This is a short post concerning this subject since I can’t remember ever witnessing these options being discussed, or exhibited. The example I gave in the original post (“but if they come up with the wrong answer I have the right answer here in my pocket”) is the only example, as bad as it is, of any consideration for using these options.
What I did find was bosses deferring decisions to those they either liked, talked the loudest, or the most, or to those who had a successful track record. Some bosses used anger and shouting to end a conversation about a decision. If the manager was weak their decisions were ignored and/or delayed by their employees.
The result of these behaviors undermined morale, increased dissension in the group, caused members of the group to remain silent when discussing decision-making options (“why speak. They won’t listen to me anyway”), and the infamous, “quit and stay” behavior (minimal commitment, and work, to keep a job).
Please review the original post to see the advantages and disadvantages of each option. Give them a try, but remember, once you decide on an option stick with it. Changing in mid-stream will undermine the process, and your leadership. Trust is a key element that must be present to give these options a chance to succeed. These options do work when used at the appropriate time.
Bias against action: There are always plenty of reasons not to make a decision, reasons to wait for more information, more options, more opinions. But real leaders display a consistent bias for action. People who don’t make mistakes generally don’t make anything. Legendary ad man David Ogilvy argued that a good decision today is worth far more than a perfect decision next month. Beware prevaricators.
Next: “Effective Meetings” personal stories