I would prefer to share the experience of my friend when he worked in a certain company, a department store, three years ago. He was new in the company and was assigned in the logistics department. Unfortunately, he had a misunderstanding with his co-worker, a team leader, who has been working with the company for about five years. The misunderstanding was about the wrong delivery. The team leader confronted my friend and blamed him and not allowing him to explain the real scenario. The situation caught the attention of the supervisor. My friend was requested to come to the office and received a notice of suspension for insubordination. The decision made by the supervisor was autocratic. Considering the Vroom-Yetton model, the decision falls under the AII, the second variant on the authority decision. The supervisor only considered the information from the team leader and made his problem solution.
The Vroom-Yetton’s seven questions are:
Does the problem have a quality requirement?
Is there sufficient information to make a high-quality decision?
Is the problem structured?
Is subordinate acceptance of the decision important for effective implementation?
Will subordinates accept a decision in which they have not participated?
Are the organizational goals to be obtained in solving the problem shared by employees?
Is the preferred solution likely to reduce insubordinate conflict? .
Technically, the issue between the two workers has a significance in accordance with the policy of the company since it affects the relationship of the employees. However, the technical quality of the decision shows bias because the supervisor just looked into the level of position when he implemented the suspension. For a successful result, it usually depends on the information gathered by the supervisor from the other members of the department to have a commitment to the decision. A sufficient information results in a high-quality decision. For a well-structured problem, a supervisor needs to implement a thorough gathering of information to understand what he needs to address the issue and what truly defines a good decision. In addition, a supervisor should make sure that the entire team will accept the decision being made even he made it in an autocratic way. Necessarily, the goals of the team should have the consistency in accordance with the goals of the entire company in order to set the right definition of a successful solution. Through a unified decision, there is no conflict among the team, if any, at least negligible.
Generally, the Vroom-Yetton model is a good model and I recommend this model because it has good decision-making styles. The model recommends the consultative or collaborative styles. It implies that a supervisor as a leader needs information from the other members of the company to solve the issue. Additionally, the styles are most appropriate when the definition of the issue is not clear. The recommended styles provide an enough time for the supervisor to manage a group decision. On the other hand, an autocratic style is only most efficient when a supervisor has the expertise on the issue or subject compared with others, confident enough to act alone, the entire team will accept the decision, and only a little time available to make the decision. Overall, the Vroom-Yetton decision model is a process that fits different situations. It is still necessary to analyze the situation and evaluate the existing issue to have a quality decision that is accepted by everyone in the company. The Vroom-Yetton model defines the logical approach, which style leaders should adopt and useful for them. Good leadership styles balance the benefits of the entire team with the necessity to formulate decisions effectively.
Reference
Paul, R. J., & Ebadi, Y. M. (1989). Leadership decision making in a service organization: A field
test of the Vroom-Yetton model. Journal Of Occupational Psychology, 62 (3), 201-211.
