All modes can be effective, depending upon the context, situation, and problem. There is no right way for groups to make all decisions. There are two basic rules to keep in mind:
Autocratic: The decision is made by the leader with no discussion or consultation with the members. If used inappropriately it leads to apathy and lack of commitment, poor decisions by not using the expertise of the group, and drop-out or revolution. Authoritarian: Much the same as above. The leader decides. It is what happens after the decision that makes the difference between an autocratic and authoritarian decision. In the authoritarian decision the leader stays in contact with the members, listening to the effects of the decision. Consultative: The leader makes the decision, but consults with group members about it. It uses the expertise within the group, keeps the leader from making mistakes, and enhances the commitment to the decision. Consensus: The group, including the leader, makes the decision. Positions are heard, acknowledged and considered. The decision is only made after all people can go along with it. Consensus includes the leader; it does not mean abdication. If done well, consensus increases the group member's commitment to the decision. Therefore they are more likely to follow through and support it. Consensus, however, is not easy and requires considerable skill on the part of the members and the leader. If done poorly, consensus can actually decrease commitment by being frustrating and dragging on too long. Abdication: The leader makes no contribution, exits and leaves the members alone to make the decision. Often leaders will go from the "flip" from being autocratic, to the "flop" of abdicating. And while doing the latter they often believe they are being "democratic," "participatory," or "consensual." As a leader you can destroy morale, commitment, and creativity just as readily by totally abdicating and using consensus as you can by always being autocratic and authoritarian.
May the FORCE be with you!
|
