Normative Leadership Style

In this article have analyzed normative leading theory, a theory that is theoretically elegant and characteristically practical. withal in todays increasingly changing global business organisation scenarios, this robust theory enables Leader to select one of the five leading expressive styluss namely decide, consult individually, consult stem, facilitate and delegate by apply the patterns m-driven and using-driven ratiocination tree. Trait and Behavioural Theory Timeline In the 1930s leadership theories were based on leaders traits. Two dimensional behavioral theory (autocratic versus democratic) was published at University of Iowa in 1939.In 1940s University of kale published Job centered versus employee centered theories and in mid mid-fifties University of Ohio published considerations versus structure theories. In 1960s Fredrick came out with deuce factor theory maintenance or extrinsic factor versus motivators or indispensable factors. In 1967 McGregor suggested leadership behaviors based on different assumptions on employee motivations in describing his Theory X and Theory Y. Birth of Contingency leadership Theory In 1970s, it became evident that no single leadership style is best for all situations leaders need to change their leadership style to suit situation.Researchers then started working on situational and contingency factors which led to the reading of contingency theories such as Fiedler theory (1967), leadership continuum theory (Tannenbaum & deoxyadenosine monophosphate Schmidt, 1973), Path goal theory (Ho physical exercise & adenosine monophosphate Mitchell, 1974) and Normative theory (Vroom & Yetton, 1973 Vroom & Jago, 1988, 1995). While Fiedler theory recommends changing the situation or else than changing leadership style, rest of the contingency theories recommend using upright style at right situation to deliver effective leadership.Normative Leadership Theory In 1973 Vroom and Yetton developed a contingency mod el based on the leaders choice of autocratic versus participative responses to conclusiveness making situations. Extensive validation research of the model resulted in the development of Vroom-Jago model in 1988 (again updated in 1995). The research aimed to develop taxonomy for describing leadership situations, which could be used in a normative model linking situations to the leadership styles.A distinguish of seven situational variables were used (Vroom & Yetton, 1973) to predict which among the five leadership styles would be the most effective to deal with the situation. Vroom conducted extensive empirical studies to check out how leaders behavior is affected by situation approach by leader keep. The studies were conducted with a focus on the leadership voice and on how differences in the challenges that leader face would affect leaders behavior. The five leadership styles ar (1) Decide The leader makes the last and announces it or sells it to the fol minusculeing.Lea der may gather randomness from others within the group and outside the group without specifying the worry, (2) consult Individually The leader explains foldepressioner individually about the problem, gathers information and suggestions and then makes the last, (3) Consult Group The leader holds a group coming upon, explains followers the problems, gathers information and suggestions and then makes the close, (4) further The leader holds a group meeting and acts as a facilitator to define the problem and the limits within which a decision must be made.The leader seeks participation and concurrence on the decision without pushing his or her ideas and (5) destine The leader lets the group diagnose the problem and make the decision within stated limits. The role of the leader is to event questions, provide encouragement and resources. Originally seven situational variables were identified to upshot the questions with full(prenominal) (H) or low (L) score. These are (1) Decisi on significance How important is the decision to the success of the project or organization naughty or low? 2) grandness of Commitment How important is the follower commitment to implement the decision high or low? (3) Leader expertise How much experience and expertness does the leader have with this specific decision high or low? (4) Likelihood of commitment If the leader were to make the decision alone, is the consequence that the followers would be committed to the decision high or low? (5) Group support for objectives Do followers have high or low support for the team or organizational goals to be accomplish in solving the problems? 6) Group Expertise How much knowledge and expertise do the individual followers have with this specific decision high or low? and (7) police squad Competence Is the ability of the individuals to work unitedly as a team to solve the problem high or low? Not all seven variables/ questions above are applicable to all decisions. A minimum of two and maximum of seven questions are needed to select the most take over leadership style in a given situation.During year 2000, Vroom revised the model with eleven variables. Each of these eleven is a moderator variables linking leadership style with components of decision intensity level. nigh of these eleven variables have in addition been used in empirical studies to ask how leader behavior is affected by the situation faced by the leader. Both Time-Driven Model and Development-Driven Model using seven variables are presented in vermiform appendix 1 along-with instruction how to use the model.Vrooms theory has also been criticized by many raising questions such as (1) whether small specialize of seven or eleven factors really determines how one should use the answers (2) provide answers depend on the quality of the person who is answering (3) exit answer vary from person to person and time to time and (4) will use of tacit knowledge in evaluating a situation weaken the issuing of the model? These criticisms have resulted in further research and deliberation on the model.All parties (both followers and critics) agreed on the importance of matching of personal qualities and situational fate towards delivering effective leadership in an Organization. They also agreed that leadership effectiveness will depend on the use of realistic scenarios describing actual situations confronting a leader in an organization. Conclusion The powerful model which Vroom and his colleagues at Yale University developed after interacting with more than 100,000 managers making decisions has proved to be a robust and useful model even in todays dynamic business context.The model has identified the following three unambiguous roles that situational variables play in the leadership process. 1. Leadership effectiveness leading to organizational effectiveness is affected by situational factors not under leaders control 2. Situations shape how leaders behave and 3. Situations influence the consequences of leader behavior. Appendix 1 Instruction how to use the model 1. Select one of the two models based on whether the situation is driven by importance of time or development of followers, i. e. short term or long term. 2. cook problem statement. 3.Answer the question from left to right skipping question not appropriate to the situation and avoiding crossing any horizontal line. The last column will prescribe the appropriate leadership participation decision-making style for the situation. Normative Leadership Time-Driven Model Decision Significance? Importance of Commitment? Leader Expertise? Likelihood of Commitment? Group stay? Group Expertise? Team Competence? PROBLEMSTATEMENT H H H H - - - Decide LEADERSHIPSTYLE L H H H destine L Consult (Group) L - L - - L H H H H hurry L Consult (Individually) L - L - - L H H H Facilitate L Consult (Group) L - L - - L H - - - - Decide L - H H H Facilitate L Consult (Individually) L - L - - L H - H - - Decide L - - H Delegate L Facilitate L - - - - - Decide Normative Leadership Development-Driven Model Decision Significance? Importance of Commitment? Leader Expertise? Likelihood of Commitment? Group Support? Group Expertise? Team Competence? PROBLEMSTATEMENT H H - H H H H Delegate LEADERSHIPSTYLE L Facilitate L - Consult (Group) L - - L H H H Delegate L Facilitate L - L - - Consult (Group) L - - H H H Delegate L Facilitate L - Consult (Group) L - - L H - H - - - Decide L - - - Delegate L - - - - - Decide References Achua, Christopher F and Lussier, Robert N. Effective Leadership, 4th Edition, South- Western Cengage culture Chan, Patrick Dr. , Class Lecture Notes Palanski, Michael E. and Yammarino, Francis J. Integrity and Leadership A multi-level conceptual ex emplar The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 405-420 Vroom, Victor H, Yale University and Jago, Arthur G, University of Missouri. Situation Effects and Levels of synopsis in the Study of Leader Participation Leadership Quarterly Vol. 6 No. 2 1995 Vroom, Victor H. Research A New confront at Managerial Decision Making