- Email: [email protected]
Decision-making styles of MIS managers: A comparative evaluation
19
Research
---
Decision-Making Styles of MIS Managers: A Comparative Evaluation Arthur G. Jago and Richard W. Scamell
1. Introduction
l
Department of Managerrrent. College of BusinessAdministration, University of Howton. Central Campus, Houston. TX 77004, USA
MIS managers mJst be capable leaders and decisionmakers; individuals who can effectively manwe subordinate specialists, manage tasks that possess a wide range of characteristics, and work with others in the organization to integrate computer technology into their activities. Recently Bigl,$ proposed that the Vroom/Yetton normative model can be applied to problems or decisions encountered by the MIS manager. T’!& article examines how 50 MIS managers dealt with a set of 30 case situations developed by Vroom and Yetton. When compared to 1647 managers in other organizational functions, the MIS sample is found to display decision-making styles similar to a simple average of the divergent styles found in other disciplines. The styles of MIS managers emphasize the efficient use of time and resources and tend to place a greater emphasis on criteria of decision quality than on criteria of decision acceptance. Keywords: MIS management,
Decision-making
styles,
Vroom/Yetton model
A case study of the 1956 installation of an IBM 705 to serve the accounting and sales divisions of a
large utility perhaps provided the first indication that participative decision-making plays an important role in the administration of the EDP function [lo]. Today this emphasis
on participative
decision
making
Arthur G. J&gois an Associate Professor of Organizational Behavior in the Department of Management, College of Business Administration, University of Houston. He received his B.Sc. (1972) from Northwestern University and hi: M. Phil. (1.975) and Ph.D. (1977) in Adminstrative Sciences from Yale University. Professor Jago’s. research and consulting inter. . ests mctuae managerial leadership, decisiongroup and individual makiig, and motivation. He has published articles in Aca-
demy of Management Journal, Decision Sciences, Human Relations, Journal of Applied fiychology, Management Science, and Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, He is an active member of the Academy of Manage-
ment, the American Psychological Association and the American Institute for Decision Sciences.
* The authors wkh to thank V.H. Vroom for providing a portion of the comparison data used in this investigation. This research was funded by an LGi A grant from the University of Houston. -. North-Holland Publishing Company Informatlon & Management 5 (1982) 19-29
0378.7206/82/0000-0000/$02.75
0 1982 North-Holland
Richard W. Scarnell is Associate Professor of Management Information Systems in the College of Business Administration, University of HOUSton. He received a Ph.D. in Statistics from The University of Texas at Austin. Author of over twenty articles in professional journals, his current research interests axe directed toward the areas of database management systems, the MIS implementation process, and resource allocation problem% He is a member of the Society For Management Informztion Systems. the Academy of Management, and the Irstitute of Management Sciences.
20
Research
also manifests itself at the systems development level
where there are many advocates of user involvement [e.g.. 6.7, 191. In a departure from traditional treatments of participative management, Biggs [l] describes the application of the Vroom/Yetton [18] contingency approach to the choice of processes for making MIS decisions. Rather than emphasizing the universal appropriateness of others’ involvement in decision-making, this approach stresses the choice of different decision processes in different decision situations. The focus is on the variability and adaptability of an MIS manager’s behavioral responses to decision situations. Biggs addresses the application of the Vroom/Yetton approach ‘0 the MIS function in a strictly normative (i.e., prescriptive) sense. He concludes that it “provides a simple and systematic way to assess issues contingent upon the decision ,... It focuses the project manager’s attention on these issues and helps in choosing a decision process which will minimize disruptive behavioral problems” [ 1, p, 261. Certain descriptive questions, however, remain unanswered. Aside from how MIS managers should make decisions, how do they make decisions? What governs the MIS manager’s choice of autocratic versus participative methods? To what degree do MIS managers conform to the Vroom/Yetton prescriptions? The present investigation addresses such descriptive issues. The decision-making styles of MIS managers are assessed and compared with the prescriptions of the Vroom/Yetton normative model and the beh.avior of managers in six other functional disciplines.
2. The ‘hom/Yetton
Normative ModeI
Vroom and Yetton deal almost exclusively with decision situations for which: the manager has some freedom in determining the decision process adopted, and the solution affects at least two of the manager’s subordinates. For such situations, the five decisionmaking processes describea in Table 1 are available to the manager. The letters in the symbol signify the basic properties of tile process (A for autocratic; C for consultative; G for group.) The roman numerals tha? follow the letters constitute variants on that process. Thus AI represents the first variant on an
Table 1 Types of ManagementDecision Processes AI
- You solve the problem or make the decision yourself using the information available to you at the present time. AI1 - You obtain any necessary information from subordinates, then decide on a solution to the problem yourself. You may or may not tell subordinates the purpose of your questions or give information about the problem or decision you are working on. The input provided by them is clearly ln response to your request for specific information. They do not play a role ln the definition of the problem or in generating or evaluating alternative solutions. CI - You share the problem with the relevant subordinates individually, getting their ideas and suggestions without bringing them together as a group. Then you make the decision. This decision may or may not reflect your subordInates’influence. CD - You share the problem with your subordinates in a group meetlng. In this meeting you obtain their ideas and suggestions. Then, you make the decision which may not reflect your subordinates’ influence, GII - Your share the problem with your subordinates as a group. Together you generate and evaluate alternatlves and attempt’to reach agreement (consensus) on a solution. Your role is much IIke that of chairman, coordinating the discussion, keeping it focused on the problem and making sure that the critical issues are discussed. You can provide the group with Information or ideas that you have but you do not try to “press” them to adopt “your” solution and are willing to accept and Implement any solution which has the support of the entire group.
autocratic process, AII the second variant, and so on. The processes shown in Table 1 are arranged in order of increasing participativeness, i.e., in order of increasing opportunity for subordinates to influence the problem’s solution. The Vroom/Yetton normative model attempts to provide a basis for effective decision-making by matching the appropriate process with relevant properties 01 particular problems. The effectiveness of the decision is assumed to be a function of three elements, each of which may be affected by the decision pro* cess selected: 1. The technical quality or rationality of the decision. 2. The acceptance of or commitment to the decision by those responsible for its execution. 3. The amount of time required to make the decision.
A. G. Jago and R. W. Scarneil /Decision-making ________ d. DOES THE PROBLEM B
DO I HAVE
c
1s TnE
SUfflCIENl
PROBLEM
0. IS ACCEPTANCE E If I WERE 00
G
IS CONfLlCf
Fig.
INfO
h QlJALllY TO MAKE
Styles of MIS M Inaggers
-._________._
___-_
REQUIREMENT’ A HlCtl
QUALITY
21
DECISION’
STRUCTURED’ Of
TO MAKE
SUBOROlNATES
f.
POSSESS
___
AMONG
3ECISION THE SHARE
BY SUBOROINATES
OfcltlON
81
MYSELF.
THE ORGANIZATIONAL
SUBORDINATES
OVER
IMPORTANT
FOR EffECflVE
IS IT REASONABLV GOALS
PRtfERRtD
CERTAIN
TO BE ATTAINED SOLUTIONS
IMPLEMENTATIONS THAT
IT WOULD
IN SOLVING
THIS
BE ACCEPTED
BY
MY
SUBORDINATES?
PROBLEM’
LIKELY’
I.
