Arguably the most fundamental role of a leader in any institution is decision making. Leaders are tasked with the role of making the relatively bigger choices that determine the direction of the organization. If decisions are right then he/she is termed an able head, however, the contrary leads to shame and shun. Intrinsically, leaders are often characterized by the decisions they made, for example, Goiretza is credited as a revolutionary leader because he changed the age old formula of Coca-Cola. This begs the question of whether there are different ways through which leaders can make decisions. This paper aims to detail the different decisions styles and most importantly how an individual can identify his own form of decision making.
To begin with, perhaps the most conventional form decision making by leaders is autocratic decision making. Autocratic leadership represents a system where the chief person makes the decision on behalf of a group with little to no consultation. Simply put managers have total authority and impose their will whenever they see fit. Such a model usually works in scenarios where labor is lowly skilled and there is limited employment. This negates employees' motivation to quit or seek greener pastures. Epitomes of autocracy are North Korea and post-war Cuba. However, on the positive side autocratic decision making is essential when decisions need to be made quickly. Kick (2011) assures that an autocratic leader can show compassion to staff even without directly involving in decision-making.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In some cases, leaders would like to hear the views of their subjects however so as to remain in control make the final decision independently. This relatively less harsh form of autocracy is termed as consultative or collective group decision style. The head either directly or indirectly will ask employees on their view regarding a certain product, service or the way things are done. This helps air out issues and how the staff is and will be affected should the leader take a certain path in finding a solution. However, at the end of it, all the judgment lies on the leader alone and he/she takes full credit or blame (Kayode, 2014). It somehow manages to improve participation within the workplace. Consultative leadership embodies itself in cases where the views of staff are greatly appreciated but not imperative.
Conversely, two styles come into play whereby the leader agrees to give up his/her veto power in decision making. These are democratic and delegation decision styles. Democratic decision making otherwise known as group decision is an approach where the subjects either vote for or against matters that affect the company. In some cases, the leader may have a slightly more important vote per se i.e. his/her vote may be worth that of two employees.
However, it is important to note that the executive, in this case, can be overpowered in that the subjects may vote for something against his/her opinion. Most companies nowadays encompass or at least try to employ this style of decision making. It is highly effective in realizing employee motivation however it is stained by its slow and expensive nature; in the case of big corporations (Uzonwanne, 2014). Democratic decision style is mainly practiced where the staff is highly valued or where it would be cumbersome to replace their mindsets and skills.
On the other hand, delegation as a decision-making style delegates the head to give up his/her role in decision making altogether. Hard as it may seem this method leaves the duty to the employees or a subordinate if they come to a consensus. Kayode (2014) suggests that since the supervisor has no direct control over decisions it is important for him/her to make objectives and values transparent. This is to ensure everyone is on the same page regarding the future of the company. Kick (2011) articulates that when employing delegation decision style, it is encouraged to request the delegate or group repeat what they think is their stand. This way, leaders can be completely certain that everyone agrees to the proposed changes or decision. Delegation may be a great tool in a scenario where the leader is not available either due to business obligations or personal commitments.
Moreover, some leaders employ the use of conceptual decision making. In this style, heads are mostly concerned with the long term future benefits as well as risk. It involves developing alternatives to finding a solution to the problem at hand after which the most viable option is selected. The key to this style is that decisions are made from an artistic angle i.e. leaders here tend to characterize themselves as creative (Uzonwanne, 2014). Succinctly, conceptual decision making is characterized by the development of relatively nonconventional ways of achieving results. A scenario that would justify the conceptual style is a leader seeking differentiation in a highly competitive market.
In conclusion, every leader has his/her own way of ensuring how things are run under their supervision. At the heart of this is decision making a very vital trait. It is impossible to entirely use one decision style all through as real life possesses different challenges which cannot all be solved the same way. Nonetheless, it is important for every leader to understand their decision style. Even more important is to communicate with their subjects on how decisions are made and who makes them.
References
Kayode, B. (2014). Leadership and Decision-making: A Study on Reflexive Relationship between Leadership Style and Decision-making Approach. British Journal of Education, Society & Behavioural Science, 4 (4), 473-484. doi:10.9734/bjesbs/2014/5514.
Kick, N. (2011). Leadership Styles: Decision Making . Retrieved on 29 January, 2017, from http://springboard.resourcefulhr.com/leadership-styles-decision-making/.
Uzonwanne, F. (2014). Leadership styles and decision-making models among corporate leaders in non-profit organizations in North America. Journal of Public Affairs, 15 (3), 287-299. doi:10.1002/pa.1530.
