The Role of the Situation in Leadership

Victor H. Vroom Yale University

Arthur G. Jago University of Missouri—Columbia

Leadership depends on the situation. Few social scien- The Definitions of Leadership
tists would dispute the validity of this statement. But the
statement can be interpreted in many different ways, Virtually all definitions of leadership share the view that
depending, at least in part, on what one means by leadership involves the process of influence. One thing that
leadership. This article begins with a definition of lead- all leaders have in common is one or more followers. If no
ership and a brief description of 3 historically important one is following, one cannot be leading. One person, A,
theories of leadership. The most recent of these, contin- leads another person, B, if the actions of A modify B’s
gency theories, is argued to be most consistent with behavior in a direction desired by A. Note that this defini-
existing evidence and most relevant to professional tion of leading is restricted to intended influence. Elimi-
practice. The Vroom, Yetton, and Jago contingency mod- nated are instances in which the influence is in a direction
els of participation in decision making are described in opposite of that desired by A or in which changing B’s
depth, and their work provides the basis for identifying behavior was not A’s intention.
3 distinct ways in which situational or contextual vari- If leading is influencing, then what is leadership?
ables are relevant to both research on and the practice Clearly, if this term is useful, it refers to a potential or
of leadership. capacity to influence others. It is represented in all aspects
of a process that includes the traits of the source of the
Keywords: participation, situational leadership, normative influence (see Zaccaro, 2007, this issue), the cognitive
models, contingency theory processes in the source (see Sternberg, 2007, this issue), the
nature of the interaction that makes the influence possible

T he term leadership is ubiquitous in common dis-

course. Political candidates proclaim it, organiza-
tions seek it, and the media discusses it ad nauseum.
Unfortunately, research on leadership has done little to
inform these endeavors. As Bennis and Nanus (1985) have
(see Avolio, 2007, this issue), and the situational context
that is the subject of this article.
Note that the definition given above makes no mention
of the processes by which the influence occurs. There are,
in fact, a myriad of processes by which successful influence
noted, can occur. Threats, the promise of rewards, well-reasoned
technical arguments, and inspirational appeals can all be
Literally thousands of empirical investigations of leaders have effective under some circumstances. Do all of these modes
been conducted in the last seventy-five years alone, but no clear of influence qualify as leadership? It is in the answer to this
and unequivocal understanding exists as to what distinguishes question that leadership theorists diverge. Some restrict the
leaders from nonleaders, and perhaps more important, what dis- term leadership to particular types of influence methods,
tinguishes effective leaders from ineffective leaders. (p. 4) such as those that are noncoercive or that involve appeals
to moral values. Others use the form of influence not as a
Although this assertion is over 20 years old, our position
defining property but as the basis for distinguishing differ-
is that any serious review of the more recent literature
ent types of leadership. For example, Burns (1978) distin-
would reveal that the quote is as relevant today as it was guished between transactional and transformational lead-
then. ership, terms that are described in more detail by Avolio
One of the problems stems from the fact that the term (2007). Similarly, other scholars have written about char-
leadership, despite its popularity, is not a scientific term ismatic leadership (Conger & Kanungo, 1998), tyrannical
with a formal, standardized definition. Bass (1990) has leadership (Glad, 2004), and narcissistic leadership (Kets
lamented the taxonomic confusion by suggesting that de Vries & Miller, 1985).
“there are almost as many definitions of leadership as there Another point of difference among definitions of lead-
are persons who have attempted to define the concept” ership lies in their treatment of the effects of influence.
(p. 11). Most theorists assume there is a close link between
In this article, we begin by examining a set of issues
surrounding the definition of leadership. Then we pursue
our central objective to examine the role of situational Victor H. Vroom, School of Management, Yale University; Arthur G.
Jago, College of Business, University of Missouri—Columbia.
factors in leadership. Our focus is on the leadership of Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Victor
organizations—public, private, or nonprofit—rather than H. Vroom, School of Management, Yale University, New Haven, CT
leadership in political, scientific, or artistic realms. 06520. E-mail: [email protected]

January 2007 ● American Psychologist 17

Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association 0003-066X/07/$12.00
Vol. 62, No. 1, 17–24 DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.17
 3. The nature of the incentives, extrinsic or intrinsic,
is not part of the definition.
4. The consequence of the influence is collaboration
in pursuit of a common goal.
5. The “great things” are in the minds of both leader
and followers and are not necessarily viewed as
desirable by all other parties.

A Heroic Conception of Leadership

Most early research on leadership was based on an assump-
tion that has been largely discredited. Leadership was as-
sumed to be a general personal trait independent of the
context in which the leadership was performed. We refer to
this as a heroic conception of leadership. Heroic models
originated in the great man theory of history proposed by
18th-century rationalists such as Carlyle, Nietzsche, and
Galton. Major events in world history were assumed to be
the result of great men whose genius and vision changed
the world in which they lived. Among psychologists, Wil-
Victor H. liam James (1880) stressed that the mutations of society
Vroom were due to great men who led society in the directions
they believed to be important.
The development of psychological testing in the early
part of the 20th century provided the potential for testing
leadership and the effectiveness of a group or organiza- the trait concept. If leadership is a general personal trait, it
tion. If fact, organizational effectiveness is often taken should be measurable, and people with a high level of this
as a strong indication of effective leadership. Exhibiting trait could be placed in positions requiring their talents. If
leadership means not only influencing others but also the heroic model proved to be correct, society could enor-
doing so in a manner that enables the organization to mously benefit through improved leader selection.
attain its goals. The usefulness of adding effectiveness to Efforts to test this heroic model have compared the
the definition of leadership has recently been questioned traits of leaders with followers and effective leaders with
by Podolny, Khurana, and Hill-Popper (2005). They those who were ineffective. The psychological tests used
noted the tenuous connections between these two vari- have ranged from tests of aptitude and ability, including
ables in economic organizations and suggested that lead- intelligence, to personality tests measuring traits such as
ership be defined as a process of “meaning-making” (p. extroversion, dominance, and masculinity.
1) among organizational members. A detailed summary of all of this work is beyond the
We support disentangling the definition of leadership scope of this article. Zaccaro (2007), whose article appears
from organizational effectiveness. Not only is the effec- in this special section, discussed the evidence in more
tiveness of an organization influenced by many factors detail. Stogdill, who reviewed 124 studies, noted substan-
other than the quality of its leadership, but there are many tial variability in the findings reported by different inves-
processes by which leaders can impact their organizations
tigators. He stated that “It becomes clear that an adequate
that have little or nothing to do with what is defined as
analysis of leadership involves not only a study of leaders,
leadership. For example, mergers and acquisitions, changes
but also of situations” (Stogdill, 1948, pp. 64 – 65).
in organizational structure, and layoffs of personnel may
Reviews such as those by Stogdill (1948) gave pause
have great impact on shareholder value but do not neces-
to those investigators looking for the components of the
sarily embody the influence process integral to leadership.
trait of leadership. Beginning in the 1950s, there was a
One would expect leadership as defined here to contribute
move away from dispositional variables as the source of
to organizational effectiveness, but it would be neither
leadership to other and possibly more promising ap-
necessary nor sufficient for achieving it.
proaches. Zaccaro (2007) made the case for resurrecting
To the myriad of definitions that have been put for-
the study of leadership traits, arguing that their rejection
ward over the years, we offer the following working defi-
was premature and based on something other than an
nition that will, at least, serve the objectives of this article.
unbiased appraisal of the evidence.
We see leadership as a process of motivating people to
Although the notion of leadership has declined as a
work together collaboratively to accomplish great things.
starting point for research, it still constitutes the prevalent
Note a few implications of this definition.
view held by the general public (see Avolio, 2007). In their
1. Leadership is a process, not a property of a person. article, Hackman and Wageman (2007, this issue) sought to
2. The process involves a particular form of influence account for this discrepancy with their concept of the leader
called motivating. attribution error.

