The notion that leadership study requires self-assessment – “locating oneself” – and introspection has been reinforced throughout this course. The construct of metaphors advances thinking by

■ Academic Paper Leadership styles and decision-making models among corporate leaders in non- proﬁt organizations in North America Francis Uzonwanne* Department of Psychology, College of Management Sciences, Redeemer’s University, Lagos, Nigeria This research seeks to study the relationship between leadership styles (selling, telling, delegating, and participating) of non-proﬁt executives and their preferred decision-making models (rational, intuitive, dependent, spontaneous, and avoidant) used operationally in managing non-proﬁt outﬁts striving to survive in turbulent economic situations.

The General Decision-Making Style Scale instrument and the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire were the instruments used for this study, and 109 out 500 randomly selected executives and leaders responded to the surveys. Data analyses used for this study were the Pearson correlation coefﬁcient and the two-way analysis of variance. Findings showed that there was a signiﬁcant positive correlation between initiating structure leadership style and rational decision-making and between initiating structure leadership style and dependent decision. Other ﬁndings also show a signiﬁcant relationship between leadership style and the rational decision-making model, gender and leadership styles and the intuitive decision-making model among others. Findings may be useful in further understanding the placement of individuals with particular leadership styles in identiﬁed decision-making roles. For instance, multiple comparisons results show that no matter what the demographic variables were, gender and age, corporate leaders who used the participating leadership style tend to use the dependent decision-making model.

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. INTRODUCTION In the face of a fast-changing society, both the public and private sectors are experiencing gaps that will be ﬁlled by effective leadership styles and decision- making patterns. Leadership has been identiﬁed as one of the ways that managers and leaders effec- tively manage change in a business environment (Erven, 2001). O’Connor (1997) deﬁnes leadership as‘the ability to present a vision so that others want to achieve it; it requires skill in building relation- ships with other people and organizing resources effectively’(p. 4). Stogdill (1974) however indicated that decades of effort dedicated to studying leadership failed to produce a universally accepted deﬁnition of the concept. Burns (1978) later echoes this thought;‘Leadership as a concept has dissolved into small and discrete meanings, with more than 130 differ- ent deﬁnitions’(p. 2). Although leadership is seem- ingly elusive in deﬁnition, it has been stated that ‘whenever it exists, moraleﬂourishes, people pull together toward common goals, spirits soar, order is maintained, not as end in itself, but as a means to move forward together’(Johns & Moser, 1989, p. 63). The leadership ability is therefore a relevant and pertinent attribute that must be present in a leader and in all organizations.

Every decision is the result of a strong process that is inﬂuenced by huge forces (Gibson, Donelly & Invancevich, 1997). It can be viewed as a chrono- logical process involving several steps that enable executives and decision-makers to examine each element in a normal progression that leads to a decision. The executive or decision-makerﬁrst establishes speciﬁcgoalsandobjectivesand measuring results and then identiﬁes the problem *Correspondence to: Francis Uzonwanne, Department of Psychology, College of Management Sciences, Redeemer’s University, Lagos, Nigeria.

E-mail: [email protected] Journal of Public Affairs Volume 15 Number 3 pp 287–299 (2015) Published online 15 June 2014 in Wiley Online Library (www.wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/pa.1530 Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. (s). Next, the decision-maker develops alternatives or options, evaluates the alternatives, selects an alternative, and then proceeds to implement the decision. Finally, the executive or decision- maker engages in controlling and evaluating the out- come of the selected decision (Gibsonet al., 1997). Scott and Bruce (1995) deﬁned decision-maker style as the learned, habitual response pattern exhibited by an individual when confronted with a decision situation.

They proposedﬁve decision-making models:

(1) rational: the thorough search for and logical evaluation of alternatives; (2) intuitive: the reliance on hunches and feelings; (3) dependent: the reliance on research for advice and direction from others; (4) avoidant: the attempt to avoid decision-making; and (5) spontaneous: a sense of immediacy and a desire to get through the decision-making process as soon as possible.

Rationale The quality of an organization’stopleaderscon- tinues to be critical to the organization’sexistence, effectiveness, and ability to adapt to continuous changes in the economic environment. There has been an increase in research on executive leadership that has been inﬂuenced by a growing interest in explaining organizational effectiveness through the actions of top executives (Zaccaro, 2001).

Several studies have offered convincing evidence showing how effective leadership on the part of executives enhances organizational performance and effectiveness. Weiner and Mahoney (1981), for instance, examined executive successor’s effect in 193 companies over a 19-year period and reported that leadership accounted for approximately 44% ofthevarianceinproﬁt margins and 47% for the variance in stock prices.

This study attempts to examine the choice of the Situational Leadership Model (SLM) (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969, 1977, 1982, 1988). SLM falls in a class of prescriptive models that present various contingency approaches to leadership (Butler & Reese, 1991).

Despite a plethora of models proposed, SLM seems to stand out in terms of popularity with practitioners (Butler & Reese, 1991). This model,‘…has been used as a major training device at fortune 500 companies such as BankAmerica, Caterpillar, IBM, Mobil Oil, and Xerox; it has been accepted in all the military services’ (Robbins, 1989, p. 1). SLM has also‘…become the most widely accepted managerial philosophy inthe United States, Canada, Mexico, Europe, Africa, and the Far East’(University Associates, 1986, p. 1).

SLM assumes that leadership behaviors affect outcome, such as overall organizational performance and goal at- tainment through the inﬂuence of subordinate behavior.

Statement of problem The public sector and the non-proﬁt organizations, as a result of an increasingly competitive economic environment, are facing peculiar challenges. With limited resources and increasing needs and demands of services, the only way to survive is to adapt to the needs of this rapidly changing environment.

