Leadership Decisions Assessing Organizational Capacity

Leadership Decisions

Assessing Organizational Capacity for Change

Organizational leadership, decision-making, and change

Determine the feasibility of leadership solutions according to typology of decisions and decision-making

According to the Vroom-Yetton Model of organizational leadership and decision-making, there is no singular leadership or decision-making style that is ideal: rather it depends on the type of proposed change for the organization that is under consideration. For example, when making a decision that requires a definitive response and is likely to be supported by the majority of the organization, an Autocratic I (AI) model of decision-making may be acceptable. In this model, the leader makes a unilateral decision, based upon information to which only he or she is privy. Another type of autocratic decision-making model, the Autocratic II (AII) approach, is when the leader solicits information from others and then makes the decision independently. This presumes that the leaders' followers have value only as source of data, not as decision-makers and there is already strong support for the type of change proposed by the leader (Shackleton 1995, p.34).

If the decisions in question are divisive and the leader cannot obtain high-quality information to make the decision, the individuals solicited for input are likely to resent their subordinate status and the lack of respect the leader has shown for their intelligence and expertise. The group may then engage in passive acts of change resistance. The autocratic models should be avoided unless the decision is 'pro forma,' requires little input or commitment from others, and the leader has enough information to make a good decision, based his or her personal basis of information.

In the Collaborative I (CI) model of decision-making the leader shares the problem or proposal with certain trusted associates as individuals and then makes his or her decision alone. This has the benefit of generating honest input from others, without social pressures. But if the followers are aware that this is the decision-making method being deployed, it can stimulate political in-fighting, as they try to undercut the advice given by their rivals to the leaders. It is not advisable to use this model when there is a low degree of congruence between the personal agendas of the subordinates and the larger organizational mission.

In the Collaborative II (CII) model, followers are assembled as a group, give their input, and the leader makes the final decision. Collaborative types of models are likely to be superior when a heavy amount of 'buy-in' is required, but ultimately a single decision needs to be made by someone with expert knowledge, and the ability to assimilate data in a holistic fashion (Shackleton 1995, p.34). Finally, in the Group II (GII) model, the leader shares the problem with his or her followers, and reaches a true consensus with the group. The leader does not influence the result.

The Group II model requires a great deal of time, so only decisions where time is not of the essence may be relegated to Group II methods (Shackleton 1995, p.36). For this type of time investment, the proposed change is likely to be important, and require a great deal of effort by the implementers of the change. Subordinates must also have a high level of quality of information, and it must be feasible to bring them into the same area for a prolonged period. There must be a great deal of goal congruence between the self-interest of the members of the group and the organization as a whole. In the Collaborative II model, a leader can still solicit information and prospective solutions, but the leader can filter the personal self-interest of the subordinates.

Discuss the methods applied for gaining buy-in to solutions

Both autocratic models require an organization with a great deal of personal trust in the leader, a leader who is able to obtain high-quality information, and where subordinates will be willing to implement the decision and see no personal conflict of interest. Buy-in can be generated through the leader's charisma, fear, or force of hierarchy, while in the collaborative models, pleasing the leader and advancing within the organization can act as a 'buy-in' facilitator. The group model commands the highest degree of personal investment, given that the subordinates 'own' the decision, but it also is the most cumbersome of all the models.