18 January 2007 ● American Psychologist

 ents. Furthermore, in measuring leadership behavior, they
focused exclusively on what leaders did most of the time or
on average rather than on the context of the behavior or
how that context might cause a shift in behavior from that
average.
We conclude that neither of the two approaches to the
study of leadership addressed so far has produced a solid
body of scientific evidence sufficient to guide practice. The
relationships between leader behavior and effectiveness
varied markedly from one study to another. Neither the
behavior of leaders in carrying out their leadership roles
nor the nature of the challenges they met did justice to the
complexity of the phenomena. Today, most researchers
include situational variables in their investigations, either
as determinants of leader behavior or as moderating vari-
ables interacting with traits or behavior.
The Pure Situational Theory
We turn now to our central task of exploring theories and
research examining the role of situational factors in lead-
Arthur G. ership. In discussing the heroic model, we examined its
Jago historical origins in the great man theory of history. The
antithesis of this movement was an environmental position
proposed by many philosophers, including Hegel and
Spencer. They saw “great men” as merely puppets of social
The Search for Effective Leader forces. These forces selected people for positions of lead-
Behaviors ership and shaped their behavior to coincide with social
interests.
Disenchantment with the search for universal traits of lead- In a similar vein, Perrow (1970) argued that the real
ership led to a new movement in leadership research in the causes of effective and ineffective organizational leader-
1950s and 1960s. This research was primarily located in ship reside in structural features rather than the character-
two universities: Ohio State University and the University istics of the people who lead those organizations. The traits
of Michigan. The shared focus of both research programs of leaders reflect the mechanisms by which they are se-
was an interest in how leaders behave. They were not lected, and their behavior is constrained by the situations
concerned with leadership traits as indicated by perfor- that they face. Perrow argued that leadership should be
mance on standardized tests but rather with the leader’s viewed as a dependent rather than an independent variable.
actions in carrying out the leadership role. The Ohio State To put it differently, the traits and behavior of leaders are
studies, for example, focused on the independent behav- mediating variables between structural antecedents and or-
ioral dimensions of consideration and initiating structure. ganizational outcomes. Supporting this position are longi-
The former dealt with the establishment of mutual trust, tudinal studies of changes in organizational effectiveness
two-way communication, rapport, and a concern for the during periods in which organizations had changes in top
employee as a human being both in and out of the work leadership (Lieberson and O’Connor, 1972; Salancik &
setting. The latter dealt with defining working relation- Pfeffer, 1977). Their data show that very little of the
ships, work schedules, work methods, and accomplish- variance in organizational outcomes could be explained by
ment. changes in leadership. Pfeffer (1977) concluded, “If one
Leader behavior research was a step in the direction of cannot observe differences when leaders change, then what
acknowledging the role of situation or context in leader- does it matter who occupies the positions or how they
ship. Unlike traits, behavior is potentially influenced not behave?” (p. 108). Similarly, on the basis of their study of
only by the leaders’ dispositions but also by the situations 46 college and university presidents, Cohen and March
that leaders confront. For example, Lowin and Craig (1974) compared the role of organizational leaders with
(1968), in an imaginative laboratory experiment, showed that of a driver of a skidding car, adding that “whether he
that leaders confronted with ineffective teams behaved in a is convicted of manslaughter or receives a medal for her-
much less considerate and supportive manner than those oism is largely outside his control” (p. 203).
confronted with effective teams. Leader behavior can The argument that the attributes of the leader are
therefore be an effect of subordinate behavior as well as a irrelevant to organization effectiveness has three compo-
cause of it. nents: (a) Leaders have very limited power (much less than
Nonetheless, the Ohio State University and University is attributed to them), (b) candidates for a given leadership
of Michigan studies were primarily concerned with the position will have gone through the same selection screen
consequences of leader behavior as opposed to its anteced- that will drastically curtail their differences, and (c) any