Customers in proﬁt-oriented settings demand good services for the money they pay. The same applies to non-proﬁt organizations; if their leaders do not provide greater administrative efﬁciency, entrepre- neurial spirit, and greater accountability, the limited funds they currently experience to run their business may be redirected to the competition. It is opined that greater administrative efﬁciency, entrepreneurial spirit, and greater accountability will evidently result in better services and satisﬁed recipients of these services (Peterson, 1997). Non-proﬁt organizations are reshaping themselves so that they can meet with this rapidly increasing demand. With the knowledge of leadership and decision-making stated, we still do not know enough about leadership skills in non-proﬁt organizations; therefore, this study aims to research this area to add to the little that is known. It has been deemed necessary therefore to study the relationship between leadership styles of leaders and executives who predominantly make the decisions that affect and effect change management, business direction, and employee leadership of the non-proﬁt organizations and their preferred decision-making models used operation- ally in managing these outﬁts.

Purpose of study The purpose of this study is to look in-depth at the leadership styles (selling, telling, delegating, and participating) and decision-making models (rational, intuitive, dependent, spontaneous, and avoidant) of executives in non-proﬁt organizations, to determine if there is a possible relationship between the two variables. On the basis of the perceived importance of these two variables to the continued existence of executive management, there is a need to establish possible relationships between them. 288 F. Uzonwanne Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Public Affairs15, 287–299 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/pa Theoretical framework Quite a number of studies have focused on the SLM, as elaborated by Hersey, Blanchard and Johnson (2001). SLM assumes that leadership behaviors affect outcome, such as overall organizational performance and goal attainment through the inﬂu- ence of subordinate behavior. Hersey, Blanchard and Johnson (1996) earlier focused on the role of the business situation in leadership. The product of their study was a theory of situational leadership, which has played a major role in redeﬁning research on leadership. The imperative element in the situational leadership theory is the ability high- performing leaders have, to adapt to a changing organizational environment, proﬁtornon-proﬁt.

Herseyet al. (1996) went on to posit,‘Asubordi- nate’s ability, willingness, and readiness to perform tasks will inﬂuence the outcome of a leader’s actions’(p.164).Herseyet al.opinedthattoestab- lish the level of adaptability required of leaders to achieve an organization’s goals, those leaders need to comprehend and reﬂect on their relationship with their subordinates and the structure of the tasks that are either ongoing or that will be required. SLM elaborates on four leadershipstyles in two-dimensional space (Butler & Reese, 1991). Axes labeled‘task behavior’and‘relationship behavior’deﬁne this two-dimensional space, and the four styles are called ‘S1’(high task, low relationship),‘S2’(high task, high relationship),‘S3’(low task, high relationship), and ‘S4’(low task, low relationship) (Butler & Reese, 1991, p. 107). Herseyet al. (2001) further broke SLM down to four different leadership styles: telling, which is marked by a‘high task–low relationship’behavior.

Herseyet al. (2001) explain that leaders who fall into this category will give speciﬁc instructions and closely monitor performance. Next is selling, which is marked by‘high task–high relationship ’behavior (p. 1723).

Such leaders will give speciﬁc instruction and further give clear directions on how their decisions were made (Herseyet al., 2001). Then, there is participating, and this is marked by a‘low task–high relationship’ behavior. Such leaders will share ideas and facilitate participation in making decisions (Herseyet al., 2001, p. 173). Finally, there is delegating, and this is marked by‘low task–low relationship’behavior. Such leaders that fall under this category will typically turn over responsibility for decision and implementation, to their followers (Herseyet al., 2001, p. 173). Hersey et al. (1996) in their theory of situational leadership pointed out that‘the most effective leaders are those capable of using different leadership styles in response to the demands of the situation and to theﬂuctuating maturity levels of their subordinates’(p. 164).The primary job of a manager is to make decisions (Brousseau, Driver, Hourihan & Larson, 2006).

Brousseauet al.opinethat‘at any moment in any day, most executives are engaged in some as- pect of decision-making: exchanging information, reviewing data, coming up with ideas, evaluating alternatives, implementing directives, and fol- lowing up’. Driver (1979) has deﬁned decision- making as‘a habitual pattern, individuals use in decision-making’(p. 48), whereas Harren (1979) explains it as individuals characteristic mode of perceiving and responding to decision-making tasks. It has been posited that decision-making refers to the ways individuals make sense of the infor- mation they have gathered (McKenney & Keen, 1974; Mitroff, 1989). Drawing on preexisting theory presented, Scott and Bruce (1995) deﬁned decision- making style as the‘learned, habitual response pattern exhibited by an individual when confronted with a decision situation’(p. 819). Scott and Bruce went on to explain that it is not a personality trait (which is very imperative to this study) but a habit- based propensity to react in a certain way in a speciﬁc decision context. According to Scott and Bruce, four decision styles were identiﬁed from preexisting theories and empirical research. These styles were deﬁned in behavioral terms: (i) rational decision- making style, which is characterized by a thorough research for and logical evaluation of alternatives; (ii) intuitive decision-making style, which is characterized by a reliance on hunches; (iii) dependent decision-making style, which is characterized by a search for advice and direction from others; and (iv) avoidant decision-making style, which characterized by attempts to avoid making decisions (Scott & Bruce, 1995). These conceptual deﬁnitionshavebeenusedtodevelop a behaviorally based item scale for measuring decision-making.

Research hypothesis In order to guide the process of this study, the following research hypotheses were developed to determine the relationship between the leadership styles and decision-making models as used by non-proﬁt organization executives and leaders.

Hypothesis one: There will be no signiﬁcant rela- tionship in the leadership styles of non-proﬁt executives (selling, telling, delegating, and partic- ipating) and their preferred decision-making models (rational, intuitive, dependent, spontaneous, and avoidant).