Their model takes the form of the decision tree shown in Fig. 1. Arranged along the top of the tree are a set of seven problem attributes, labeled A thru G, expressed in the form of simple Yes-No questions
that a leader or manager could ask about the decisionmaking situation. To use the model, one starts at the left-hand side of the tree and works toward the righthand side, asking oneself the questions pertaining to any box that is encountered. At an endpoint, two pieces of information are found. The first defines the problem as one of 13 “problem types” while the second defines the set of appropriate decision processes, called the “feasible set”, for that problem type. Of course, the processes specified for dach problem type are not arbitrary, The specification of the feasible set is governed by seven rules that eliminate alternatives which risk either the quality or acceptance of the decision. These rules, consistent with existing empirical evidence concerning the consequences
of participation, are shown in Table 2. The rules are of two distinct types. Rules 1 through 3 are designed to protect the quality or rationality of the decision; Rules 4 through 7 are designed to protect the acceptance of or commitment to the decision. The decision tree is merely a convenient structure for applying these rules, and once the problem type has been determined, all applicable rules have been applied. It can be seen that there are some problem types for which only onz decision process remains in ‘the feasible set and others for which two, three, four, or even five decision processes remain. When more than one remains, there are a number of ways in which one might choose among them. One method, called Model A and discussed at length by Vroom and Yetton [ 181, uses the number of personhours required by the process of decision making. This assumes that if the alternatives within the feas-
22
Research
Table 2 Rules Underlying the Vroom/Yetton
Normative Mode1
QUALITY RULES The Leader Information Rule ff the quality of the decision is important and the leader does not possess enough information or expertise to solve the problem alone, then Al is eliminated from the feasible set. The Goal Congruence Rule If the quality of the decision is important and subordinates are not likely to pursue the organization goals in their efforts to solve this problem, then Gll is eliminated from the feasible set. The Unstructured Problem Rule In situations in which the quality of the decision is im portant, if the leader lacks the necessary information or expt;rtrse to solve the problem alone, and if the problem, is unstructured, the method of solving the problem shorrld provide for interaction among subordinates likely to p.~sess relevant information. Accordingly, AI, All and Cl, which provide no interaction among subordinates, are eiiminated from the feasible set. KCEPTANCE RULES 7’he 4cceptance Rule If the acceptance of the decision by subordinates is important for effective implementation and if it is not reasonably certain that an autocratic decision will be accepted. Al and All are eliminated from the feasible set. ?-he Conflict Rule If t.he acceptance of the decision Is important, an autccratic decision is not reasonably certain to be acceptea and d&greement among subordinates over possible solutions is likely, the methods used in solving the problem should enable those in disagreement to resolve their differences with full knowledge of the problem. Accordingly, under these conditions, Al, All, and CI, which permit no interaction among subordinates and therefore pr,ovide no opportunity for those In conllict to resolve their differences, are eliminated from the feasible set. Their use runs the risk of leaving some of the subordinates with less than the needed commitment to the final decision. The Fairness Rule Il.’ the quality of the decision is unimportant, but accep t.mcz of the decision is important, and not reasonably certein to result from an autocratic decision, the decirion process used must generate the needed acceptance. The decision process should permit the subordinates to .mteract with one another and negotiate among them&W over the method of resohring any differences with fuIl responsibility on them for determining what is fair and equitable. Accordingly, under these circumstances, AI, AlI, CI and CII are eliminated from the feasible set. lXe Acceptance Priority Rule if acceptance is important, not reasonably certain to re=ult from an autocratic decision and if subordinates
are motivated to pursue the organizational goals represented in the problem, then methods which provide equal partnership in the decision-making process can generate far greater acceptance without risking decision quality. Accordingly, AI, AII, CI and CII are eliminated from the feasible set.
ible set are equal in the probability of generating a rational decision that subordinates will also accept, then a choice among these alternatives based on the time requirement of each will have a short-run beneiii to the organization. On the assumption that more p*lrticipative processes require more time, Model A chooses the most autocratic process within the feasible set (i.e., the left most entry at an endpoint in Figure 1). There are, however, other bases for choice. A manager may wish to choose the most participative alternative that can be used while still producing rational and acceptable problem solutions. Such a position could be grounded in humanistic considerations, emphasizing the intrinsic value of participation, or on pragmatic considerations, such as the utility of participation in developing the technical and managerial Lapabilities of subordinates. A model based on these r:onsiderations is termed Model B, and operationall; involves choice of the most participative process within a feasble set (i.e., the right-most entry zt dn er.dpoint in F’:ure 1). Application of lhe model to several hypothetical MIS cecisions is discussed by Biggs [ 11. Evidence supporting the normative validity of the Vroom/ Yetton model and each of the seven underlying rules in Table 2 is presented Ily Vroom and Jago [ 171, Additionally, Magerison and Glube [9] report correlations between conformity to the model and both economic and attitudinal criteria of organizational success. 3. %ethod TJ understand the decision making styles of MIS managers, their level 0“ agreement with the Vroom/ Yetton normative mcdel and their similarities to and differences from managers in other functional disciplines, a total of 74 managerial personnel in the Houston, Texas metropolitan area were asked to participate in a research project.
A. G Jago ond R. W. Scarnell / Decision-muking Styles of MIS Managers
3.1.
Sltbiects
Of the 74 contacted initially, 50 volunteers (68%) completed all required materials. The mean age of these respondents was 36.0 years (SD = 6.5); the mean length of employment in present position was 7.5 years (SD = 6.7); the mean number of subordinates directly supervised was 7.5 (SD = 6.0). Fifteen of these managers were first-level supervisors and 15 werr: second-level supervisors. Nine were department heads and three were general/executive managers. The rsmaining eight listed their positions as “other.” The comparison group consisted of 1647 managers employed in other functional specialties. These managers were participants in several management development programs conducted over a five year period; they completed the materials required of this investigation as part of those programs. At that time, these managers were asked to report their functional specialty from the following list: (1) Personnel; (2) Finance; (3) Sales/Marketing; (4) Research/Engineering; (5) Production/Operations; (6) General Management: and (7) Other. (Respondents in the “Other” category included managers in strategic planning functions, purchasing and procurement, quality control, public relations, legal department and the like ) At the time of data collection, all subjects were unfamiliar with the Vroom/‘r’etton normative model and did not know the specific purposes of the research. 3.2. Instnments The degree and frequency of participative decision-making were meastred with a set of 30 cases based on actual problems supplied by other managers [3]. Similar to the instrument employed by Vroom and Yetton [ 181, this “Problem Set” asks the respondent to assume the role of the manager in each case and to choose the level of participation he or she would employ to deal with the problem. The cases range from a simple paragraph tc two typed pages and an entire Problem Set requires 14 to 2 hours to complete. Information is imbedded in each case to manipulate the seven problem attributes at the top of the decision tree. The complete set conforms to a multifactorial, repeated measures experimental design in
23
which the main effects of certain problem attributes remain orthogonal, e.g., there are, IS cases within the set where subordinate conflict exists and IS cases where such conflict is absent. Resrronses to the 30 cases are used to compute several scores for each subject, including the frequency with which each of the five decision processes was chosen and, as discussed later, a “mean level of participation” score. In addition, knowing the problem attributes systematically manipulated in each case allows a comparison of respondent behavior with the behavior prescribed for that case by the normative decision tree. Across the set of 30 cases, tlie frequency of agreement with the feasible set, the frequency of agreement with the Model A choice from within the feasible set, and the frequency of agreement with the Model B choice from within the feasible set can be computed. When respondent behavior is outside the feasible set, it is also possible to determine which of the underlying rules in Table 2 were violated. Problem Set design and construction is discussed in greater detail by Vroom and Yetton 1181 and Jago [3]. Evidence supporting the internal and cxtcrnal validity of Problem Set responses is presented by Jago [4] and Jago and Vroom [5]. 3.3. Procedure After an initial contact, participants were mai!ed a Problem Set, standardized instructions, and a preliminary questionnaire requesting certain demographic and organizational information. In return, respmdents were promised a detailed, computerized andysis of their decrsion making style based on their responses to the Problem Set, the format of which is discussed by Vroom [IS]. Respondents were asked to return the completed Problem Set within tc\o weeks. Respondents in the comparison group completed the same Problenr Set prior to their management development workshops, Identical instructions and conditions were employed.