January 2007 ● American Psychologist 19

remaining differences among people will be overwhelmed Path–Goal Theory
by situational demands in the leadership role.
When these assumptions are valid, it is easy to see that Shortly after the publication of Fiedler’s theory, a group of
individual differences would be largely irrelevant to lead- psychologists (Evans, 1970; House, 1971; House &
ership. But how frequently are they valid? Most leaders are Dessler, 1974; House & Mitchell, 1974) advanced a con-
not figureheads; selection criteria may reduce the variance tingency theory that attempted to resolve some of the
in individual differences but they do not eliminate it; and inconsistent and contradictory results that had emerged in
many of the challenges facing leaders are ambiguous, re- research on consideration and initiation structure after the
plete with uncertainty, and leave lots of room for differ- original Ohio State University studies. This theory suggests
ences in interpretation and action. that the leader’s role is to create and manage subordinate
Most social scientists interested in leadership have paths toward individual and group goals, to clarify expec-
now abandoned the debate between person or situation in tations, and to supplement the environment when sufficient
favor of a search for a set of concepts that are capable of rewards from the environment are lacking. The effective-
dealing both with differences in situations and with differ- ness of consideration and initiating structure (and two
ences in leaders. We follow convention in referring to these additional behaviors, achievement-oriented leadership and
as contingency theories. Empirically, contingency theories participative leadership) are thought to depend on contin-
guide research into the kinds of persons and behaviors who gency factors found in (a) subordinate characteristics (e.g.,
are effective in different situations. authoritarianism, locus of control, ability) and (b) environ-
mental characteristics (e.g., task, authority system, work
Fiedler’s Contingency Model group). When behaviors are properly matched to the situ-
The first psychologist to put forth a fully articulated model ation, job satisfaction is produced, acceptance of the lead-
dealing with both leader traits and situational variables was ers occurs, and effort to performance and performance to
Fred Fiedler (1967). He divided leaders into relationship- reward expectations are elevated (House & Mitchell,
motivated and task-motivated groups by means of their 1974).
relatively favorable or unfavorable description of the One well-established hypothesis from path– goal the-
leader’s least preferred coworker on a set of bipolar adjec- ory is that initiating structure (sometimes referred to as
tives. Fiedler studied the relative effectiveness of these two directive or instrumental behavior) will be effective in
types of leaders in eight different situational types created situations with a low degree of subordinate task structure
by all combinations of three dichotomous variables: but ineffective in highly structured subordinate task situa-
(a) leader–member relations, (b) follower–task structure, tions. In the former situation, followers welcome such
and (c) leader–position power. Fiedler found that the rela- behavior because it helps to structure their somewhat am-
tionship-motivated leader outperformed the task-motivated biguous task, thereby assisting them in goal achievement.
leader in four of the eight situations but that the reverse was In the latter situation, further structuring behavior is seen as
true in the other four situations. unnecessary and associated with overly close supervision.
Fiedler argued that one’s leadership motivation is a A meta-analysis (Indvik, 1986) is largely supportive
rather enduring characteristic that is not subject to change of the key propositions in the theory, although some have
or adaptation. Hence it is closer to a trait description than suggested that the theory is still being developed and test-
to a behavior description. For this reason, he eschewed the ing is incomplete (Evans, 1996; Schriesheim and Neider,
type of leadership training that the Ohio State University or 1996). The practical applications of this theory, although
University of Michigan studies may have suggested not yet developed, would be to the training of leaders rather
(Fiedler, 1972, 1973) or selection techniques that the earlier than selection (trait studies) or placement (Fiedler’s
trait research favored. The implication of Fiedler’s theory model). However, this training would go beyond the skills
is for a leader to be placed in a situation that is favorable to used in displaying consideration and initiating structure and
his or her style. Short of that as a possibility, he favored would include skills in diagnosing the situation that one
trying to “engineer the job to fit the manager” (Fiedler, encounters and selecting the appropriate behavioral re-
1965); that is, altering one or more of the three situational sponse to that diagnosis.
variables until a fit with the leader is achieved (Fiedler & Normative and Descriptive Models of
Chemers, 1984). Leadership and Decision Making
Two meta-analyses of the original work and subse-
quent studies provide at least partial support for this theory Our own work (Vroom, 2000; Vroom & Jago, 1988;
(Peters, Hartke, & Pohlmann, 1985; Strube & Garcia, Vroom & Yetton, 1973) shares with path– goal theory a
1981). Nonetheless, the theory has also generated consid- perspective on behavioral contingencies. However, our the-
erable theoretical and methodological controversy over the ory is much narrower in its focus. Specifically, it deals with
years (e.g., Ashour, 1973; Kerr, 1974; McMahon, 1972; the form in and degree to which the leader involves his or
Schriesheim & Kerr, 1977; Shiflett, 1973; Vecchio, 1977). her subordinates in the decision-making process. As such,
In spite of the controversies, it is clear that Fiedler was a it does not presume to be a theory that encompasses all or
pioneer in taking leadership research beyond the purely even most of what a leader does. The sharpness of our
trait or purely situational perspectives that preceded his focus nonetheless allows a great degree of specificity in the
contribution. predictions that are made.