Leadership styles and decision-making models 289 Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Public Affairs15, 287–299 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/pa Hypothesis two: There will be no signiﬁcant difference in the non-proﬁtexecutives’leadership style (selling, telling, delegating, and participating) and different di- mensions of demographic categories (gender and age) based upon different dimensions of decision-making models (rational, intuitive, dependent, spontaneous, and avoidant).

METHODOLOGY This research was designed to study the relationship between the decision-making models used by non- proﬁt executives and their leadership styles of leaders as related to age and gender.

Design of study This study is a quantitative research using correla- tion analysis and analysis of variance (ANOVA).

The quantitative approach establishes facts, makes predictions, and tests stated hypothesis and employed the Pearson correlation coefﬁcient, the one-way ANOVA, and the two-way ANOVA. This study used surveys to collect data. Each of the exec- utives and leaders were asked to complete the scales measuring leadership styles and decision-making models. The data collected were analyzed, using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences ( SPSS ).

Population and sample size The purpose of sampling is to obtain information about the population by randomly selecting groups from within the population. For the sample size in a descrip- tive study, a minimum of 100 is essential to a successful research (Fraenkel & Wallen, 1996). The target popula- tion for this study was corporate leaders and execu- tives of non-proﬁt organizations in the USA, and the participants were selected through a random selection method. A power analysis was conducted on the basis of the total number of items on both instruments to be used, the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) XII and the General Decision-Making Style Scale (GDMS), to ensure that the statistical test will have adequate power. The sample size based on the results of the power analysis was 100. The survey in- struments were distributed to 500 executives randomly selected from the state of Texas in the USA; 38 were returned undeliverable, whereas 109 were returned and used for analysis. The researcher then sought direct access to the executives and leaders of these organizations and approval to collect data from them.Instrumentation The GDMS instrument researched by Scott and Bruce (1995) contained 25 behaviorally phrased items measuring decision-making style. This scale is made up ofﬁve subscales: rational (e.g.,‘Imake decisions in a logical and systematic way’), intui- tive (e.g.,‘I generally make decisions that feel right to me’), dependent (e.g.,‘I often need the assistance of other people when making important decisions’), spontaneous (e.g.,‘I generally make snap decisions’), and avoidant (e.g.,‘I postpone decision- making whenever possible’). Face validity and logical content validity for the GDMS ranges alpha’sfrom 0.68 to 0.94, showing that certain decision-making styles are related to levels of innovativeness and control orientation (Scott & Bruce, 1995). Scott and Bruce (1995) study carriedout on male military ofﬁcers, Master of Business Administration students, and engineers and technicians found the reliability to be 0.76, 0.66, and 0.78 respectively (p. 822). The validity of the decision-making scale was carried out on the basis of content validity.

The LBDQ was developed by the staff of the Per- sonnel Research Board, The Ohio State University and directed by Dr. Carroll L. Shartle (Stogdill, 1963). The instrument contains two factorial-deﬁned scales, consideration and initiating structure. The LBDQ XII has 12 subscales, which contain 5–10 items each. This behavioral inventory according to Halpin and Winer (1957) was used to‘collect ratings of military and industrial leaders by supervisors, subordinates, and observers’(p. 3). According to Stogdill (1963), the estimated reliability of the LBDQ XII using the Kuder–Richardson formula was 0.77 for initiating structure scores and 0.78 for consider- ation scores (p. 5).

Data collection and other procedures Each of the 500 randomly selected executives and leaders were sent a letter of consent along with theLBDQandtheGDMS.Thepacketswere numerically coded to keep a record of respon- dents, and they also contained a stamped, pre- addressed return envelope and a cover letter, introducing the research and listing the beneﬁts as it concerned them. The respondents were followed up after 20 days to remind them of the importance of completing the scales and sending them back. After 21 days, the packets were sent out again to another 250 participants. The data collected were coded according to the Likert scale codes, and the hypothesis using gender differ- ences was also given a code of 1 for men and 2 290 F. Uzonwanne Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Public Affairs15, 287–299 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/pa for women. These were entered and analyzed using the SPSS 12.0 for Windows with a signiﬁcant level of 0.05.

Data analysis As earlier stated, the data collected from the instruments were analyzed using the SPSS edition for Windows XP. The researcher utilized various descriptive and inferential statistical techniques.

Frequencies, standard deviations, means, coefﬁcients, and percentages were produced after statistical anal- ysis had been carried out. The researcher employed the Pearson correlation coefﬁcient and the two- way ANOVA.

For theﬁrst hypothesis, which states that there will be no signiﬁcant relationship in the leadership styles of non-proﬁt executives (selling, telling, delegating, and participating) and their preferred decision-making models (rational, intuitive, dependent, spontaneous, and avoidant), the Pearson correlation coefﬁcient was used to measure the relationship between the two variables, leadership style and decision-making. The second hypothesis, which states that there will be no signiﬁcant difference in the non-proﬁtexecutives’ leadership style (selling, telling, delegating, and partic- ipating) and different dimensions of demographic categories (gender and age) based upon different dimensions of decision-making models (rational, intuitive, dependent, spontaneous, and avoidant), the two-way ANOVA was used for testing.

Results and data analysis Data were collected and analyzed on the basis of the two hypotheses formulated to direct this study. The two hypotheses are as follows:

Hypothesis one: There will be no signiﬁcant relation- ship in the leadership styles of non-proﬁtexecutives (selling, telling, delegating, and participating) and their preferred decision-making models (rational, intuitive, dependent, spontaneous, and avoidant).

Hypothesis two: There will be no signiﬁcant differ- ence in the non-proﬁtexecutives’leadership style (selling, telling, delegating, and participating) and different dimensions of demographic categories (gender and age) based upon different dimensions of decision-making models (rational, intuitive, dependent, spontaneous, and avoidant).