4. Results Vroom and Yetton [ 181 propose that the five decision-making processes can be placed along a
24
Research
representing to th,: amount of opportunity afforded subordinates to participate in decision-making. The numerical values assigned to these processes are as follows: Al = 0; AI1 = 1; CI = 5; Cl1 = 8; GII = 10. Aggregating the scale values for an individua! allows computation of a “mean level of participation” score (0 to 10) reflecting the tendency to be autocratic or participative.
unillimensional
scale
4. I. Participativeness ‘fable 3 contains the mean values of descriptive scores for members of each functional specialty represented in the sample and the F-values obtained from six one-way ANNA’s that treat function as the independent variable and each of the six indices as dependent variables. Managers in different functional specialities differ significantly in their choice of AII, CII and GII and in their mean level of participation scores. MIS managers employ higher than average frequencies of the ,411 process (i.e., autocratic decision-making after inforiiration gathering) and the GII process (i.e.) group decision-making). They employ the lowest frequency of CII (i.e., group consultation) of all the functional groups. Nonetheless, when these differences are accumulated into an overall mean level of participaticn score, they tend to be offsetting, MIS
managers exhibit a mean score (4.94) very close to the overall mean (4.93) as do managers in the research/engineering and “other” categories. These data strongly suggest that the MIS manager is quite similar to other managers: the MIS score falls almost on the midpoint between the score for the most participative (personnel managers) and the most autocratic function (finance managers). Also suggestive is the relative rank order of the decision process choice evident in Table 3. A ranking of the five processes from most used to least used for MIS managers is: CII, AI, CI. GII and All. This rank order is identical to that of managers in five of the seven functions. Personnel and finance managers exhibit only a single reversal in the MIS order. This rank order suggests that managers are not averse to the use of group meetings. This is consistent with evidence that many managers spend a majority of their day in group settings [ 111. At the same time, the results suggest that the typical manager is reluctant to give full decision-making responsibility to subordinate groups (i.e., GII). Instead managers use the group setting as a forum for consultation (i.e., CII). 4.2. Agreement with the Vroom/Yetto,l Normative Model Responses can be compared to the Vroom/Yetton normative model for vidence of conformity with
Table 3 Pafticipativenesshy Functional Specialty Function
N
Meal1Frequency of Choice: Al
--
MeanLevel of Participation
AH
Cl
CII
GII
-
WIS Personnel FiZUlCZ
50 60 189
6.64 6.70 7.65
4.46 3.57 4.47
5.73 5.50 5.22
8.08 8.43 8.40
5.00 5.80 4.27
4.94 5.22 4.68
Sales/!&rketing Research/Engineering Production/Operations General Wuta_eement Other
292 250 300 306 200
7.52 7.24 6.89 7.11 7.09
4.38 3.92 3.64 3.76 4.02
5.34 5.40 5.35 5.42 5.38
8.32 8.62 9.18 8.88 8.12
4.44 4.82 4.94 4.82 4.81
4.74 4.94
AU
1647
7.19
4.00
5.38
8.68
4.75
4.93
F-value
(7.1639)
1.61
3.43 *+
2.09 *
2.23
5.11 5.00 4.96
.-
l l
p < G.05
*p
< 0.01
l
3.82 ‘*
A. G. Jago and R. W. Scamell /Decision-making Styles of MIS Managers
25
Table 4
Agreementwith Normative Model by Functional Specialty Function
MIS Personnel Finance Sales/Marketing Research/Engineering Production/Operations General Management Other -I_ AU --____ 1;-Value
Frequency of Agreement with:
Y
50 60 189 292 250 300 306 200 -_II 1647 -(7, 1639)
Feasible Set
Model A
Model B
21.22 21.30 20.95 20.66 21.39 21.15 20.92 21.09
11.58 11.48 12.40 11.68 12.30 il.42 11.34 11.79
6.88 7.93 6.60 6.48 7.17 1.50 7.26 7.23
21.03
11.75
7.09
2.29
3.66 *+
3.53 *+
l
* p c 0.05 * * p < 0.01
these prescriptions: a high level would indicate that respondents’ personal and subjective “models” are similar to the explicit Vroom/Yettcbn model, but a low level would indicate dissimilarity and suggest violation of the normative prescriptions. Table 4 contains the mean frequencies with which managers chose decision processes that agreed with the feasib!e set, that agreed with Model A, and that agreed with Model B. Overall, the typical MIS manager agreed with the feasible set in 71 percent of the 30 cases. Of these responses, over half were the Model A (timesfficient) selections from the feasible set. Another one-third of these responses conformed
to the highly participative Model B (developmentalj selection from the feasible set. Finance and research/ engineering managers place relatively greater emphasis on the timeefiicient Model A. Personnel and production/operations managers place relatively greater emphasis on the developmental Model B. 4.3. Rule Violations Of course. instances of disagreement (or nonconformity) with the normative model can occur for several reasons. Each time a respondent chooses a decision process outside the feasibie set, he or she has violated one or more of the seven rules that form the
basis for the decision tree. Examination of the freqL:ncies of these violations provides a clearer understanding of the sources of disagreement. For each functional specialty and each rule, Table 5 contains the mean frequency of violation and, in parentheses, the mean rate of violation. Rate of violation is calculated by dividing the frequency of violation by the frequency of applicability of the rule within the 30 case set. Because the rules are constructed to operate only in the presence or absence of certain problem attributes, rules are appliable to only a subset of cases. Rule 1 applies to 12 problem set cases, Rule 2 to 12 cases, Rule 3 to 6 cases, Rule 4 to 10 cases, Rule 5 to 5 cases, Rule 6 to 2 cases, and Rule 7 to 4 cases. Both in terms of frequency of violation and rate of violation, MIS managers violate the four rules designed to protect the acceptance of decisions (Rules 4-7) more Cften than the three designed to protect the quality of decisions (Rules 1-3). Managers in all other functional specialities exhibit a similar pattern of results. Differences among functions do, however, exist. MIS managers display the highest rate of violation of the Conflict Rule ($5) and the lowest rate of vialation of the Acceptance Priority Rule (#7). The Conflict Rule is designed to increase the ac-
26
Research
Table 5 Rule Violation and Functional SpecialtY -~-
t’unction
Frequency of Violation Rules Designed to Protect Decision Quality .Goal ConUnstructured subLeader Problem Total gruence Information Rule (#2> Rule (#:I Rule (#3)
:?:
MIS
50
Personnel
60
Finance
189
Sales/Marketing
292
Research/Engin:ering
250
Production/Operation
300
General Management
306
other
200
ALL
Functions
?-value
1647
(7,1639)
0.70 (5.83%) 0.78 (6.50) 0.84 (7.00) 0.92 (7.67) 0.68 (5.67) 0.88 (7.33) 1.02 (8.50) 0.97 (8.08) 0.88 (7.33) 2.23 +
1.22 (10.2%) 1.48 (12.3) 0.93 (7.8) 1.Ol (8.4) 1.04 (8.7) 1.09 (9.1) 1.13 (9.4) 1.04 (8.7)
2.30 (38.3%) 2.33 (38.8) 2.58 (43.0) 2.65 (44.2) 2.36 (39.3) 2.28 (38.0) 2.49 (41.5) 2.58 (43.0)
4.22 (14.1%) 4.60 (15.3) 4.3s (14.5) 4.58 (15.3) 4.09 (13.6) 4.26 (14.2) 4.63 (15.4) 4.58 (15.3)
1.07 (8.9)
2.47 (41.2)
4.42 (14.7)
1.42
2.20 *
sate: Percentages in parenthesis are “rate of violation” scores, i.e., the frequency of violation number of times a rule is applicable in the 30-case Problem Set. * p < 0.05 +‘ p < 0.01
reptance of certain decisions in which subordinates drsagree over preferred solutions. In situations where subordinate acceptancr: is important and not.likely to result from an autocratic decision, and where conflict among subordinates exists, this rule specifies that either Cl1 or GII must be employed; i.e., conflict is handled by providing a forum (group meeting) for the conflict to be expressed and productively resolved. Of course, a fear that such a forum would unly exacerbate disagreements and polarize differences woluld lead to a high rate of violation of this rule. While all functions display frequent violations, the MIS manager seems particularly fearful about the potential consequences of conflict in a group setting. This is certainly an area where MIS managers and
2.33 * Dressed at a percentage of the
other managers differ from the tenets of the Vroom/ Yetton normative model. The lower than average rate violation of the Acceptance Priority Rule suggests that MIS managers do employ CJI (group decision-making) more often than others when (1) acceptance is important, (2) such acceptance is not certain to result from an autocratic decision, and (3) when subordinate goals are congruent with organizational goals, For such situations, the rule specifies that GII maximizes acceptancz without risking decision quality. However, all functions, including MIS, exhibit a high rate of violation of this rule. This is due to a general reluctance to employ GII. This is another area where MIS managers, other managers, am’.the Vroom/Yetton normative model differ.