20 January 2007 ● American Psychologist

 Likert (1961, 1967) has argued for a highly participa- stances. Each column represented the responses elicited
tive model of effective leadership largely on the basis of the from different managers to a single situation.
University of Michigan studies mentioned earlier. How- In the analysis of these data, row variance was col-
ever, more recent reviews and meta-analyses suggest that lapsed across columns, which produced something quite
effectiveness of participation is far from a universal truth analogous to average style measures from the Ohio State
(Locke & Schweiger, 1979; Miller & Monge, 1986; University and University of Michigan studies. Vroom and
Schweiger & Leana, 1986). Such variability in results Yetton (1973) and Vroom and Jago (1988) found that
suggests a contingency theory in which the effectiveness of people are different in their overall levels of participation.
participation is dependent on specific situational variables. But when they looked at all the variance in the Row ⫻
Our original work began with a normative or prescrip- Column (Person ⫻ Situation) matrix, such preferred style
tive model (Vroom & Yetton, 1973). Five decision pro- differences only accounted for about 8 –10% of the total
cesses were specified that ranged from highly autocratic variance. In the same matrix, situation, treated as a nominal
through consultative to highly participative (i.e., consen- variable, accounts for about 30% of the variance. As
sus). Seven situational variables were identified that could Vroom and Yetton (1973) noted more than 30 years ago, it
vary with the decision encountered (e.g., decision impor- makes more sense to talk about autocratic versus partici-
tance, need for commitment, goal alignment, potential for pative situations than autocratic versus participative leaders
conflict) and that would govern the most appropriate be- (although both types of differences exist).
havioral response. Prescriptive decision rules were created Of even greater interest is what the matrix data reveal
that eliminated certain decision processes from the feasible about how managers respond to specific types of situations
set when those processes threatened either decision quality (Vroom & Jago, 1988; Vroom & Yetton, 1973). Some of
and/or decision implementation for a specific situation. If these implicit decision rules are widely shared among man-
multiple processes remained in the feasible set, the pre- agers (e.g., becoming more participative when subordinates
scriptive theory gave discretion to the leader in choosing possess knowledge or expertise in the domain of the prob-
among them, perhaps using the opportunity costs (e.g., lem or decision than in situations where they do not). Other
time) or developmental opportunities for subordinates as decision rules describe some leaders but not others. For
additional criteria for choice. In its most common repre- example, two managers may be equally participative on
sentation, the prescriptive model takes the form of a deci- average over the 30 cases. However, one may involve
sion tree with branches that apply rules relevant to a spe- others in making important decisions but not in those that
cific decision situation. are unimportant, whereas the second manager does exactly
Six studies summarized in Vroom and Jago (1988) the reverse. Similarly, in a study involving more than 1,000
and other subsequent studies support the validity of the managers, 38% of managers, referred to as conflict con-
prescriptive model and its component rules. In an attempt fronters, become more participative in high-conflict situa-
to increase prescriptive validity, Vroom and Jago (1988) tions. A somewhat larger percentage (58%), called conflict
introduced five additional situational factors (e.g., severe avoiders, become more autocratic in a matched set of
time constraints) and increased the prescriptive specificity situations that were high in conflict.
by using linear equations rather than decision rules. In two Further studies using the Vroom, Yetton, and Jago
studies, researchers have examined the incremental im- methodology have also documented that leaders use com-
provements in the 1988 model (Brown & Finstuen, 1993; plex decision rules that respond to configurations or com-
Field, 1998). Vroom (2000) has made further changes in binations of situational dimensions (Jago, 1978). For ex-
the specification of key variables and the method of depict- ample, responses to conflict often depend on whether
ing model prescriptions. acceptance or commitment on the part of subordinates is
required. When it is important that subordinates accept a
In addition to conducting research on a normative
decision, leaders are less participative when conflict is
model, Vroom and Yetton (1973) and Vroom and Jago
likely than when it is not. However, when subordinates’
(1988) have sought to understand how situations affect
acceptance is irrelevant, leaders are more participative
leader behavior. They gave leaders a set of 30 written
when conflict is likely than when it is not. In the first case,
cases, each describing a situation in which a leader was
leaders may believe that participation may exacerbate con-
confronted with a problem to solve or decision to make.
flict, thereby reducing acceptance. In the second case, the
Each subject was asked to choose from a set of five
same leaders may believe that conflict may be constructive
decision processes, varying in the form and amount of
and increase decision quality without jeopardizing subor-
participation provided by members of his or her team. Thus
dinate acceptance. These analyses give cause to question
the dependent variable was one of behavioral intent rather Hill and Schmitt’s (1977) representation of the decision
than actual behavior. Various problem sets have been used maker as a linear processor of informational cues.
over time, but each manipulates relevant situational vari- The Vroom, Yetton, and Jago approach to individual
ables in a systematic manner that reflects a within-person, differences is strikingly similar to what Mischel discovered
repeated-measures, experimental design. When adminis- in studying the behavior of children in a summer camp:
tered to a sample of managers, a problem set produces a
two-dimensional data matrix. Each row represented the The findings made clear that individuals who had similar average
responses from a single manager to each of the 30 circum- levels of a type of behavior (e.g., their overall aggression) nev-

January 2007 ● American Psychologist 21

ertheless differed predictably in the types of situations in which A Taxonomy of Situation Effects
their aggressiveness occurs. A child characterized by a pattern of
becoming exceptionally aggressive when peers approach him to What final conclusions can one draw about the role of
play, but less aggressive than most other children when chastised situations in leadership? Our analysis had identified three
by an adult for misbehaving, is different from one who shows the distinct roles that situational variables play in the leader-
opposite pattern, even if both have similar overall levels of total ship process.
aggressive behavior. Collectively, the results showed that when 1. Organizational effectiveness (often taken to be an
closely observed, individuals are characterized by stable, distinc-
indication of its leadership) is affected by situational fac-
tive, and highly meaningful patterns of variability in their actions,
thoughts, and feelings across different types of situations. These if
tors not under leader control. Although army generals,
. . . then . . . situation– behavior relationships provide a kind of orchestra conductors, and football coaches receive adula-
“behavioral signature of personality.” (Mischel, 2004, pp. 7– 8) tion for success and blame for failure, successful perfor-
mance is typically the result of the coordinated efforts of
Of course, there are differences between the two many. In open systems, including corporations, goal attain-
investigations. Mischel (2004) observed behavior in real ment is also influenced by the actions of competitors,
situations, whereas Vroom and Yetton (1973) and enactment of new legislation, new technologies, interest
Vroom and Jago (1988) observed behavior in situations rates, and currency fluctuations (to name just a few vari-
that are hypothetical. But their conclusions are the ables). All of these factors can have large effects on orga-
same—that much of the variance in behavior can be nizational effectiveness, making it difficult to discern lead-
understood in terms of dispositions that are situationally ership effects. It is these direct effects of situation that are
specific rather than general. one of the principal bases for what we have termed the
The Mischel (2004), Vroom and Yetton (1973), and pure-situational theory and have led some to conclude that
Vroom and Jago (1988) research has given new life to the leadership is entirely illusory. A far more sensible approach
trait concept by defining it in terms of consistency in is to regard the potency of leadership to be a matter of
behavior in a class of situations. Not only is this a resolu- degree and to attempt to discover the kinds of situations
tion of Mischel’s personality paradox, but it also opens the that determine when leadership makes a difference (see
doors to a new and potentially powerful method for training Hackman & Wageman, 2007).
leaders (Vroom, 2003). Vroom and Jago (1988) described 2. Situations shape how leaders behave. Many years
a four-day training program that used practice in the nor- ago, Cronbach (1957) identified two distinct disciplines of
mative model and feedback to managers based on their psychology. One of these, represented by experimental and
responses to a standard set of cases. The cases were se- social psychology, was concerned with the effects of ex-
ternal events on behavior. The second was concerned with
lected in accordance with a multifactorial design in which
measurement of individual differences. Neither discipline
eight factors, all deemed relevant to power-sharing behav-
was capable of explaining behavior by itself. People, in-
ior, were varied. This made it possible to show each man-
cluding leaders, are affected by their environment as well
ager his or her unique decision rules. The managers were
as by fairly stable characteristics that predispose them to
159 department heads and directors in a large international certain kinds of behavior. Unfortunately, the field of lead-
travel and financial corporation. They were trained in ership has identified more closely with the field of individ-
groups of about 20, and the training was conducted at a ual differences and has largely ignored the way the behav-
variety of sites in Europe, North America, and Asia. The ior of leaders is influenced by the situations they encounter.
effects of the training were evaluated six months to two The heroic model, with its search for a general trait of
years after the training by questionnaires given to manag- leadership, as well as the investigations of leader behavior
ers, peers, and subordinates of the trainees as well as at Ohio State University and the University of Michigan
measures given to the trainees themselves. The results assumed a degree of invariance across situations that is
showed that the managers became more participative after seldom, if ever, observed.
the training, particularly in situations in which participation The Vroom, Yetton, and Jago research (Vroom, 2000;
was deemed effective by the normative model. Vroom & Jago, 1988; Vroom & Yetton, 1973) indicates the
Since the original study, the model and training meth- importance of incorporating the situation into the search for
ods have been substantially altered and are now being used lawfulness rather than removing it. Their research, showing
in at least a dozen different countries and in target popu- that situation accounts for about three times as much vari-
lations ranging from MBAs to CEOs. Well over 100,000 ance as do individual differences, underscores the impor-
managers have received both training in the normative tant role that situational forces play in guiding action. But
model and detailed reports showing how their choices on the lack of evidence for consistent individual differences
standardized cases compared with those of the model, their should not be taken to mean that individual differences are
peers, and a selected reference group (Vroom, 2003). Each largely irrelevant in leadership. It may simply mean that
report identifies the manager’s implicit decision rules, how psychologists are looking in the wrong place for them!
these implicit rules compare with the rules of others and The Vroom, Yetton, and Jago research (Vroom, 2000;
with the model, and a set of individualized recommenda- Vroom & Jago, 1988; Vroom & Yetton, 1973) has pointed
tions for improving one’s effectiveness in this facet of to the value of situation-specific trait descriptions, de-
leadership. scribed as consistent behavior patterns in specific kinds of