The results were computed using descriptive and inferential statistical analysis, including means, frequencies, percentages, standard deviations, alphacoefﬁcients, split-half tests, Pearson correlation coefﬁ- cient, and two-way ANOVA, computed using SPSS 17.0 for Windows with a signiﬁcant level of 0.05 (Table 1).

The age ranges for the non-proﬁt organization executives reported are between 33 and 62 years. Of the 109 respondents, 16 respondents (14.7%) were 40 years old and younger, 59 (54.1%) respondents were 41–50 years old, 30 (27.5%) respondents were 51–60 years old, and 4 (3.7) were 60 years and older.

The average age was 47.12 years, and the standard deviation was 7.24 years. Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics regarding age.

Data of the non-proﬁt executives’decision- making models were collected using the GDMS, which was divided intoﬁve dimensions: rational, intuitive, dependent, avoidant, and spontaneous models. Questions 1–5 represented the rational model, questions 6–10 represented the intuitive model, ques- tions 11–15 represented the dependent model, questions 16–20 represented the avoidant model, and questions 21–25 represented the spontaneous model.

Table 3 speciﬁes the statistical distribution, mean scores and standard deviation, of the non-proﬁtexecutives’ decision-making models and totals.

Data of the leadership styles of non-proﬁtexecu- tives were collected using the LBDQ XII, which was divided into two dimensions, initiating structure and consideration. Table 4 speciﬁes descriptive statistics of mean and standard deviations, of the observations of the two dimensions and their total. Table 1 Respondents’gender Gender Frequency %Valid (%)Cumulative (%) Male 64 58.7 58.7 58.7 Female 45 41.3 41.3 100 Total 109 100 100 N= 109. Table 2 Respondents’age Age (years) Frequency %Valid (%)Cumulative (%) 40 and younger 16 14.7 14.7 14.7 41 to 50 59 54.1 54.1 68.8 51 to 60 30 27.5 27.5 96.3 61 and older 4 3.7 3.7 100.0 Total 109 100 100 N= 109.

Leadership styles and decision-making models 291 Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Public Affairs15, 287–299 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/pa The leadership styles of the non-proﬁt executives in this study were considered as the combination of the two dimensions, initiating structure and consideration.

Fleishman (1973) explained initiating structure as thedegree to which a leader deﬁnes and organizes his role and the roles of followers, is oriented toward goal attainment, and establishes well-deﬁned patterns and channels of communication. Consideration on the other hand is deﬁned as the degree to which a leader shows concern and respect for followers, looks out for their welfare, and expresses appreciation and support (Bass, 1990). The two dimensions, initiating structure and consideration, divide into four quadrants to produce telling, selling, participating, and delegating.

Of the 109 respondents, 21 respondents (19.3%) reported using the telling leadership style, 40 (36.7%) reported using the selling leadership style, 27 (24.8%) reported using the participating leadership style, and 21 (19.3%) reported using the delegating leadership style. Table 5 presents the descriptive statistics specifying the four leadership styles.

Hypothesis one: The relationship between the lead- ership styles (telling, selling, delegating, and partic- ipating) and the decision-making models (rational, intuitive, dependent, avoidant, and spontaneous) of non-proﬁt organizations executives were tested in hypothesis one. The hypothesis was tested using the Pearson product-moment correlation. The two initial dimensions, initiating structure and con- sideration, were applied for this hypothesis. The results presented in Table 6 show a signiﬁcant positive correlation between initiating structure leadership style and rational decision-making r(107) = 0.309,p<0.01 or 0.001, and between initi- ating structure leadership style and dependent decision-makingr(107) = 0.322,p<0.01 or 0.001.

The results showed a signiﬁcant negative correlationoninitiatingstructureandintuitive modelr(107) = 0.12,p>0.01 or 0.230, initiating structure and avoidant modelr(107) = 0.15,p>0.01 or 0.116, initiating structure and spontaneous modelr(107) = 0.002,p>0.01 or 0.980, consideration and rational modelr(107) = 0.09,p 0.01 or 0.334, consideration and intuitive model r(107) = 0.008,p>0.01 or 0.933, consideration and Table 3 Non-proﬁt executives’decision-making models DimensionMSD Rational 22.24 1.83 Intuitive 17.86 2.81 Dependent 18.93 3.31 Avoidant 9.79 3.79 Spontaneous 11.30 3.66 Total 80.12 15.4 SD, standard deviation.

N= 109.

Table 4 Variable scores in leadership behavior questionnaire XII DimensionMSD Initiating structure 44.57 2.01 Consideration 42.98 2.31 Total 87.55 4.32 SD, standard deviation.

N= 109.

Table 5 Non-proﬁt executive’s four dimensional leadership style Dimension Frequency %Valid (%)Cumulative (%) Telling 21 19.3 19.3 19.3 Selling 40 36.7 36.7 56.0 Participating 27 24.8 24.8 80.8 Delegating 21 19.3 19.3 100.0 Total 109 100 100 N= 109.

Table 6 Pearson product-moment correlation coefﬁcient of non-proﬁt executives’leadership behavior and decision- making models DMM Rational Intuitive Dependent Avoidant Spontaneous LS Initiating 0.309** 0.116 0.322** 0.151 0.002 Structure Consideration 0.093 0.008 0.154 0.079 0.100 DMM, decision-making model; LS, leadership style.

**Correlation is signiﬁcant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).

292 F. Uzonwanne Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Public Affairs15, 287–299 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/pa dependent modelr(107) = 0.154,p>0.01 or 0.110, consideration and avoidant modelr(107) = 0.079, p>0.01 or 0.412, and consideration and spontane- ous modelr(107) = 0.100,p>0.01 or 0.302.

