinates likely in preferred solutions? B. Do I have sufficient information to make a high-quality decision? A. Does the problem possess a quality requirement? C. Is the problem structured? D. Is acceptance of the decision by subordinates important for effective implementation E. If I were to make the decision by myself, am I reasonably certain that it would be accepted by my subordinates? F. Do subordinates share the organizational goals to be attained in solving this problem? HOW MUCH SUBORDINATE PARTICIPATION? QUESTIONS THAT DEFINE THE SITUATIONAL CONSTRAINTS-THE CONTINGENCIES

11. A B C D E F G State the Problem No Yes No Yes 1: AI, AII, CI, CII, GII 2: GII 3: AI, AII, CI, CII, GII 4: AI, AII, CI, CII 5: GII 6a: CII 6b: CII 7: AII, CI, CII 8: AII, CI, CII, GII 9: CII 10: CII, GII 11: GII 12: CII GII

12. Other Situational Factors to Consider Geographic dispersion: Are there costs involved in bringing together, geographically dispersed subordinates? Geographic dispersion: Are there costs involved in bringing together, geographically dispersed subordinates? Motivation-development: How important is it to you to maximize the opportunities for subordinate development? Motivation-development: How important is it to you to maximize the opportunities for subordinate development? Positional authority (power) of the boss. Positional authority (power) of the boss.

13. Shorthand: A Participative Situation is Likely to Have the Following Elements: The problem or decision is important to the organization. The problem or decision is important to the organization. The manager is not an expert in the area of the problem, and his/her direct reports are. The manager is not an expert in the area of the problem, and his/her direct reports are. The problem is unstructured, thereby requiring creativity and ingenuity. The problem is unstructured, thereby requiring creativity and ingenuity. The direct reports will be involved in the executive of the solution to the problem, and their commitment will be beneficial to the effectiveness of that role. The direct reports will be involved in the executive of the solution to the problem, and their commitment will be beneficial to the effectiveness of that role. The nature of the relationship between the manager and direct reports makes their commitment to his/her own solution unlikely. The nature of the relationship between the manager and direct reports makes their commitment to his/her own solution unlikely. Direct reports would be unlikely to disagree about which solution would be most effective. Direct reports would be unlikely to disagree about which solution would be most effective.

14. Size? 3! = 6 4! = 24 5! = 120 6! = 720 7! = 5,040 8! = 40,320 9! = 362,880 10! = 3,628,800 11! = 399,168,000

15. Characteristics of a Group that “Feels” Like a Team The group is committed to a common goal or purpose. A meaningful purpose is the glue that holds the team together. The group is committed to a common goal or purpose. A meaningful purpose is the glue that holds the team together. Members have clear roles and responsibilities. Member must understand how they can draw upon each other’s experience, ability, and commitment in order to arrive at mutual goals. Members have clear roles and responsibilities. Member must understand how they can draw upon each other’s experience, ability, and commitment in order to arrive at mutual goals. There is a communication structure that fosters the sharing of information. Individuals must be willing and able to share their own ideas and listen carefully to others. There is a communication structure that fosters the sharing of information. Individuals must be willing and able to share their own ideas and listen carefully to others. The group must have a sense of mutual accountability. Success and failure is a team event. The group must have a sense of mutual accountability. Success and failure is a team event.

16. Responsibility Chart Actors Group Decisions Code: R Responsibility to initiate A Approval (right to veto) S Supplies (support or resources) I Needs to be informed

17. Decision Authority Chart Method Decision Code: BI Boss decides BII Boss consults individuals GB Group meets/boss decides G&B Group/boss meet and decide G Boss delegates and group decides

18. AGENDA Problems to solve Problems to solve Problems to discuss but not necessarily expect to solve Problems to discuss but not necessarily expect to solve Information to discuss Information to discuss