22 January 2007 ● American Psychologist

contexts. Mischel (2004) referred to these as “if . . . then stability of personality with the equally compelling empir-
. . . relationships” (p. 8), and we have called them decision ical evidence for the variability of the person’s behavior
rules. across diverse situations?” (p. 1).
3. Situations influence the consequences of leader Mischel’s question is remarkably similar to a paradox
behavior. Popular books on management are filled with that we have confronted in writing this article. Perhaps we
maxims such as push decision power down, delegate, en- could call this a leadership paradox. Intuition and some
large jobs, place your trust in people, the customer must theories lead one to see stability and consistency in leader
come first, and so on. Each of these maxims is situation behavior and its outcomes, despite compelling evidence for
free. The advice is unfettered with information about the the role of situation and context. Similarly, intuition and
kinds of situations in which the recommended actions are theories lead one to see stability and consistency in leader
effective and those in which they are ineffective. performance across diverse situations and to drastically
Clearly, normative theories require situational quali- overestimate leaders’ control over organizational outcomes
fiers. Actions must be tailored to fit the demands of each (see Hackman & Wageman’s, 2007, concept of the leader
situation. A leadership style that is effective in one situa- attribution error). In each of these cases, the perceptual
tion may prove completely ineffective in a different situa- distortions have resulted from a failure to recognize the
tion. Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1958) stimulated thinking important role that situation or context plays in leadership.
about the possibility of developing a contingency model of Viewing leadership in purely dispositional or purely
leadership by suggesting a wide range of situational factors situational terms is to miss a major portion of the phenom-
that should be considered by managers in adopting a lead- enon. Earlier in this article, we defined leadership as a
ership style. Hersey and Blanchard (1982) carried the pro- process of motivating others to work together collabora-
cess one step further by proposing a taxonomy of four tively to accomplish great things. The task confronting
styles ranging from telling to delegating and a framework contingency theorists is to understand the key behaviors
for matching each to the situation. However, their one and contextual variables involved in this process. Looking
situational variable—the maturity of followers— essen- at behavior in specific classes of situations rather than
tially ignored other important features of the context within averaging across situations is more consistent with contem-
which the interaction took place. porary research on personality and more conducive to valid
The normative models of Vroom, Yetton, and Jago generalizations about effective leadership. If . . . then
represent more ambitious attempts to model the interaction . . . relationships are not only at the core of attempts to
between leadership style, situation, and effectiveness out- understand what people do but are also the basis for at-
comes. In their research, the situational variables used in tempts to understand what leaders should do.
predicting the consequences of a leader’s choices are the
same as those used in explaining the choices that a leader REFERENCES
actually makes. The advantage of using the same situa-
tional variables in both normative and descriptive analyses Ashour, A. S. (1973). The contingency model of leadership effectiveness:
An evaluation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9,
is the ease with which the effectiveness of a leader’s 339 –355.
choices can be determined. One can compare a leader’s Avolio, B. J. (2007). Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership
choices in each situation with the choice recommended by theory building. American Psychologist, 62, 25–33.
the normative model. In this way, the overall effectiveness Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership (3rd ed.).
of a leader’s choice can be determined as well as the source New York: Free Press.
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking
of his or her ineffectiveness. charge. New York: Harper.
Participation in decision making is but one of many Blake, R., & Mouton, J. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf.
dimensions of leader behavior that can be studied in the Brown, F. W., & Finstuen, K. (1993). The use of participation in decision
manner that we have used here. Consider, for example, making: A consideration of the Vroom–Yetton and Vroom–Jago nor-
consideration and initiating structure, the two dimensions mative models. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 6, 207–219.
identified in the Ohio State University studies, or their Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper Torchbooks.
Cohen, M. D., & March, J. G. (1974). Leadership and ambiguity: The
counterparts, employee-centered and production-centered American college president. New York: McGraw-Hill.
concepts, used extensively in leadership training (Blake & Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in
Mouton, 1964). These behaviors result from specific organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
choices that leaders make in specific situations. Unpacking Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology.
these concepts from their trait heritage can permit an ex- American Psychologist, 12, 671– 684.
Evans, M. G. (1970). The effects of supervisory behavior on the path–
amination of their structural determinants, their disposi- goal relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
tional components, and interactions between them. It can 55, 277–298.
also stimulate research on the role of context in governing Evans, M. G. (1996). R. J. House’s “A path– goal theory of leader
the effectiveness of these behavioral patterns. effectiveness.” The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 305–309.
Fiedler, F. (1965, September). Engineer the job to fit the manager. Har-
A Concluding Note vard Business Review, 43, 115–122.
Fiedler, F. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York:
Mischel (2004) has recently written about a phenomenon McGraw-Hill.
he called the personality paradox: “How can we reconcile Fiedler, F. (1972). How do you make leaders more effective? New
our intuitions—and our theories—about the invariance and answers to an old puzzle. Organizational Dynamics, 1(2), 3–18.