Hypothesis two: The second hypothesis states that there will be no signiﬁcant difference in the non- proﬁtexecutives’leadership style (selling, telling, delegating, and participating) and different dimen- sions of demographic categories (gender and age) based upon different dimensions of decision-mak- ing models (rational, intuitive, dependent, spontaneous, and avoidant). Table 7 shows that thep-value of leadership style and the rational deci- sion-making model were signiﬁcant withp=0.006.

However, thep-value of age and the rational decision-making (p= 0.284) and thep-value of age and leadership styles and the rational decision-mak- ing model (p= 0.275) were not signiﬁcantly related.

The results in Table 8 indicate that thep-value of leadership styles and rational decision-making were signiﬁcant again atp= 0.000. Thep-value of gender and rational decision-making model also indicated a signiﬁcant relationship atp= 0.000. However the p-value of gender and leadership style is not signif- icantly related with rational decision-making model (p= 0.107).

Next, an analysis was carried out using the two- way ANOVA to check for signiﬁcant relationships with leadership styles and demographic variables, age and gender, on the intuitive decision-making model. The results indicated in Table 9 shows thep-value of age and the intuitive decision-making (p= 0.667), thep-value of leadership style and the intuitive decision-making (p= 0.726), and the p-value of age and leadership styles and the intui- tive decision-making model (p=0.827) were not signiﬁ cantly related.

The results in Table 10 indicate that thep-value of gender and intuitive decision-making (p= 0.001), thep-value of leadership style and the intuitive deci- sion-making (p= 0.006), and thep-value of gender and leadership styles and the intuitive decision- making model (p= 0.002) were all signiﬁcant at the 0.05 level of signiﬁcance.

An analysis was then carried out using the two- way ANOVA to check for signiﬁcant relationships with leadership styles and demographic variables, age and gender, on the dependent decision-making model. The results as shown in Table 11 indicate that thep-value of leadership style and the depen- dent decision-making model were signiﬁcant with p= 0.031. However, thep-value of age and the de- pendent decision-making (p= 0.696) and thep-value of age and leadership styles and the dependent decision-making model (p= 0.925) were not signiﬁ- cantly related.

The results in Table 12 indicate that thep-value of gender and dependent decision-making (p= 0.000), thep-value of leadership style and the dependent decision-making (p= 0.003), and thep-value of gender and leadership styles and the dependent decision-making model (p= 0.002) were all signiﬁcant at the 0.05 level of signiﬁcance. Table 7 Analysis of two-way analysis of variance for age, different leadership styles, and rational decision- making model SourceSS dfMSFSigniﬁcance Age 11.013 3 3.671 1.284 0.284 Leadership styles 38.058 3 12.686 4.437 0.006 Age*leadership styles 28.770 8 3.596 1.258 0.275 Computed usingα= 0.05.

Table 8 Analysis of two-way analysis of variance for gender, different leadership styles, and rational decision- making model SourceSS dfMSFSigniﬁcance Gender 6.385 1 6.385 2.646 0.107 Leadership styles 83.480 3 27.827 11.531 0.000 Gender*leadership styles 61.713 3 20.571 8.524 0.000 Computed usingα= 0.05. Leadership styles and decision-making models 293 Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Public Affairs15, 287–299 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/pa An analysis was carried out next, using the two- wayANOVAtocheckforsigniﬁcant relationships with leadership styles and demographic variables, age and gender, on the avoidant decision-making model. The results as showninTable13indicatethat thep-value of age and leadership style and the avoidant decision-making model were signiﬁcant withp= 0.033. However, thep-value of age and the avoidant decision-making (p= 0.522) and thep-value of leadership styles and the avoidant decision-making model (p= 0.163) were not signiﬁcantly related.

The results in Table 14 indicate that thep-value of gender and avoidant decision-making (p= 0.000), thep-value of leadership style and the avoidantdecision-making (p= 0.000), and thep-value of gender and leadership styles and the avoidant decision-making model (p= 0.000) were all signiﬁcant at the 0.05 level of signiﬁcance.

The next focus was on the spontaneous decision- making model; an analysis was carried out next, using the two-way ANOVA to check for signiﬁcant relation- ships with leadership styles and demographic variables, age and gender, on the spontaneous deci- sion-making model. The results indicated in Table 15 show thep -value of age and the spontaneous decision-making (p= 0.296), thep-value of leadership styleandthespontaneousdecision-making(p=0.766), and thep-value of age and leadership styles and Table 9 Analysis of two-way analysis of variance for age, different leadership styles, and intuitive decision- making model SourceSS dfMSFSigniﬁcance Age 12.955 3 4.332 0.524 0.667 Leadership styles 10.871 3 3.624 0.438 0.726 Age*leadership styles 35.403 8 4.425 0.535 0.827 Computed usingα= 0.05.

Table 10 Analysis of two-way analysis of variance for gender, different leadership styles, and intuitive decision- making model SourceSS dfMSFSigniﬁcance Gender 82.726 1 82.726 12.429 0.001 Leadership styles 87.021 3 29.007 4.358 0.006 Gender*leadership styles 103.402 3 5.179 5.179 0.002 Computed usingα= 0.5.

Table 11 Analysis of two-way analysis of variance for age, different leadership styles, and dependent decision- making model SourceSS dfMSFSigniﬁcance Age 14.495 3 4.832 0.481 0.696 Leadership styles 92.829 3 30.943 3.079 0.031 Age*leadership styles 35.403 8 3.900 0.388 0.925 Computed usingα= 0.05.

Table 12 Analysis of two-way analysis of variance for gender, different leadership styles, and dependent decision- making model SourceSS dfMSFSigniﬁcance Gender 134.841 1 134.841 19.119 0.000 Leadership styles 106.549 3 35.516 5.036 0.003 Gender*leadership styles 110.385 3 36.795 5.217 0.002 Computed usingα= 0.05.

