Leader-Participation Model is leadership theory that provides a set of rules to determine the form and amount of participative decision-making in different situations in the organization. Back in 1973, Victor Vroom and Phillip Yetton developed a leader-participation model that related leadership behavior and participation to decision making in the organization.
Recognizing that task structures have varying demands for routine and non-routine activities, these i« searchers argued that leader behavior must adjust to reflect the task structure in the organization.
Vroom and Yetton’s model was normative—it provided a sequential set of rules that should be followed for determining the form and amount of participation desirable in decision making, as dictated by different types of situations in the organization.
The model was a complex decision tree incorporating seven contingencies (whose relevance could be identified by making “yes” or “no” choices) and five alternative leadership styles.
More recent work by Vroom and Arthur Jago has resulted in a revision of this model without any barrier. The new model retains the same five alternative leadership styles but expands the contingency variables to twelve, ten of which are answered along a five-point scale. Table given below lists the twelve variables.
The model assumes that any of five behaviors may be feasible in a given situation in the organization—Autocratic I (AI), Autocratic II (All), Consultative I (CI), Consultative II (CII) and Group II (Gil):
You solve the problem or make a decision yourself using information available to you at that time in the organization.
You obtain the necessary information from subordinates in the organization and then decide on the solution to the problem yourself. You may or may not tell subordinates what the problem is when getting the information from them.
The role played by your subordinates in making the decision is clearly one of providing the necessary information in the organization to you rather than generating or evaluating alternative solutions.
You share the problem with relevant subordinates individually, getting their ideas and suggestions without bringing them together as a group. Then you make the decision, which may or may not reflect subordinates’ influence in the organization.
You share the problem with your subordinates as a group, collectively obtaining their ideas and suggestions. Then you make the decision that may or may not reflect you subordinates’ influence in the organization.