A.G. Jago and R. W. Scarnell /Decision-making Sryles ofMIS Managers
Frequency
-MIS Personnel Finance Sales/Marketing Research/Engineering Production/Operations General Management Other
ALL Functions
F-value
of Violation of Rules Designed to Protect Acceptance of Decision --
Ac=p tance Rule (1y4)
Conflict
2.06 (20.6%) 1.82 (18.2) 2.25 (22.5) 2.34 (23.4) 1.93 (19.3) 2.04 (20.4) 2.06 (20.6) 1.90 (19.0) 2.08 (20.8) 2.56 +
27
Fairness Rule (#6)
Accept. Priority Rule (#7>
Sub Total
Grand Total
2.58 (5 1.6%) 2.20 (44.0) 2.39 (47.8) 2.S6 (51.2) 2.32 (46.4) 2.18 (43.6) 2.35 (47.0) 2.25 (45 .O)
1.16 (58.0%) 1.15 (57.5) 1.15 (57.5) 1.11 (55.5) (5::: 1.23 (61.5) 1.15 (57.5) 1.04 (52.0)
2.40 (60.0%) 2.43 (60.8) 2.79 (69.8) 2.86 (71.5) 2.68 (67.0) 2.62 (65.5) 2.72 (68.0) 2.73 (68.3)
8.20 (39.0%) 7.60 (36.2) 8.58 (40.‘., 8.87 (12.2) 7.98 (38.0) 8.07 (38.4) 8.27 (39.4) 7.91 (37.7)
12.42 (24.4%) 12.20 (23.9) 12.93 (25.4) 13.45 (26.4) 12.06 (23.6) 12.33 (24.2) 12.91 (25.3) 12.49 (24.5)
2.35 (47.0)
1.13 (56.5)
2.71 (67.8)
8.26 (39.3)
12.68 (24.9)
Rule C#W
2.48
l
5. Concluding Remarks Discussions concerning the relative effectiveness of autocratic versus democratic leadership styles rely heavily on certain presumed benefits of participative decision-making. Morse and Reimer 1121 argue that democratic leadership provides followers with the opportunity to express and fulfIl1 individual needs while accomplishing group goals. The opportunity for regulating and controlling their own activities enhances psychological identification with the group and its task and provides a means for satisfying ego-esteem and self-actualization needs through the work of the group. Morale and group productivity are therefore both thought to benefit from a democratic leadership style.
1.81
3.19 **
2.80 ‘+
2.83 **
In addition, democratic leadership may directly enhance the effectiveness of managerial decisions [8, 141. Participative decision-making provides a vehicle for subordinate information, expertise and creativity to be brought to bear on problems where the leader’s own information and knowledge may be deficient. Moreover, participation can create a climate where constructive conflict is encouraged, ensuring that important aspects of a problem are not overlooked. Equally, involvement may ease the implementation of a decision. First, the need to communicate the decision is reduced. By being actively involved, others are likely to understand the decision and their roles in its implementation. Second, potential resistance is greatly reduced. Presumably, participation in the decision making process fosters ego involvement
28
Research
leading to a greater sense of commitment to the chosen course of action. Within MIS, Wetherbe and Whitehead [ 191 suggest that there are many situations where participation can enhance the management of the development activity. Critical information regarding the requirements and ways to satisfy them may not always be possessed by the individual manager responsible for the development of a system. The joint participation of the information suppliers and users during the design process encourages a more thorough search and evaluation of multiple solutions and ensures that all important aspects are considered. Furthermore, such participation during the design process provides a more creative work setting for those involved in the design process and ultimately leads to reduced resistance and increased commitment of information users. Although ME textbooks continue to stress the importance of participa’tion in MIS project teams, this investigation suggests certain notable failures in translating this message into actual practice. Of particular importance is the failure of the MlS manager - and managers in other discilplines - to recognize the value of participation in increasing subordinate acceptance and commitment. outcomes oftlentimes so vital to the ultimate success of an information system. The VroomlYetton normative model provides an alternative to traditonai textbook treatments of rhe participation issue. This model IS specific and concrete and, as Biggs argws, applicable to decisions encountered b) the MIS manager. Moreover, the model takes a contingency perspective on participative decision-making, a feature that is particularly important to managing the MIS activity [ 191. Managerial, resistance to parti&:ive d :zision-making is often defended by comments such as “more time wasted in committee meetings” [I].. However, the adoption and implementation of the Vroom/Yetton normative model would not necefssarily require an overall increase in the frequency of group meetings. In fact, conformity to the Model A cariant could result in greater autocracy than MIS managers now exhibit. Adoption of the Vroom/Yetton nrxrnative model would only involve changes in wh,en and where autocracy versus participation are used. A second possible educational implication exists. in our investigation each subject received an indivi-
dual assessment of leadership style based on responses to the Problem Set. Initial reports of this method’s effectiveness in changing behavior and developing managerial skills are quite encouraging [13, 15,181 and the introduction of similar feedback in existing MIS educational programs may prove both useful and appealing. This investigation also suggests some need for additional research. First, it must be remembered that this study asked managers only to respond to written descriptions of decision making situations. The examination of actual MIS decisions, the decision processes employed in those situations and their consequences would prove to be a fruitful extension of this initial work. Second, additional research is required to fully adapt the Vroom/Yetton normative model for use in making MIS decisions. Notwithstanding Biggs’ assessment of the model’s applicability, the Vroom/Yetton normative model was intended only to apply to decision situations having identifiable effects on a manager’s immediate subordinates. MIS decisions frequently affect a much larger group (e.g., users) having no formal reporting responsibilities to the MIS manager. These features of the MIS role may require some substantive changes to the Vroom/ Yetton normative model if its application is to hsve maximum benefit.
References [l]
S.F.
Biggs, “Group Participation in MIS Project Teams’!
Let’s Look at the Contingencies First!” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 2,No. 1, March 1978, pp. 19-26. [ 21 J.D. Gouger, R.A. Zawacki, and E.B. Oppermann, “Motivation Levels of MIS Managers Versus Those of Their Employees,” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 3, No. 3, September 1979, pp. 47-56. 31 A.G. Jago, Hierarchical Level Determinants of Participative Leader Behavior (Doctoral dissertation, Yale University, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts InternatIonal, 1977, Vol. 38, p. 29218, (University Microfilms No. 77-27,083). 41 A.G. Jago, “A Test of Spuriousness in Descriptive Models of Participative Leader Behavior,” Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, Vol. 63, No. 3, June 1978, pp. 383387. [S] A.G. Jago, and V.H. Vroom, “Predicting Leader Behavior from a Measure of Behavioral Intent,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 21, No. 4, December 1978, pp. 715-721. (61 W.B. Locander, HA. Napier, and R.W. Scamell, “A
A.G. Jago and R. W. Scamell /Decision-making
Team Approach To Managing the Development of a Decision Support System,” MIS Quar+arly. Vol. 3, No. 1, March 1979, pp. 53-63. [7) H.C. Lucas, The Analysis, Dosign md Implementation of Information Systems, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York,New York, 1976. [8) N.R.F. Maier, Leadetshlp Methods and Skills, McGrawHill Book Company, New York, NeH York, 1963. (91 C. Magerison. and R. Glube, “Leadership DecisionMaking: An Empirical Test of the Vroom and Yetton Model,” Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 16, No. 1, February 1979, pp. 45-55. [lo] F.C. Mann, and L.K. Williams, “Observations of the Dynamics of a Change to Electronic Data-Processing Equipment,” Administrstlve Science Quarterly, Vol. 5, No. 2, September 1960, pp. 217-256. [ 1 l] H. hlinttberg, The Nature of Managerial Work, Harper and Row, New York, New York 1973. [ 121 NC. Morse, and E. Reimer. “The Experimental Change of a Major Organizational variable,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956, Vol. 51, pp. 120129 [ 131 B.B. Smith, “The TELOS Program und the Vroom-Yet-
Styles of MIS Managers
29
ton Model,” in Hunt, J.G., and Larson, 1.1. (Eds.), Crosscurrents in Leadership, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, Il., 1979. [ 141 V.H. Vroom, “Industrial Social Psychology,” in Lindzey, G. and Aronson, E. (Eds.), Handbook of Sodal Psychology, Vol. 5, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Ma., 1969. 1IS] V.H. Vroom, ‘Can Leaders Learn to Lead?” Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 4, No. 3, Winter 1976, pp. 1728. [ 161 V.H. Vroom and A.G. Jago, “Decision Making as a Social Process: Normative and Descriptive Models of Leader Behavior,” Decision Sciences, Vol. 5, No. 4, October 1974, pp. 743-769. [J 71 V.H. Vroom and A.G. Jago, “Qn the Validity of the Vroom-Yetton Model,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 63,No. 2, April 1978,~~. 151-162. II 81 V.H. Vroom and P.W. Yetton, Leadership and DecisionMaking, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, Pa., 1973. [19] J.C. Wetherbe, and C.J. Whitehead, “A Contingency View of Managing the Data Processing Organization,” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 1, March 1977, pp. 19-25.
Research
---
Decision-Making Styles of MIS Managers: A Comparative Evaluation Arthur G. Jago and Richard W. Scamell
1. Introduction
l
Department of Managerrrent. College of BusinessAdministration, University of Howton. Central Campus, Houston. TX 77004, USA
MIS managers mJst be capable leaders and decisionmakers; individuals who can effectively manwe subordinate specialists, manage tasks that possess a wide range of characteristics, and work with others in the organization to integrate computer technology into their activities. Recently Bigl,$ proposed that the Vroom/Yetton normative model can be applied to problems or decisions encountered by the MIS manager. T’!& article examines how 50 MIS managers dealt with a set of 30 case situations developed by Vroom and Yetton. When compared to 1647 managers in other organizational functions, the MIS sample is found to display decision-making styles similar to a simple average of the divergent styles found in other disciplines. The styles of MIS managers emphasize the efficient use of time and resources and tend to place a greater emphasis on criteria of decision quality than on criteria of decision acceptance. Keywords: MIS management,
Decision-making
styles,
Vroom/Yetton model
A case study of the 1956 installation of an IBM 705 to serve the accounting and sales divisions of a
large utility perhaps provided the first indication that participative decision-making plays an important role in the administration of the EDP function [lo]. Today this emphasis
on participative
decision
making
Arthur G. J&gois an Associate Professor of Organizational Behavior in the Department of Management, College of Business Administration, University of Houston. He received his B.Sc. (1972) from Northwestern University and hi: M. Phil. (1.975) and Ph.D. (1977) in Adminstrative Sciences from Yale University. Professor Jago’s. research and consulting inter. . ests mctuae managerial leadership, decisiongroup and individual makiig, and motivation. He has published articles in Aca-
demy of Management Journal, Decision Sciences, Human Relations, Journal of Applied fiychology, Management Science, and Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, He is an active member of the Academy of Manage-
ment, the American Psychological Association and the American Institute for Decision Sciences.
* The authors wkh to thank V.H. Vroom for providing a portion of the comparison data used in this investigation. This research was funded by an LGi A grant from the University of Houston. -. North-Holland Publishing Company Informatlon & Management 5 (1982) 19-29
0378.7206/82/0000-0000/$02.75
0 1982 North-Holland
Richard W. Scarnell is Associate Professor of Management Information Systems in the College of Business Administration, University of HOUSton. He received a Ph.D. in Statistics from The University of Texas at Austin. Author of over twenty articles in professional journals, his current research interests axe directed toward the areas of database management systems, the MIS implementation process, and resource allocation problem% He is a member of the Society For Management Informztion Systems. the Academy of Management, and the Irstitute of Management Sciences.
20
Research
also manifests itself at the systems development level
where there are many advocates of user involvement [e.g.. 6.7, 191. In a departure from traditional treatments of participative management, Biggs [l] describes the application of the Vroom/Yetton [18] contingency approach to the choice of processes for making MIS decisions. Rather than emphasizing the universal appropriateness of others’ involvement in decision-making, this approach stresses the choice of different decision processes in different decision situations. The focus is on the variability and adaptability of an MIS manager’s behavioral responses to decision situations. Biggs addresses the application of the Vroom/Yetton approach ‘0 the MIS function in a strictly normative (i.e., prescriptive) sense. He concludes that it “provides a simple and systematic way to assess issues contingent upon the decision ,... It focuses the project manager’s attention on these issues and helps in choosing a decision process which will minimize disruptive behavioral problems” [ 1, p, 261. Certain descriptive questions, however, remain unanswered. Aside from how MIS managers should make decisions, how do they make decisions? What governs the MIS manager’s choice of autocratic versus participative methods? To what degree do MIS managers conform to the Vroom/Yetton prescriptions? The present investigation addresses such descriptive issues. The decision-making styles of MIS managers are assessed and compared with the prescriptions of the Vroom/Yetton normative model and the beh.avior of managers in six other functional disciplines.
2. The ‘hom/Yetton
Normative ModeI
Vroom and Yetton deal almost exclusively with decision situations for which: the manager has some freedom in determining the decision process adopted, and the solution affects at least two of the manager’s subordinates. For such situations, the five decisionmaking processes describea in Table 1 are available to the manager. The letters in the symbol signify the basic properties of tile process (A for autocratic; C for consultative; G for group.) The roman numerals tha? follow the letters constitute variants on that process. Thus AI represents the first variant on an
Table 1 Types of ManagementDecision Processes AI
- You solve the problem or make the decision yourself using the information available to you at the present time. AI1 - You obtain any necessary information from subordinates, then decide on a solution to the problem yourself. You may or may not tell subordinates the purpose of your questions or give information about the problem or decision you are working on. The input provided by them is clearly ln response to your request for specific information. They do not play a role ln the definition of the problem or in generating or evaluating alternative solutions. CI - You share the problem with the relevant subordinates individually, getting their ideas and suggestions without bringing them together as a group. Then you make the decision. This decision may or may not reflect your subordInates’influence. CD - You share the problem with your subordinates in a group meetlng. In this meeting you obtain their ideas and suggestions. Then, you make the decision which may not reflect your subordinates’ influence, GII - Your share the problem with your subordinates as a group. Together you generate and evaluate alternatlves and attempt’to reach agreement (consensus) on a solution. Your role is much IIke that of chairman, coordinating the discussion, keeping it focused on the problem and making sure that the critical issues are discussed. You can provide the group with Information or ideas that you have but you do not try to “press” them to adopt “your” solution and are willing to accept and Implement any solution which has the support of the entire group.
autocratic process, AII the second variant, and so on. The processes shown in Table 1 are arranged in order of increasing participativeness, i.e., in order of increasing opportunity for subordinates to influence the problem’s solution. The Vroom/Yetton normative model attempts to provide a basis for effective decision-making by matching the appropriate process with relevant properties 01 particular problems. The effectiveness of the decision is assumed to be a function of three elements, each of which may be affected by the decision pro* cess selected: 1. The technical quality or rationality of the decision. 2. The acceptance of or commitment to the decision by those responsible for its execution. 3. The amount of time required to make the decision.
A. G. Jago and R. W. Scarneil /Decision-making ________ d. DOES THE PROBLEM B
DO I HAVE
c
1s TnE
SUfflCIENl
PROBLEM
0. IS ACCEPTANCE E If I WERE 00
G
IS CONfLlCf
Fig.
INfO
h QlJALllY TO MAKE
Styles of MIS M Inaggers
-._________._
___-_
REQUIREMENT’ A HlCtl
QUALITY
21
DECISION’
STRUCTURED’ Of
TO MAKE
SUBOROlNATES
f.
POSSESS
___
AMONG
3ECISION THE SHARE
BY SUBOROINATES
OfcltlON
81
MYSELF.
THE ORGANIZATIONAL
SUBORDINATES
OVER
IMPORTANT
FOR EffECflVE
IS IT REASONABLV GOALS
PRtfERRtD
CERTAIN
TO BE ATTAINED SOLUTIONS
IMPLEMENTATIONS THAT
IT WOULD
IN SOLVING
THIS
BE ACCEPTED
BY
MY
SUBORDINATES?
PROBLEM’
LIKELY’
I.