The results in Table 16 indicate that thep-value of gender and spontaneous decision-making (p=0.000), thep-value of leadership style and the spontaneous decision-making (p= 0.000), and thep-value of gender and leadership styles and the spontaneous decision-making model (p= 0.000) were all signiﬁcant at the 0.05 level of signiﬁcance.

DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS The relationship between the leadership styles (selling, telling, delegating, and participating) and decision-making models (rational, intuitive, depen- dent, spontaneous, and avoidant) of executives in non-proﬁt organizations was the focus of this study.

The following is a discussion of theﬁndings from the research.

Hypothesis one: Hypothesis one states that there will be no signiﬁcant relationship in the leadership styles of non-proﬁt executives (selling, telling,delegating, and participating) and their preferred decision-making models (rational, intuitive, dependent, spontaneous, and avoidant). Many studies describe the relationship between situa- tional leadership and decision-making models, including studies carried out by Vroom (2000).

The results of the current research show that the executives surveyed had signiﬁcant correlation be- tween the leadership styles and decision-making models. A correlation is a single number that describes the degree of relationship between two variables. The two variables were found to correlate below 0.01, which indicates a strong relationship.

Therefore, there is a signiﬁcant relationship between leadership styles and decision-making.

The research can therefore reject this hypothesis.

Hypothesis two: Hypothesis two states that there will be no signiﬁcant difference in the non-proﬁt executives’leadership style (selling, telling, dele- gating, and participating) and different dimen- sions of demographic categories (gender and age) based upon different dimensions of decision- making models (rational, intuitive, dependent, spontaneous, and avoidant). Findings show a Table 13 Analysis of two-way analysis of variance for age, different leadership styles, and avoidant decision- making model SourceSS dfMSFSigniﬁcance Age 29.231 3 9.744 0.755 0.522 Leadership styles 67.494 3 22.498 1.744 0.163 Age*leadership styles 228.542 8 28.568 2.215 0.033 Computed usingα= 0.05.

Table 14 Analysis of two-way analysis of variance for gender, different leadership styles, and avoidant decision- making model SourceSS dfMSFSigniﬁcance Gender 331.447 1 331.447 19.119 0.000 Leadership styles 173.318 3 57.773 5.036 0.000 Gender*leadership styles 437.196 3 17.093 5.217 0.000 Computed usingα= 0.05.

Table 15 Analysis of two-way analysis of variance for age, different leadership styles, and spontaneous decision- making model SourceSS dfMSFSigniﬁcance Age 46.744 3 15.581 1.249 0.296 Leadership styles 14.288 3 4.763 0.382 0.766 Age*leadership styles 182.090 8 22.761 1.825 0.082 Computed usingα= 0.05. Leadership styles and decision-making models 295 Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Public Affairs15, 287–299 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/pa signiﬁcant relationship between leadership style and the rational decision-making model, gender and leadership styles and the intuitive decision- making model, leadership style and the dependent decision-making model, gender and dependent decision-making, leadership style and the depen- dent decision-making, gender and leadership styles and the dependent decision-making model, age and leadership style and the avoidant decision-making model, gender and avoidant decision- making, leadership style and the avoidant decision-making, gender and leader- ship styles and the avoidant decision-making model, gender and spontaneous decision-making, leadership style and the spontaneous decision- making, and gender, leadership styles, and the spontaneous decision-making model. Through multiple comparisons, the results show that execu- tives 60 years and older use the rational decision- making model more than any other age groups, no matter which leadership styles they tend toward. McCoy (2001) postulates that rational decision-making, in order to maximize proﬁt, is a useful criterion for running an enterprise.

Upon analysis on the signiﬁcant difference among executives’leadership style based on the dependent decision-making model, multiple comparisons results show that no matter what the demographic variables were, gender and sex, executives who used the dependent decision-making model tend to use the participating leadership style. In the examination of the signiﬁcant difference among executives’leader- ship style based on the avoidant decision-making model, multiple comparisons results showed that whatever the demographics were, gender and sex, executives who used the avoidant decision-making model preferred to use the participating leadership style. In the analysis of the signiﬁcant difference among executives’leadership style based on the spontaneous decision-making model, multiple com- parisons results showed that no matter what the demographic were, gender and sex, executives who used the spontaneous decision-making model pre- ferred to use the participating leadership style. Theresults of this study indicated that the executives with the participating leadership style tend to use most of the decision-making models. A combination of par- ticipating leadership and planned decision-making has been used to deﬁne professional style among leaders and managers (Khandwalla, 1977). Vroom (2000) elaborated on the relationship between partic- ipating leadership style and decision-making models.

The participating leadership style in theﬁrst place de- velops the knowledge and competence of individual members by providing them with opportunities to work through problems and decisions typically occurring at higher organizational levels. Second, it increases teamwork and collaboration by providing opportunities to solve problems as part of a team.

Third, it increases identiﬁcation with organizational goals by giving people a voice in making signiﬁcant decisions in their organization.

Leaders who use the participating leadership style encourage and facilitate the involvement of subordinates in making decisions (Koopman & Wierdsma, 1998). Involving subordinates promotes approval and commitment. The highest level of participating leadership is delegation of decision- making or encouragement of subordinates to assume responsibility for their own work. Participat- ing leadership therefore includes power sharing, empowerment, and reciprocal inﬂuence processes (Vroom & Yetton, 1973). The results of this study also indicate that the executives with the telling leadership style tend to use most of the decision- making models as well. Multiple comparisons results showed that no matter what the demo- graphics were, gender and sex, executives who used the spontaneous, avoidant, and intuitive decision-making model tended to use the telling leadership style. With the telling leadership style, the leader’s focus is more on the job and job responsibility than on the team. The leader will characteristically locate a problem, deﬁne the problem, statetheproblem,andtakechargeofthejob,telling other members what to do. The leader considers alternatives, chooses one, and tells team members what to do. He may or may not think about how the team may feel about his decision. Table 16 Analysis of two-way analysis of variance for gender, different leadership styles, and spontaneous decision- making model SourceSS dfMSFSigniﬁcance Gender 473.587 1 473.587 71.501 0.000 Leadership styles 288.265 3 93.088 14.507 0.000 Gender*leadership styles 385.578 3 128.526 19.405 0.000 Computed usingα= 0.05.

