How Participatory Should Environmental Governance Be? Testing the Applicability of the Vroom-Yetton-Jago Model in Public Environmental Decision-Making
- 611 Downloads
Public participation is potentially useful to improve public environmental decision-making and management processes. In corporate management, the Vroom-Yetton-Jago normative decision-making model has served as a tool to help managers choose appropriate degrees of subordinate participation for effective decision-making given varying decision-making contexts. But does the model recommend participatory mechanisms that would actually benefit environmental management? This study empirically tests the improved Vroom-Jago version of the model in the public environmental decision-making context. To this end, the key variables of the Vroom-Jago model are operationalized and adapted to a public environmental governance context. The model is tested using data from a meta-analysis of 241 published cases of public environmental decision-making, yielding three main sets of findings: (1) The Vroom-Jago model proves limited in its applicability to public environmental governance due to limited variance in its recommendations. We show that adjustments to key model equations make it more likely to produce meaningful recommendations. (2) We find that in most of the studied cases, public environmental managers (implicitly) employ levels of participation close to those that would have been recommended by the model. (3) An ANOVA revealed that such cases, which conform to model recommendations, generally perform better on stakeholder acceptance and environmental standards of outputs than those that diverge from the model. Public environmental management thus benefits from carefully selected and context-sensitive modes of participation.
KeywordsVroom-Yetton model Vroom-Jago model Decision support Environmental management Participation Stakeholder engagement
The research was conducted as part of the project ‘EDGE - Evaluating the Delivery of Participatory Environmental Governance using an Evidence-Based Research Design’. The work was supported by an ERC Starting Grant (grant no. 263859) to J.N. The authors would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Beierle TC, Cayford J (2002) Democracy in practice: public participation in environmental decisions. Resources for the Future, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Böhnisch W, Jago AG, Reber G (1987) Zur interkulturellen Validität des Vroom/Yetton-Models. Die Betr 47(1):85–93Google Scholar
- Coenen FHJM (2009) Conclusions. In: Coenen FHJM (ed) Public participation and better environmental decisions. Springer, Dordrecht, p 183–209Google Scholar
- Hogl K, Kvarda E, Nordbeck R, Pregernig M (2012) Legitimacy and effectiveness of environmental governance: concepts and perspectives. In: Hogl K, Kvarda E, Nordbeck R, Pregernig M (eds) Environmental governance: the challenge of legitimacy and effectiveness. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, p 1–26Google Scholar
- Likert R (1961) New patterns of management. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Likert R (1967) The human organization. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Locke EA, Schweiger DM (1979) Participation in decision making: one more look. Res Organ Behav 1:265–339Google Scholar
- Newig J, Adzersen A, Challies E, Fritsch O, Jager NW (2013) Comparative analysis of public environmental decision-making processes: A variable-based analytical scheme. INFU Discussion Paper No. 37/13. Lüneburg: Leuphana University, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2245518
- Newig J, Challies E, Jager NW, Kochskaemper E, Adzersen A (2017) The environmental performance of participatory and collaborative governance: A framework of causal mechanisms. Policy Stud J early view http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/psj.12209
- Newig J, Kvarda E (2012) Participation in environmental governance: legitimate and effective? In: Hogl K, Kvarda E, Nordbeck R, Pregernig M (eds) Environmental governance: the challenge of legitimacy and effectiveness. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, p 29–45Google Scholar
- Susskind L, McKearnan S, Thomas-Larmer J (eds) (1999) The consensus building handbook: a comprehensive guide to reaching agreement. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
- Vroom VH, Jago AG (1988) The New Leadership: managing participation in organizations. Prentice-Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
- Yukl G (1998) Leadership in organizations. Prentice-Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar