Learn to Love Assertive Leadership in Group Decision-Making
It’s okay to pick the less democratic decision-making style if you balance efficiency with sensitivity
Let’s say your team (or group of stakeholders) has been discussing a decision for a while now. This is a contentious decision with passion on all sides, and where there’s no large majority, or perhaps the minority is very vocal or contains critical personnel. Let’s also say you have the power or influence to decide for the group. It could be you’re the manager or project lead, but also, maybe you’re the most senior, or the most popular, or the first person to make a reasonable suggestion.
The same goes for how to make that decision. You could decide for everyone, but you could also ask the team to vote on it, for example, or some other way.
I’ve spent over 20 years observing and leading teams in corporate IT/Tech,¹ in the U.S. Army,² and even at Burning Man.³ I’ve seen a lot of group decision-making styles in that time, from very dictatorial to very collaborative, with group sizes ranging from 2 to 100 people, and consisting of the full spectrum of relationships between those people, from we-traded-some-emails-last-week to we-went-to-each-other’s-weddings.
Which style you choose will obviously be influenced by the specifics of that situation, your personal leadership approach, your team’s specific personalities, and your organization’s culture. However, generally speaking, I’ve noticed a tendency for people to be, well... nice. Too nice, in my opinion.
In Western democratic societies, we lean toward collaboration as much as possible because we like to think of ourselves as a community of sensible, morally good, equal individuals who value everyone’s opinions and experiences. Yes, yes, that’s all fine and good, but praaaactically speaking, for corporate life, it’s inefficient. I think something more assertive can often work better, and I’ll offer ways to maximize that style’s benefits while mitigating the downsides.
Background and Analysis
For the sake of discussion, let’s list some common styles and apply an example scenario.
Many of you have probably dealt with a version of this hypothetical scenario: Let’s say your team has finally decided to adopt a new process; let’s call it Agile, why not. (For readers who don’t know Agile, for this article, you just need to know that some, ahem, zealots track Agile tasks on a large physical “Kanban board” placed on an easel with actual Post-it® Notes representing the tasks.)
Let’s also say that Kenny, your team’s Opinionated Bumbling Idiot, has taken a deep interest in contributing. He has a lot of absurdly strong and nitpicky opinions about the ideal dimensions of the Kanban board, the perfect format for the Post-it® Notes, and even a convoluted Post-it® Note color-coding scheme that already has the team eye-rolling behind his back.
Kenny is hopeless. You’re not sure why they keep him around; maybe because he makes everyone laugh, or because he’s the only one who knows how to use the espresso machine like a true barista, or most likely, because of those rumors about him being the CEO’s wife’s distant cousin.
Of course, you just want to tell Kenny to f — off, but even though he’s a buffoon, he’s a lovable buffoon, and you are reluctant to hurt his feelings, and, as a good American, or whatever, you believe in democracy, or whatever, and anyway, maybe those rumors are true?
Okay, let’s list some decision-making options, starting with the most dictatorial and leading to the most collaborative:
- Dictatorial
- Consultative (Spoiler: this is the one we want.)
- Voting
- Consensus
Let’s first discuss the extremes and eventually arrive at Consultative:
Dictatorial
This is the most assertive decision-making style. The leader usually decides without much consultation or discussion. It’s seductively fun if you’re a narcissistic sadist.
Basically, you just tell Kenny to f — off.
Upside: efficient.
Downside: doesn’t leverage group intelligence, and your team will lack commitment.
Almost no one likes this style. To be effective, the decision-maker would have to be an expert on all the aspects of the problem, and in a good headspace to make the right decision, and the group would have to have enough trust in the leader to be motivated to follow through. And the decision-maker must be consistently all those things 100% of the time. And, at least for us Americans, it just feels un-American.⁴ A dictatorial style really only works in extremely time-limited situations; for example, playing a combative team sport or engaging in actual combat, where making fast decisions is essential to success or even survival.
Furthermore, your team will lack the commitment to follow through because they were not involved in developing the options or making the final decision.
Consensus
This is the most collaborative/least assertive style. Unanimous active consent is required. It’s seductively fun if you’re a people-pleasing masochist with no sense of time.
Stay in compassionate dialogue with Kenny ad nauseam until there is harmony. Namaste.
Upside: high commitment; deep understanding of the problem and solution.
Downside: OMG, takes forever.
When there’s time, I actually love this style, or its close cousin, Concord,⁵ because when people are in, they are in. People also understand the decision exceptionally well because it’s been discussed at length.
But in practice, there’s rarely enough time to come to a consensus. And unless a group leader is a masterful facilitator and professional conflict mediator, or the group gets along absurdly well, the result can be some sort of corrupted consensus, where there may still be polarized factions that feel left out.