296 F. Uzonwanne Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Public Affairs15, 287–299 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/pa According to Hasemann (2004) however, leadership style, particularly an authoritarian style, which is a combination of the‘delegating’and‘telling’leadership styles, as scored by the Leader Effectiveness and Adapt- ability Description (LEAD) inventory based on Hersey and Blanchard’s SLM, appears to be a strong determi- nant of organizational success. This authoritarian leader is not the stereotypical overbearing, dictatorial ruler but someone who relates to followers bothﬂexibly and decisively. This leader listens to what employees have to say and then analyzes it along with other information to make aﬁrm, impartial decision (Hasemann, 2004).

Leadership, as is generally known, involves the exercise of inﬂuence by one person over others; there- fore, the quality of leadership exhibited by executives is a critical determinant of organizational success.

Organizations generally have the best probability of accomplishment when all of the employees work together in cohesive teams and collectively toward achieving its common goals. Results of this study show that executives of non-proﬁt organizations in the state of Texas who use participating leadership style also tend toward most of the decision-making models. So, regardless of their decision-making models, they still tend to involve their employees in team work to facilitate a successfulbusiness environment.

CONCLUSIONS This study examined the relationship between the leadership styles (selling, telling, delegating, and partici- pating) and decision-making models (rational, intuitive, dependent, spontaneous, and avoidant) of executives in non-proﬁt organizations. Three variables were exam- ined in this study, which includes Leadership styles, de- cision-making models, and demographic characteristics (age and gender). The GDMS instrument by Scott and Bruce (1995) and the LBDQ were the instruments used for this study, and 109 out of 500 randomly selected executives and leaders responded to the surveys. The data analyses used for this study were the Pearson correlation coefﬁcient and the two-way ANOVA. The ﬁndings of this study show a signiﬁcant positive correla- tion between initiating structure leadership style and ra- tional decision-making and between initiating structure leadership style and dependent decision. Otherﬁndings also show a signiﬁcant relationship between leadership style and the rational decision-making model, gender and leadership styles and the intuitive decision-making model, leadership style and the dependent decision- making model, gender and dependent decision-making, leadership style and the dependent decision-making, gender and leadership styles and the dependent decision-making model, age and leadership style andthe avoidant decision-making model, gender and avoidant decision-making, leadership style and the avoidant decision-making, gender and leadership styles and the avoidant decision-making model, gender and spontaneous decision-making, leader- ship style and the spontaneous decision-making, and gender, leadership styles, and the spontaneous decision-making model. Consequently, the study in- dicates that there is a signiﬁcant relationship between the leadership styles (selling, telling, delegating, and participating) and decision-making models (rational, intuitive, dependent, spontaneous, and avoidant) of executives in non-proﬁtorganizations. RECOMMENDATIONS In the face of turbulent economic challenges, execu- tives of non-proﬁt organizations have to adapt to using available employees and to the leadership styles and decision-making models that are available also.

First, the executives themselves could try to use the limited resources they have to aggressively maximize the potentials in each of the employees they are able to afford on the basis of their resources. They could engage in talent management, talent enhancement, succession planning, empowerment, and subse- quently, engaging such subordinates in participating in decision-making processes. Executives could also research for other non-proﬁt organizations engaged in low-priced, short-term management and leader- ship training, which will ultimately enhance their abilities. Empowering these young managers will subsequently result in increasing their adaptability and responsiveness in different complicated or non- complicated situations, enabling them to use effective decision-makingprocessesaswellasadopteffective leadership styles. Eventually it is expected that such participation will build strong loyalty base among the employees and between the executives, especially the younger ones, and their subordinates. Rational decision-making as reﬂected to in this study has been used by older, possibly more experienced non-proﬁt executives. This model is favorable toward making decisions on complicated issues. Theﬁnal choice ratio- nal decision-makers select will maximize the outcome; it is assumed that the decision-maker will choose the alternativethatratesthehighestandobtainthemaxi- mum beneﬁts (Robbins & Decenzo, 2003, p. 141–142).

The researcher suggests that non-proﬁtexecutives, especially the younger executives, should attend management and leadership conferences that focus on rational decision-making models as concerns business strategies and making the best choices based on possible alternatives.

Leadership styles and decision-making models 297 Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Public Affairs15, 287–299 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/pa BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES Dr Francis Uzonwannelives in Dallas Texas and in Lagos Nigeria. He has a BSc in Psychology and a master’s degree in counseling from the University of Ibadan, Nigeria. Even though his passion is in clinical psychology and psychotherapy, Francis completed his PhD degree at the Capella University, Minnesota, in Industrial/Organizational Psychol- ogy. After his master’s degree, he started his career in the mental healthﬁeld and soon got burnt out, so he decided to look into teaching (something he had been doing part time after his bachelor’s degree and during his master’s degree). He taught for a couple of years andﬁnally decided that the business world held his destiny. This time, he decided to enroll in a PhD. Francis started his business career as a salesman with Sprint PCS and AT&T; he worked with AT&T for 3 years and then with CitiBank for another 6 years in the roles of an Accounts Executive, Sales Trainer, and a Perfor- mance Consultant. About 6 years after, he worked with JP Morgan Chase as a Business Analyst. He held several responsibilities in his role, which included business optimization, process re- engineering, creating policies and procedures, and documenting SOPs. He currently teaches both undergraduate and graduate students psy- chology at the University of Phoenix Arizona and the Redeemer’s University, Lagos Nigeria. REFERENCES Bass BM. 1990.Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and Research. FreePress: New York.