Their model takes the form of the decision tree shown in Fig. 1. Arranged along the top of the tree are a set of seven problem attributes, labeled A thru G, expressed in the form of simple Yes-No questions
that a leader or manager could ask about the decisionmaking situation. To use the model, one starts at the left-hand side of the tree and works toward the righthand side, asking oneself the questions pertaining to any box that is encountered. At an endpoint, two pieces of information are found. The first defines the problem as one of 13 “problem types” while the second defines the set of appropriate decision processes, called the “feasible set”, for that problem type. Of course, the processes specified for dach problem type are not arbitrary, The specification of the feasible set is governed by seven rules that eliminate alternatives which risk either the quality or acceptance of the decision. These rules, consistent with existing empirical evidence concerning the consequences
of participation, are shown in Table 2. The rules are of two distinct types. Rules 1 through 3 are designed to protect the quality or rationality of the decision; Rules 4 through 7 are designed to protect the acceptance of or commitment to the decision. The decision tree is merely a convenient structure for applying these rules, and once the problem type has been determined, all applicable rules have been applied. It can be seen that there are some problem types for which only onz decision process remains in ‘the feasible set and others for which two, three, four, or even five decision processes remain. When more than one remains, there are a number of ways in which one might choose among them. One method, called Model A and discussed at length by Vroom and Yetton [ 181, uses the number of personhours required by the process of decision making. This assumes that if the alternatives within the feas-
22
Research
Table 2 Rules Underlying the Vroom/Yetton
Normative Mode1
QUALITY RULES The Leader Information Rule ff the quality of the decision is important and the leader does not possess enough information or expertise to solve the problem alone, then Al is eliminated from the feasible set. The Goal Congruence Rule If the quality of the decision is important and subordinates are not likely to pursue the organization goals in their efforts to solve this problem, then Gll is eliminated from the feasible set. The Unstructured Problem Rule In situations in which the quality of the decision is im portant, if the leader lacks the necessary information or expt;rtrse to solve the problem alone, and if the problem, is unstructured, the method of solving the problem shorrld provide for interaction among subordinates likely to p.~sess relevant information. Accordingly, AI, All and Cl, which provide no interaction among subordinates, are eiiminated from the feasible set. KCEPTANCE RULES 7’he 4cceptance Rule If the acceptance of the decision by subordinates is important for effective implementation and if it is not reasonably certain that an autocratic decision will be accepted. Al and All are eliminated from the feasible set. ?-he Conflict Rule If t.he acceptance of the decision Is important, an autccratic decision is not reasonably certain to be acceptea and d&greement among subordinates over possible solutions is likely, the methods used in solving the problem should enable those in disagreement to resolve their differences with full knowledge of the problem. Accordingly, under these conditions, Al, All, and CI, which permit no interaction among subordinates and therefore pr,ovide no opportunity for those In conllict to resolve their differences, are eliminated from the feasible set. Their use runs the risk of leaving some of the subordinates with less than the needed commitment to the final decision. The Fairness Rule Il.’ the quality of the decision is unimportant, but accep t.mcz of the decision is important, and not reasonably certein to result from an autocratic decision, the decirion process used must generate the needed acceptance. The decision process should permit the subordinates to .mteract with one another and negotiate among them&W over the method of resohring any differences with fuIl responsibility on them for determining what is fair and equitable. Accordingly, under these circumstances, AI, AlI, CI and CII are eliminated from the feasible set. lXe Acceptance Priority Rule if acceptance is important, not reasonably certain to re=ult from an autocratic decision and if subordinates
are motivated to pursue the organizational goals represented in the problem, then methods which provide equal partnership in the decision-making process can generate far greater acceptance without risking decision quality. Accordingly, AI, AII, CI and CII are eliminated from the feasible set.
ible set are equal in the probability of generating a rational decision that subordinates will also accept, then a choice among these alternatives based on the time requirement of each will have a short-run beneiii to the organization. On the assumption that more p*lrticipative processes require more time, Model A chooses the most autocratic process within the feasible set (i.e., the left most entry at an endpoint in Figure 1). There are, however, other bases for choice. A manager may wish to choose the most participative alternative that can be used while still producing rational and acceptable problem solutions. Such a position could be grounded in humanistic considerations, emphasizing the intrinsic value of participation, or on pragmatic considerations, such as the utility of participation in developing the technical and managerial Lapabilities of subordinates. A model based on these r:onsiderations is termed Model B, and operationall; involves choice of the most participative process within a feasble set (i.e., the right-most entry zt dn er.dpoint in F’:ure 1). Application of lhe model to several hypothetical MIS cecisions is discussed by Biggs [ 11. Evidence supporting the normative validity of the Vroom/ Yetton model and each of the seven underlying rules in Table 2 is presented Ily Vroom and Jago [ 171, Additionally, Magerison and Glube [9] report correlations between conformity to the model and both economic and attitudinal criteria of organizational success. 3. %ethod TJ understand the decision making styles of MIS managers, their level 0“ agreement with the Vroom/ Yetton normative mcdel and their similarities to and differences from managers in other functional disciplines, a total of 74 managerial personnel in the Houston, Texas metropolitan area were asked to participate in a research project.
A. G Jago ond R. W. Scarnell / Decision-muking Styles of MIS Managers
3.1.
Sltbiects
Of the 74 contacted initially, 50 volunteers (68%) completed all required materials. The mean age of these respondents was 36.0 years (SD = 6.5); the mean length of employment in present position was 7.5 years (SD = 6.7); the mean number of subordinates directly supervised was 7.5 (SD = 6.0). Fifteen of these managers were first-level supervisors and 15 werr: second-level supervisors. Nine were department heads and three were general/executive managers. The rsmaining eight listed their positions as “other.” The comparison group consisted of 1647 managers employed in other functional specialties. These managers were participants in several management development programs conducted over a five year period; they completed the materials required of this investigation as part of those programs. At that time, these managers were asked to report their functional specialty from the following list: (1) Personnel; (2) Finance; (3) Sales/Marketing; (4) Research/Engineering; (5) Production/Operations; (6) General Management: and (7) Other. (Respondents in the “Other” category included managers in strategic planning functions, purchasing and procurement, quality control, public relations, legal department and the like ) At the time of data collection, all subjects were unfamiliar with the Vroom/‘r’etton normative model and did not know the specific purposes of the research. 3.2. Instnments The degree and frequency of participative decision-making were meastred with a set of 30 cases based on actual problems supplied by other managers [3]. Similar to the instrument employed by Vroom and Yetton [ 181, this “Problem Set” asks the respondent to assume the role of the manager in each case and to choose the level of participation he or she would employ to deal with the problem. The cases range from a simple paragraph tc two typed pages and an entire Problem Set requires 14 to 2 hours to complete. Information is imbedded in each case to manipulate the seven problem attributes at the top of the decision tree. The complete set conforms to a multifactorial, repeated measures experimental design in
23
which the main effects of certain problem attributes remain orthogonal, e.g., there are, IS cases within the set where subordinate conflict exists and IS cases where such conflict is absent. Resrronses to the 30 cases are used to compute several scores for each subject, including the frequency with which each of the five decision processes was chosen and, as discussed later, a “mean level of participation” score. In addition, knowing the problem attributes systematically manipulated in each case allows a comparison of respondent behavior with the behavior prescribed for that case by the normative decision tree. Across the set of 30 cases, tlie frequency of agreement with the feasible set, the frequency of agreement with the Model A choice from within the feasible set, and the frequency of agreement with the Model B choice from within the feasible set can be computed. When respondent behavior is outside the feasible set, it is also possible to determine which of the underlying rules in Table 2 were violated. Problem Set design and construction is discussed in greater detail by Vroom and Yetton 1181 and Jago [3]. Evidence supporting the internal and cxtcrnal validity of Problem Set responses is presented by Jago [4] and Jago and Vroom [5]. 3.3. Procedure After an initial contact, participants were mai!ed a Problem Set, standardized instructions, and a preliminary questionnaire requesting certain demographic and organizational information. In return, respmdents were promised a detailed, computerized andysis of their decrsion making style based on their responses to the Problem Set, the format of which is discussed by Vroom [IS]. Respondents were asked to return the completed Problem Set within tc\o weeks. Respondents in the comparison group completed the same Problenr Set prior to their management development workshops, Identical instructions and conditions were employed.
