Blog

All leaders gain a large part of their reputation and support from the way they make decisions.
Barack Obama is no exception to this and he is currently taking more heat for not being decisive. Republicans are on his case for being weak, indecisive, even invisible, when it comes to showing up and making decisions on domestic and foreign issues. The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the uprisings in Egypt and Libya and the war in Afghanistan have all been occasions to jump on the President for “dithering,” as former vice president Dick Cheney put it.
“The president does not have the will and determination to do what’s necessary to win it. His heart’s not in it, and never has been,” former Senator Fred Thompson said of Obama’s stance on the war. Obama’s style has been zinged from his own party as well. Liberals have criticized him for being too cautious, deliberative and too much of a compromiser.
The President’s decision-making style is a polar opposite to his predecessor. George Bush, by his own admission, made decisions “from the gut.” He was seen, and admired, for moving fast on issues and making quick judgments. His style seemed to be drawn directly from the old West, where a man had just a few seconds to make life of death choices.
Jimmy Carter suffered from the same kind of criticism that is now plaguing Obama. Carter was seen as “soft,” too collaborative and sought to build consensus instead of deciding quickly. One could easily make the argument that his decision making style cost him a second term.
It’s interesting that most of the complaints are directed at a style, instead of a result. Critics at times seem more invested in how Obama decides rather than what he decides.
In this space I’d like to take look at some decision-making styles and some of the principles behind decision-making. These hold true for many levels of leadership, not just Presidential.
Basically we can identify five types of decision-making: telling, consulting, voting, consensus and delegation. Each one can be effective, depending on the situation.
Telling is autocratic. I, as the leader, sit in my office and decide and I inform others of the way it’s going to be. When I have the authority and feel powerful this is tempting. The challenge is to identify and share my reasoning and the factors that went into my decision. I also need to check and see if my decision has been clearly understood.
Telling is a “fox hole” kind of decision making. There may be incoming shells and the identified leader needs to decide quickly and firmly.
Consultative decision-making is popular in many business organizations. The leader still decides and it is after he or she solicits input, gets reactions to possible moves and is clear about his or her stance. I “almost decide” and get your opinion, just in case my thinking is faulty or I am missing something. It’s important to be clear that your input is valuable and will be heard and it may or may not factor in my decision.
We are all used to voting. One person, one vote; sitting around the table saying yea or nay, raising our hand or maybe nodding. All in favor say aye…opposed? That’s a familiar ritual, for instance, in city council meetings. The challenge in voting, as we have seen all too well in our national elections, is that many people don’t vote. And sometimes when we vote it is a choice of the lesser of two evils, as we see it. Sometimes our “yea” may be half hearted or come from a completely uninformed set of reasons.
Consensus building is long and sometimes arduous. It requires full participation and commitment from group members that they will indeed stand behind the decision when it’s made. All group members do not have to be 100 percent behind the final decision, but enough group members have to agree and those with objections can get behind the decision, even though it was not their first choice.
In delegating, I as a leader give the choice to another. I let you decide. I can state expectations and set limits, but I leave the choice to you. Leaders often delegate as an experiment, as parents do with teens, to see if it will work. Yes, you can have the car and decide when you’ll get home and we’ll see how that works.
Each of these styles may or may not be appropriate and all are participatory to some degree. It’s important for any leader to identify and share the style he or she will use and to honor the influence of team members.
Leadership involves issues other than decision-making, but how a leader decides and what she decides will often make her legacy. Leaders with large egos and a heavy sense of expectation on their backs will often feel the pressure to make a quick judgment.
It’s obvious that many people in this country want a strong leader and hold a definition of strength as being unilaterally decisive.
There is power and confidence in taking one’s time as well. There is strength in accepting uncertainty and seeking input. There certainly is power in gathering the thoughts and feelings of those you have around you. There is no need to apologize for seeking the experience of a trusted team.
Obama, in a recent interview, commented on his style. He said is comfortable with doubt and uncertainty and added “Because these are tough questions, you are always dealing to some degree with probabilities. You’re never 100 percent certain that the course of action you’re choosing is going to work. What you can have confidence in is that the probability of it working is higher than the other options available to you. But that still leaves some uncertainty, which I think can be stressful, and that’s part of the reason why it’s so important to be willing to constantly reevaluate decisions based on new information.”
This President, by training and experience and, perhaps, personality, is an organizer. He will seek the thoughts and feelings of others. He will seek collaboration if not consensus. He will build a team that he trusts.
There is no reason to call these qualities weak. In the long run they will serve us better than a man standing alone.