Brousseau KR, Driver MJ, Hourihan G, Larson R. 2006.

The seasoned executive’s decision-making style.

Harvard Business Review. Bethesda, MD. 111–127.

Burns JM. 1978.Leadership. Harper & Row: New York.

Butler JK, Reese RM. 1991. Leadership style and sales per- formance: A test of the situational leadership model.

Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management11(3):

37–46.

Driver MJ. 1979. Individual decision-making and creativity.

InOrganizational Behavior, Kerr S (ed). Grid Publishing:

Columbus, OH.

Erven BL. 2001.Becoming an Effective Leader Through Situa- tional Leadership. Columbus OH: Ohio State University.

Fleishman EA. 1973. Twenty years of consideration and structure. InCurrent Developments in the Study of Leader- ship, Fleishman EA, Hunt JG (eds). Southern Illinois University Press: Carbondale; pp. 1–37.

Fraenkel JR, Wallen NE. 1996.How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education(3rd edn). McGraw-Hill:

New York.

Gibson JL, Donelly JH, Invancevich JM. 1997.Organizations:

Behavior, Structure, Processes(9th edn). Irwin: Chicago.

Halpin AW, Winer BJ. 1957. A factorial study of the leader behavior descriptions. InLeader behavior: Itsdescription and measurement, Stogdill RM, Coons AE (eds). Columbus, OH: Bureau of Buisness Research:

Ohio State University.

Harren VA. 1979. A Model of Career Decision Making for College Students.Journal of Vocational Behavior14:

11 9–133.

Hasemann CA. 2004. Can Administrator Leadership Style Inﬂuence Quality of Care?Nursing Homes: Long Term Care Management53(8): 48–49, 2p.

Hersey P, Blanchard KH. 1969. Life-cycle Theory of Leadership.Training and Development Journal23:

26–34.

Hersey P, Blanchard KH. 1977.Management of Organiza- tional Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources(3rd edn).

Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Hersey P, Blanchard KH. 1982. Grid Principals and Situationalism: Both! A Response to Blake and Mouton.

Group and Organizational Studies7(June): 207–210.

Hersey P, Blanchard KH. 1988.Management of Organiza- tional Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources(5th edn).

Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Hersey P, Blanchard KH, Johnson DE. 1996.Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources (7th edn). Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Hersey P, Blanchard KH, Johnson DE. 2001.Management of Organizational Behavior: Leading Human Resources (8th edn). Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River NJ.

Johns HE, Moser HR. 1989. Where has EEO Taken Personnel Policies?Personnel66(9): 63–66.

Khandwalla PN. 1977.The Design of Organizations.

Harcourt Brace-Jovanovich: New York.

Koopman PL, Wierdsma AFM. 1998. Participative man- agement. InPersonnel Psychology: Handbook of Work and Organizational Psychology, (Vol.3), Doentu PJD, Thierry H, de-Wolf CJ (eds). Psychology Press/Erlbaum: Hove, U.K.; pp. 297–324.

McCoy BH. 2001. Business, Faith, and Ethics: Making the Connection.Chicago26(1): 54.

McKenney J, Keen P. 1974. How Managers’Minds Work.

Harvard Business Review52:79–90.

Mitroff II. 1989.Stakeholders of the Organizational Mind.

Jossey Bass: San Francisco.

O’Connor C. 1997.Successful Leadership. Barron’s Educational Series: New York.

Peterson RS. 1997. A Directive Leadership Style In-group Decision-making can be Both Virtue and Vice: Evidence from Elite and Experimental Groups.Journal of Personal- ity and Social Psychology72: 1107–1121.

Robbins SP. 1989.Organizational Behavior: Concepts, Con- troversies, and Applications. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Robbins SP, Decenzo DA. 2003.Fundamentals of Management: Essential Concepts and Applications(4th edn).

Pearson Education Inc: Upper Saddle River.

Scott SG, Bruce RA. 1995. Decision Making Style:

The Development and Assessment of a New Measure.Educational and Psychological Management 55: 818–831.

Stogdill RM. 1963.Manual for the Leader Behavior Descrip- tion Questionnaire—Form XII. Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University: Columbus.

Stogdill RM. 1974.Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of The- ory and Research. New York Press: New York, NY.

University Associates. 1986.Situational Leadership Resource Guide. University Associates: San Diego. 298 F. Uzonwanne Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Public Affairs15, 287–299 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/pa Vroom VH. 2000. Leadership and the Decision-making Process.Organizational Dynamics28(4): 82–94.

Vroom VH, Yetton PW. 1973.Leadership and Decision Mak- ing. University of Pittsburgh Press: Pittsburgh, PA.

Weiner N, Mahoney TA. 1981. A Model of Corporate Perfor- mance as a Function of Environmental, Organizational,and Leadership Inﬂuences.Academy of Management Journal24(3): 453–470, 18p, 2 charts; (AN 4377140) Zaccaro SJ. 2001. Executive leadership: An introduction.

InThe Nature of Executive Leadership: A Conceptual and Empirical Analysis of Success, Zaccaro SJ (ed). American Psychological Association:Washington,DC,US;pp.3–19. Leadership styles and decision-making models 299 Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Public Affairs15, 287–299 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/pa Copyright ofJournal ofPublic Affairs (14723891) isthe property ofJohn Wiley &Sons, Inc.

and itscontent maynotbecopied oremailed tomultiple sitesorposted toalistserv without the copyright holder'sexpresswrittenpermission. However,usersmayprint, download, or email articles forindividual use.