4. Results Vroom and Yetton [ 181 propose that the five decision-making processes can be placed along a
24
Research
representing to th,: amount of opportunity afforded subordinates to participate in decision-making. The numerical values assigned to these processes are as follows: Al = 0; AI1 = 1; CI = 5; Cl1 = 8; GII = 10. Aggregating the scale values for an individua! allows computation of a “mean level of participation” score (0 to 10) reflecting the tendency to be autocratic or participative.
unillimensional
scale
4. I. Participativeness ‘fable 3 contains the mean values of descriptive scores for members of each functional specialty represented in the sample and the F-values obtained from six one-way ANNA’s that treat function as the independent variable and each of the six indices as dependent variables. Managers in different functional specialities differ significantly in their choice of AII, CII and GII and in their mean level of participation scores. MIS managers employ higher than average frequencies of the ,411 process (i.e., autocratic decision-making after inforiiration gathering) and the GII process (i.e.) group decision-making). They employ the lowest frequency of CII (i.e., group consultation) of all the functional groups. Nonetheless, when these differences are accumulated into an overall mean level of participaticn score, they tend to be offsetting, MIS
managers exhibit a mean score (4.94) very close to the overall mean (4.93) as do managers in the research/engineering and “other” categories. These data strongly suggest that the MIS manager is quite similar to other managers: the MIS score falls almost on the midpoint between the score for the most participative (personnel managers) and the most autocratic function (finance managers). Also suggestive is the relative rank order of the decision process choice evident in Table 3. A ranking of the five processes from most used to least used for MIS managers is: CII, AI, CI. GII and All. This rank order is identical to that of managers in five of the seven functions. Personnel and finance managers exhibit only a single reversal in the MIS order. This rank order suggests that managers are not averse to the use of group meetings. This is consistent with evidence that many managers spend a majority of their day in group settings [ 111. At the same time, the results suggest that the typical manager is reluctant to give full decision-making responsibility to subordinate groups (i.e., GII). Instead managers use the group setting as a forum for consultation (i.e., CII). 4.2. Agreement with the Vroom/Yetto,l Normative Model Responses can be compared to the Vroom/Yetton normative model for vidence of conformity with
Table 3 Pafticipativenesshy Functional Specialty Function
N
Meal1Frequency of Choice: Al
--
MeanLevel of Participation
AH
Cl
CII
GII
-
WIS Personnel FiZUlCZ
50 60 189
6.64 6.70 7.65
4.46 3.57 4.47
5.73 5.50 5.22
8.08 8.43 8.40
5.00 5.80 4.27
4.94 5.22 4.68
Sales/!&rketing Research/Engineering Production/Operations General Wuta_eement Other
292 250 300 306 200
7.52 7.24 6.89 7.11 7.09
4.38 3.92 3.64 3.76 4.02
5.34 5.40 5.35 5.42 5.38
8.32 8.62 9.18 8.88 8.12
4.44 4.82 4.94 4.82 4.81
4.74 4.94
AU
1647
7.19
4.00
5.38
8.68
4.75
4.93
F-value
(7.1639)
1.61
3.43 *+
2.09 *
2.23
5.11 5.00 4.96
.-
l l
p < G.05
*p
< 0.01
l
3.82 ‘*
A. G. Jago and R. W. Scamell /Decision-making Styles of MIS Managers
25
Table 4
Agreementwith Normative Model by Functional Specialty Function
MIS Personnel Finance Sales/Marketing Research/Engineering Production/Operations General Management Other -I_ AU --____ 1;-Value
Frequency of Agreement with:
Y
50 60 189 292 250 300 306 200 -_II 1647 -(7, 1639)
Feasible Set
Model A
Model B
21.22 21.30 20.95 20.66 21.39 21.15 20.92 21.09
11.58 11.48 12.40 11.68 12.30 il.42 11.34 11.79
6.88 7.93 6.60 6.48 7.17 1.50 7.26 7.23
21.03
11.75
7.09
2.29
3.66 *+
3.53 *+
l
* p c 0.05 * * p < 0.01
these prescriptions: a high level would indicate that respondents’ personal and subjective “models” are similar to the explicit Vroom/Yettcbn model, but a low level would indicate dissimilarity and suggest violation of the normative prescriptions. Table 4 contains the mean frequencies with which managers chose decision processes that agreed with the feasib!e set, that agreed with Model A, and that agreed with Model B. Overall, the typical MIS manager agreed with the feasible set in 71 percent of the 30 cases. Of these responses, over half were the Model A (timesfficient) selections from the feasible set. Another one-third of these responses conformed
to the highly participative Model B (developmentalj selection from the feasible set. Finance and research/ engineering managers place relatively greater emphasis on the timeefiicient Model A. Personnel and production/operations managers place relatively greater emphasis on the developmental Model B. 4.3. Rule Violations Of course. instances of disagreement (or nonconformity) with the normative model can occur for several reasons. Each time a respondent chooses a decision process outside the feasibie set, he or she has violated one or more of the seven rules that form the
basis for the decision tree. Examination of the freqL:ncies of these violations provides a clearer understanding of the sources of disagreement. For each functional specialty and each rule, Table 5 contains the mean frequency of violation and, in parentheses, the mean rate of violation. Rate of violation is calculated by dividing the frequency of violation by the frequency of applicability of the rule within the 30 case set. Because the rules are constructed to operate only in the presence or absence of certain problem attributes, rules are appliable to only a subset of cases. Rule 1 applies to 12 problem set cases, Rule 2 to 12 cases, Rule 3 to 6 cases, Rule 4 to 10 cases, Rule 5 to 5 cases, Rule 6 to 2 cases, and Rule 7 to 4 cases. Both in terms of frequency of violation and rate of violation, MIS managers violate the four rules designed to protect the acceptance of decisions (Rules 4-7) more Cften than the three designed to protect the quality of decisions (Rules 1-3). Managers in all other functional specialities exhibit a similar pattern of results. Differences among functions do, however, exist. MIS managers display the highest rate of violation of the Conflict Rule ($5) and the lowest rate of vialation of the Acceptance Priority Rule (#7). The Conflict Rule is designed to increase the ac-
26
Research
Table 5 Rule Violation and Functional SpecialtY -~-
t’unction
Frequency of Violation Rules Designed to Protect Decision Quality .Goal ConUnstructured subLeader Problem Total gruence Information Rule (#2> Rule (#:I Rule (#3)
:?:
MIS
50
Personnel
60
Finance
189
Sales/Marketing
292
Research/Engin:ering
250
Production/Operation
300
General Management
306
other
200
ALL
Functions
?-value
1647
(7,1639)
0.70 (5.83%) 0.78 (6.50) 0.84 (7.00) 0.92 (7.67) 0.68 (5.67) 0.88 (7.33) 1.02 (8.50) 0.97 (8.08) 0.88 (7.33) 2.23 +
1.22 (10.2%) 1.48 (12.3) 0.93 (7.8) 1.Ol (8.4) 1.04 (8.7) 1.09 (9.1) 1.13 (9.4) 1.04 (8.7)
2.30 (38.3%) 2.33 (38.8) 2.58 (43.0) 2.65 (44.2) 2.36 (39.3) 2.28 (38.0) 2.49 (41.5) 2.58 (43.0)
4.22 (14.1%) 4.60 (15.3) 4.3s (14.5) 4.58 (15.3) 4.09 (13.6) 4.26 (14.2) 4.63 (15.4) 4.58 (15.3)
1.07 (8.9)
2.47 (41.2)
4.42 (14.7)
1.42
2.20 *
sate: Percentages in parenthesis are “rate of violation” scores, i.e., the frequency of violation number of times a rule is applicable in the 30-case Problem Set. * p < 0.05 +‘ p < 0.01
reptance of certain decisions in which subordinates drsagree over preferred solutions. In situations where subordinate acceptancr: is important and not.likely to result from an autocratic decision, and where conflict among subordinates exists, this rule specifies that either Cl1 or GII must be employed; i.e., conflict is handled by providing a forum (group meeting) for the conflict to be expressed and productively resolved. Of course, a fear that such a forum would unly exacerbate disagreements and polarize differences woluld lead to a high rate of violation of this rule. While all functions display frequent violations, the MIS manager seems particularly fearful about the potential consequences of conflict in a group setting. This is certainly an area where MIS managers and
2.33 * Dressed at a percentage of the
other managers differ from the tenets of the Vroom/ Yetton normative model. The lower than average rate violation of the Acceptance Priority Rule suggests that MIS managers do employ CJI (group decision-making) more often than others when (1) acceptance is important, (2) such acceptance is not certain to result from an autocratic decision, and (3) when subordinate goals are congruent with organizational goals, For such situations, the rule specifies that GII maximizes acceptancz without risking decision quality. However, all functions, including MIS, exhibit a high rate of violation of this rule. This is due to a general reluctance to employ GII. This is another area where MIS managers, other managers, am’.the Vroom/Yetton normative model differ.
