Participation under conditions of conflict: more on the validity of the vroom-yetton model[1]

TLDR: In this article, the authors tested the Conflict Rule against an alternative hypothesis that predicts conflict intensification and polarization in group settings and found that participants are far more likely to accept a leader's decision following an interactive group process regardless of either the leader's desire to reach consensus or the technical quality of the decision.

Abstract: Previous research validating the Vroom-Yetton leadership model has provided support for all the prescriptions of the model except the Conflict Rule. This rule prescribes group decision-making methods when conflict among subordinates is anticipated and acceptance of the decision is critical, on the grounds that a group process provides a more effective vehicle for conflict resolution than other less participative methods. the present experiment tests the Conflict Rule against an alternative hypothesis that predicts conflict intensification and polarization in group settings. Forty groups of five members each considered a decision task chosen for its likelihood of generating task-based conflict. the 2x2 design (decision-making process by leader reward structure) created conditions in which a particular decision-making process either conformed to or violated the normative prescriptions of Vroom and Yetton's model. Both attitudinal and behavioural measures of decision acceptance revealed that the interactive group process was significantly more effective than one-to-one consultation in generating support for a leader's solution. A secondary analysis treating the quality of the leader's decision as a covariate revealed no significant variation in the pattern of subordinate acceptance explained by this factor. Overall, the results support Vroom and Yetton's Conflict Rule and suggest that subordinates are far more likely to accept a leader's decision following an interactive group process regardless of either the leader's desire to reach consensus or the technical quality of the decision.