January 2007 ● American Psychologist 23

Fiedler, F. (1973, February). The trouble with leadership training is that it productivity: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Jour-
doesn’t train leaders. Psychology Today, pp. 23–26, 29 –30, 92. nal, 29, 727–753.
Fiedler, F., & Chemers, M. M. (1984). Improving leadership effective- Mischel, W. (2004). Toward an integrative science of the person. Annual
ness: The leader match concept (Rev. ed.). New York: Wiley. Review of Psychology, 55, 1–22.
Field, R. H. G. (1998). Testing the incremental validity of the Vroom– Perrow, C. (1970). Organization analysis: A sociological view. Belmont,
Jago versus Vroom–Yetton models of participation in decision making. CA: Wadsworth.
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11, 251–261. Peters, L. H., Hartke, D. D., & Pohlmann, J. T. (1985). Fiedler’s contin-
Glad, B. (2004). Tyrannical leadership. In G. R. Goethals, G. J. Sorenson, gency theory of leadership: An application of the meta-analysis proce-
& J. M. Burns (Eds.), Encyclopedia of leadership (Vol. 4, pp. 1592– dures of Schmidt and Hunter. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 274 –285.
1597). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pfeffer, J. (1977). The ambiguity of leadership. Academy of Management
Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2007). Asking the right questions about Review, 2, 104 –112.
leadership. American Psychologist, 62, 43– 47. Podolny, J. M., Khurana, R., & Hill-Popper, M. (2005). Revisiting the
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. (1982). Management of organizational be- meaning of leadership. In B. M. Staw & R. M. Kramer (Eds.), Research
havior: Utilizing human resources (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: in organizational behavior (Vol. 26, pp. 1–36). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Prentice Hall. Press.
Hill, T. E., & Schmitt, N. (1977). Individual differences in leadership Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1977). Constraints on administrator discre-
decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, tion: The limited influence of mayors on city budgets. Urban Affairs
19, 353–367. Quarterly, 11, 475– 498.
House, R. J. (1971). A path– goal theory of leader effectiveness. Admin- Schriesheim, C. A., & Kerr, S. (1977). Theories and measures of leader-
istrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321–338. ship: A critical appraisal of current and future directions. In J. G. Hunt
House, R. J., & Dessler, G. (1974). The path– goal theory of leadership: & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 9 – 45).
Some post hoc and a priori tests. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Contingency approaches to leadership (pp. 29 –55). Carbondale, IL: Schriesheim, C. A., & Neider, L. L. (1996). Path– goal leadership theory:
Southern Illinois University Press. The long and winding road. The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 317–321.
House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Path– goal theory of leadership. Schweiger, D. M., & Leana, C. R. (1986). Participation in decision
Journal of Contemporary Business, 3, 81–97. making. In E. A. Locke (Ed.), Generalizing from laboratory to field
Indvik, J. (1986). Path– goal theory of leadership: A meta-analysis. Pro- settings (pp. 147–166). Lexington, MA: Heath.
ceedings of the Academy of Management Meetings, 46, 189 –192.
Shiflett, S. C. (1973). The contingency model of leadership effectiveness:
Jago, A. G. (1978). Configural cue utilization in implicit models of leader
Some implications of its statistical and methodological properties.
behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 474 –
Behavioral Science, 18, 429 – 440.
496.
Sternberg, R. J. (2007). A systems models of leadership: WICS. American
James, W. (1880, October). Great men, great thoughts and their environ-
Psychologist, 62, 34 – 42.
ment. Atlantic Monthly, 46, 441– 459.
Kerr, S. (1974). Discussant comments. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A
(Eds.), Contingency approaches to leadership (pp. 124 –129). Carbon- survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35–71.
dale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Strube, M., & Garcia, J. (1981). A meta-analysis investigation of Fiedler’s
Kets de Vries, M., & Miller, D. (1985). Narcissism and leadership: An contingency model of leadership effectiveness. Psychological Bulletin,
object relations perspective. Human Relations, 38, 583– 601. 90, 307–321.
Lieberson, S., & O’Connor, J. F. (1972). Leadership and organizational Tannenbaum, R. E., & Schmidt, W. H. (1958, March/April). How to
performance: A study of large corporations. American Sociological choose a leadership pattern. Harvard Business Review, 36, 95–101.
Review, 37, 119 –130. Vecchio, R. P. (1977). An empirical examination of the validity of
Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill. Fiedler’s model of leadership effectiveness. Organizational Behavior
Likert, R. (1967). The human organization. New York: McGraw-Hill. and Human Performance, 19, 180 –206.
Locke, E. A., & Schweiger, D. M. (1979). Participation in decision Vroom, V. H. (2000). Leadership and the decision-making process. Or-
making: One more look. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organiza- ganizational Dynamics, 28(4), 82–94.
tional behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 265–339). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Vroom, V. H. (2003). Educating managers in decision making and lead-
Lowin, A., & Craig, J. R. (1968). The influence of level of performance ership. Management Decision, 10, 968 –978.
on managerial style: An experimental object-lesson in the ambiguity of Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (1988). The new leadership: Managing
correlational data. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, participation in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
3, 440 – 458. Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision making.
McMahon, J. T. (1972). The contingency theory: Logic and method Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
revisited. Personnel Psychology, 25, 697–711. Zaccaro, S. J. (2007). Trait-based leadership. American Psychologist, 62,
Miller, K. I., & Monge, P. R. (1986). Participation, satisfaction, and 6 –16.

24 January 2007 ● American Psychologist