A.G. Jago and R. W. Scarnell /Decision-making Sryles ofMIS Managers
Frequency
-MIS Personnel Finance Sales/Marketing Research/Engineering Production/Operations General Management Other
ALL Functions
F-value
of Violation of Rules Designed to Protect Acceptance of Decision --
Ac=p tance Rule (1y4)
Conflict
2.06 (20.6%) 1.82 (18.2) 2.25 (22.5) 2.34 (23.4) 1.93 (19.3) 2.04 (20.4) 2.06 (20.6) 1.90 (19.0) 2.08 (20.8) 2.56 +
27
Fairness Rule (#6)
Accept. Priority Rule (#7>
Sub Total
Grand Total
2.58 (5 1.6%) 2.20 (44.0) 2.39 (47.8) 2.S6 (51.2) 2.32 (46.4) 2.18 (43.6) 2.35 (47.0) 2.25 (45 .O)
1.16 (58.0%) 1.15 (57.5) 1.15 (57.5) 1.11 (55.5) (5::: 1.23 (61.5) 1.15 (57.5) 1.04 (52.0)
2.40 (60.0%) 2.43 (60.8) 2.79 (69.8) 2.86 (71.5) 2.68 (67.0) 2.62 (65.5) 2.72 (68.0) 2.73 (68.3)
8.20 (39.0%) 7.60 (36.2) 8.58 (40.‘., 8.87 (12.2) 7.98 (38.0) 8.07 (38.4) 8.27 (39.4) 7.91 (37.7)
12.42 (24.4%) 12.20 (23.9) 12.93 (25.4) 13.45 (26.4) 12.06 (23.6) 12.33 (24.2) 12.91 (25.3) 12.49 (24.5)
2.35 (47.0)
1.13 (56.5)
2.71 (67.8)
8.26 (39.3)
12.68 (24.9)
Rule C#W
2.48
l
5. Concluding Remarks Discussions concerning the relative effectiveness of autocratic versus democratic leadership styles rely heavily on certain presumed benefits of participative decision-making. Morse and Reimer 1121 argue that democratic leadership provides followers with the opportunity to express and fulfIl1 individual needs while accomplishing group goals. The opportunity for regulating and controlling their own activities enhances psychological identification with the group and its task and provides a means for satisfying ego-esteem and self-actualization needs through the work of the group. Morale and group productivity are therefore both thought to benefit from a democratic leadership style.
1.81
3.19 **
2.80 ‘+
2.83 **
In addition, democratic leadership may directly enhance the effectiveness of managerial decisions [8, 141. Participative decision-making provides a vehicle for subordinate information, expertise and creativity to be brought to bear on problems where the leader’s own information and knowledge may be deficient. Moreover, participation can create a climate where constructive conflict is encouraged, ensuring that important aspects of a problem are not overlooked. Equally, involvement may ease the implementation of a decision. First, the need to communicate the decision is reduced. By being actively involved, others are likely to understand the decision and their roles in its implementation. Second, potential resistance is greatly reduced. Presumably, participation in the decision making process fosters ego involvement
28
Research
leading to a greater sense of commitment to the chosen course of action. Within MIS, Wetherbe and Whitehead [ 191 suggest that there are many situations where participation can enhance the management of the development activity. Critical information regarding the requirements and ways to satisfy them may not always be possessed by the individual manager responsible for the development of a system. The joint participation of the information suppliers and users during the design process encourages a more thorough search and evaluation of multiple solutions and ensures that all important aspects are considered. Furthermore, such participation during the design process provides a more creative work setting for those involved in the design process and ultimately leads to reduced resistance and increased commitment of information users. Although ME textbooks continue to stress the importance of participa’tion in MIS project teams, this investigation suggests certain notable failures in translating this message into actual practice. Of particular importance is the failure of the MlS manager - and managers in other discilplines - to recognize the value of participation in increasing subordinate acceptance and commitment. outcomes oftlentimes so vital to the ultimate success of an information system. The VroomlYetton normative model provides an alternative to traditonai textbook treatments of rhe participation issue. This model IS specific and concrete and, as Biggs argws, applicable to decisions encountered b) the MIS manager. Moreover, the model takes a contingency perspective on participative decision-making, a feature that is particularly important to managing the MIS activity [ 191. Managerial, resistance to parti&:ive d :zision-making is often defended by comments such as “more time wasted in committee meetings” [I].. However, the adoption and implementation of the Vroom/Yetton normative model would not necefssarily require an overall increase in the frequency of group meetings. In fact, conformity to the Model A cariant could result in greater autocracy than MIS managers now exhibit. Adoption of the Vroom/Yetton nrxrnative model would only involve changes in wh,en and where autocracy versus participation are used. A second possible educational implication exists. in our investigation each subject received an indivi-
dual assessment of leadership style based on responses to the Problem Set. Initial reports of this method’s effectiveness in changing behavior and developing managerial skills are quite encouraging [13, 15,181 and the introduction of similar feedback in existing MIS educational programs may prove both useful and appealing. This investigation also suggests some need for additional research. First, it must be remembered that this study asked managers only to respond to written descriptions of decision making situations. The examination of actual MIS decisions, the decision processes employed in those situations and their consequences would prove to be a fruitful extension of this initial work. Second, additional research is required to fully adapt the Vroom/Yetton normative model for use in making MIS decisions. Notwithstanding Biggs’ assessment of the model’s applicability, the Vroom/Yetton normative model was intended only to apply to decision situations having identifiable effects on a manager’s immediate subordinates. MIS decisions frequently affect a much larger group (e.g., users) having no formal reporting responsibilities to the MIS manager. These features of the MIS role may require some substantive changes to the Vroom/ Yetton normative model if its application is to hsve maximum benefit.
References [l]
S.F.
Biggs, “Group Participation in MIS Project Teams’!
Let’s Look at the Contingencies First!” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 2,No. 1, March 1978, pp. 19-26. [ 21 J.D. Gouger, R.A. Zawacki, and E.B. Oppermann, “Motivation Levels of MIS Managers Versus Those of Their Employees,” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 3, No. 3, September 1979, pp. 47-56. 31 A.G. Jago, Hierarchical Level Determinants of Participative Leader Behavior (Doctoral dissertation, Yale University, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts InternatIonal, 1977, Vol. 38, p. 29218, (University Microfilms No. 77-27,083). 41 A.G. Jago, “A Test of Spuriousness in Descriptive Models of Participative Leader Behavior,” Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, Vol. 63, No. 3, June 1978, pp. 383387. [S] A.G. Jago, and V.H. Vroom, “Predicting Leader Behavior from a Measure of Behavioral Intent,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 21, No. 4, December 1978, pp. 715-721. (61 W.B. Locander, HA. Napier, and R.W. Scamell, “A
A.G. Jago and R. W. Scamell /Decision-making
Team Approach To Managing the Development of a Decision Support System,” MIS Quar+arly. Vol. 3, No. 1, March 1979, pp. 53-63. [7) H.C. Lucas, The Analysis, Dosign md Implementation of Information Systems, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York,New York, 1976. [8) N.R.F. Maier, Leadetshlp Methods and Skills, McGrawHill Book Company, New York, NeH York, 1963. (91 C. Magerison. and R. Glube, “Leadership DecisionMaking: An Empirical Test of the Vroom and Yetton Model,” Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 16, No. 1, February 1979, pp. 45-55. [lo] F.C. Mann, and L.K. Williams, “Observations of the Dynamics of a Change to Electronic Data-Processing Equipment,” Administrstlve Science Quarterly, Vol. 5, No. 2, September 1960, pp. 217-256. [ 1 l] H. hlinttberg, The Nature of Managerial Work, Harper and Row, New York, New York 1973. [ 121 NC. Morse, and E. Reimer. “The Experimental Change of a Major Organizational variable,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956, Vol. 51, pp. 120129 [ 131 B.B. Smith, “The TELOS Program und the Vroom-Yet-
Styles of MIS Managers
29
ton Model,” in Hunt, J.G., and Larson, 1.1. (Eds.), Crosscurrents in Leadership, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, Il., 1979. [ 141 V.H. Vroom, “Industrial Social Psychology,” in Lindzey, G. and Aronson, E. (Eds.), Handbook of Sodal Psychology, Vol. 5, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Ma., 1969. 1IS] V.H. Vroom, ‘Can Leaders Learn to Lead?” Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 4, No. 3, Winter 1976, pp. 1728. [ 161 V.H. Vroom and A.G. Jago, “Decision Making as a Social Process: Normative and Descriptive Models of Leader Behavior,” Decision Sciences, Vol. 5, No. 4, October 1974, pp. 743-769. [J 71 V.H. Vroom and A.G. Jago, “Qn the Validity of the Vroom-Yetton Model,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 63,No. 2, April 1978,~~. 151-162. II 81 V.H. Vroom and P.W. Yetton, Leadership and DecisionMaking, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, Pa., 1973. [19] J.C. Wetherbe, and C.J. Whitehead, “A Contingency View of Managing the Data Processing Organization,” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 1, March 1977, pp. 19-25.