The true value of the model developed by Tannenbaum and Schmidt lies in its use for making practical and desirable decisions. According to these authors, the three primary factors, or forces, that influence a manager’s determination of which leadership behavior to use in making decisions are as follows:

1. Forces in the Manager —Managers should be aware of four forces within themselves that influence their determination of how to make decisions as a leader. The first force is the manager’s values, such as the relative importance to the manager of organizational efficiency, personal growth, the growth of subordinates, and company profits. For example, a manager who values subordinate growth highly will probably want to give group members the valuable experience of making a decision even though he or she could make the decision much more quickly and efficiently alone.

   The second influencing force is level of confidence in subordinates. In general, the more confidence a manager has in his or her subordinates, the more likely it is that the manager’s decision-making style will be democratic, or subordinate-centered. The reverse is also true: The less confidence a manager has in subordinates, the more likely it is that the manager’s decision-making style will be autocratic, or boss-centered.

   The third influencing force within the manager is personal leadership strengths. Some managers are more effective at issuing orders than leading group discussions, and vice versa. Managers must be able to recognize their own leadership strengths and capitalize on them.

   The fourth influencing force within the manager is tolerance for ambiguity. The move from a boss-centered style to a subordinate-centered style means some loss of certainty about how problems will be solved. A manager who is disturbed by this loss of certainty will find it extremely difficult to be successful as a subordinate-centered leader.

2. Forces in Subordinates —A manager also should be aware of forces within subordinates that influence the manager’s determination of how to make decisions as a leader.³⁴ To lead successfully, the manager needs to keep in mind that subordinates are both somewhat different and somewhat alike and that any cookbook approach to leading all subordinates is therefore impossible. Generally speaking, however, managers can increase their leadership success by allowing subordinates more freedom in making decisions when:

   • The subordinates have a relatively high need for independence (people differ greatly in the amount of direction they desire).

   • They have a readiness to assume responsibility for decision making (some see additional responsibility as a tribute to their abilities; others see it as someone above them “passing the buck”).

   • They have a relatively high tolerance for ambiguity (some employees prefer to be given clear-cut directives; others crave a greater degree of freedom).

   • They are interested in the problem and believe solving it is important.

   • They understand and identify with the organization’s goals.

   • They have the necessary knowledge and experience to deal with the problem.

   • They have learned to expect to share in decision making (people who have come to expect strong leadership and then are suddenly told to participate more fully in decision making are often upset by this new experience; conversely, people who have enjoyed a considerable amount of freedom usually resent the boss who assumes full decision-making powers).

   If subordinates do not have these characteristics, the manager should probably assume a more autocratic, or boss-centered, approach to making decisions.

3. Forces in the Situation —The last group of forces that influence a manager’s determination of how to make decisions as a leader are forces in the leadership situation. The first such situational force is the type of organization in which the leader works. Organizational factors, including the size of working groups and their geographic distribution, are especially important influences on leadership style. Extremely large work groups or wide geographic separations of work groups, for example, could make a subordinate-centered leadership style impractical.

   The second situational force is the effectiveness of a group. To gauge this force, managers should evaluate such issues as the experience of group members in working together and the degree of confidence they have in their abilities to solve problems as a group. As a general rule, managers should assign decision-making responsibilities only to effective work groups.

   The third situational force is the problem to be solved. Before deciding to act as a subordinate-centered leader, a manager should be sure the group has the expertise necessary to make a decision about the problem in question. If it does not, the manager should move toward more boss-centered leadership.

   The fourth situational force is the time available to make a decision. As a general guideline, the less time available, the more impractical it is to assign decision making to a group because a group typically takes more time than an individual to reach a decision.

As the situational approach to leadership implies, managers will be successful decision makers only if the method they use to make decisions appropriately reflects the leader, the followers, and the situation.

Tannenbaum and Schmidt’s 1957 article on leadership decision making was so widely accepted that the two authors were invited by Harvard Business Review in the 1970s to update their original work.³⁵ In this update, they warn that in modern organizations, the relationship among forces within the manager, subordinates, and situation has become more complex and more interrelated since the 1950s, which obviously makes it harder for managers to determine how to lead.

The update also points out that new organizational environments have to be considered when determining how to lead. For example, such factors as affirmative action and pollution control—which hardly figured into managers’ decision making in the 1950s—have become significant influences on the decision making of leaders since the 1970s.

The VYJ model suggests five different decision styles or ways that leaders make decisions. These styles range from autocratic (the leader makes the decision) to consultative (the leader makes the decision after interacting with the followers) to group-focused (the manager meets with the group, and the group makes the decision). All five decision styles within the VYJ model are described in Figure 13.6.

The VYJ model, presented in Figure 13.7, is a method for determining when a leader should use which decision style. As you can see, the model is a type of decision tree. To determine which decision style to use in a particular situation, the leader starts at the left of the decision tree by stating the organizational problem being addressed. Then the leader asks a series of questions about the problem as determined by the structure of the decision tree until he or she arrives at the decision style appropriate for the situation at the far right side of the model.

Consider, for example, the bottom path of the decision tree. After stating an organizational problem, the leader determines that a decision related to that problem has a low-quality requirement, that it is important for subordinates be committed to the decision, and that it is uncertain whether a decision made solely by the leader will be committed to by subordinates. In this situation, the model suggests that the leader use the GII decision—that is, the leader should meet with the group to discuss the situation and then allow the group to make the decision.

The VYJ model seems promising. Research on an earlier version of this model yielded some evidence that managerial decisions consistent with the model are more successful than are managerial decisions inconsistent with the model.³⁷ The model is rather complex, however, and therefore is difficult for practicing managers to apply.³⁸