In fact, I frequently find that teams would rather I just make the decision. When I was an engineering manager or military commander, I sometimes strove to adopt a Consensus leadership style and diligently solicited opinions from even my lowest-ranking troops, and sometimes there would be crickets. I would just get this vibe like, “Dude, it’s your job to lead. Just pick something. We’ll follow your directives as long as it’s reasonable and not a war crime.”
Voting
You list two or more options, and the team votes, with the option garnering the most votes winning.
You put Kenny’s Post-it® Note color scheme to a vote and pray that everyone else essentially tells him to f — off. You then watch Kenny launch a mini-political campaign to expense custom-made Pantone colors over default off-the-shelf colors. You hope he doesn’t waste people’s productivity with his shenanigans. Also, you think that “Kool Khaki” is a stupid name for a color.
Upside: feels morally okay; efficiency depends on how much ‘campaigning’ is allowed before the vote.
Downside: encourages an adversarial dynamic.
This style can seem like the obvious choice for a lot of good, kind democratic leaders, but I find it to be problematic. Remember that we assumed at the beginning of this article that all sides are passionate about their positions. Unless the team’s cohesion is excellent, and they have a proven track record of maintaining good relationships while in conflict, this style tends to polarize the group into winners and losers, breeding resentment and lack of buy-in. This is especially bad if important people were in the losing factions.
Consultative
The leader facilitates group discussions, solicits opinions, then decides.
After patiently and compassionately listening, you politely, firmly, and respectfully tell Kenny to f — off, but, like, not literally using those words.
Upside: reasonably efficient; leverages group intelligence.
Downside: lower commitment and understanding due to lack of involvement.
This is a very common style in a lot of organizations, but many good leaders will instinctively shy away from this style for reasons we’ve discussed above, which is why I think it’s under-appreciated. This method is a nice sweet spot where you leverage group intelligence to arrive at an acceptable decision without dragging out the discussions to the point of diminishing returns.
The main issues are lack of commitment and understanding. Your group has not been discussing the problem and proposed solutions as much as they could have with the more collaborative styles, so they don’t feel as involved, reducing motivation. Similarly, less discussion means less understanding, which leads to more issues implementing the solution.
Another source of reduced commitment is that you are making the decision. People will feel less motivated to implement something that they did not decide for themselves and explicitly consent to. And the ones who passionately opposed your chosen option will be especially aggrieved.
All that said, sometimes you have to be the leader; you just gotta make the decision so the team can move forward.
Doing the Consultative Style Effectively
Many people, including myself, have idealistically striven for more Consensus or other more collaborative styles but ended up with the Consultative style for practical reasons stemming from how corporate life happens. My encouragement is for you to own it and do it well.
With this style, your main goal is to make the decision in a time-efficient manner while mitigating the lack of commitment and understanding your team might develop because they were less involved in the decision.
With that in mind, here are the conditions you should be striving for to be successful:
Your team trusts you to make reasonably good decisions
At least enough that they would follow through on implementing your decision. (If your team doesn’t trust you, this article is the least of your worries.)
The decision is reasonable and clearly communicated
Obviously.
Each team member feels heard
Give ample time for people to speak, discuss, and analyze, either as a group or one-on-one with you, or both, as you feel appropriate. Practice active listening when collecting feedback. Be very present with people, to both their content and emotions. Express gratitude for everyone’s contributions. Respond to all emails, Slack messages, Google Doc comments, etc., to at least affirm that you’ve read their comments.
Yes, this applies even to Kenny.
Your team perceives that you did your best to accommodate their feedback
Let people know how you incorporated their suggestions, or explain why their suggestions didn’t make it into the final solution. Take time to talk to specific people privately if appropriate.
While Kenny is present, make a big show of arguing on the phone with the custom Post-it® Note vendor, then collapse dramatically on the couch in tears and defeat.
The final decision should be minimally tolerable to each team member
That is, craft your solution in such a way that they won’t quit the project/team/company or actively work to sabotage the effort.
Kenny, maybe if you volunteered to custom-dye and draw your proposed template on all the Post-it® Notes yourself…
Relationships are repaired
If the decision goes against someone who is passionate about their position, make sure they understand that you care about them as a person and member of the team and value their opinions. Even if you don’t think they deserve it. I know you can find it in you. I believe in you. Dig deep… reaalllll deep…
Own your power
As a side note, I’ve noticed that some leaders lean towards more collaborative styles because the responsibility is more on them in the Consultative style if something goes wrong. Or perhaps there’s a general aversion to being assertive for fear of being bossy or micromanaging. If this resonates, I recommend reading this Harvard Business Review article. Ultimately, good leadership involves greater responsibility and risk, so you just have to own it and be brave.
Conclusion
In summary, when you make a contentious decision for a group, craft the solution to be reasonable and tolerable. Be a clear communicator and compassionate listener to each team member so the group trusts that you made the best possible decision. While communicating and listening take somewhat more time, the process is still less time-consuming than the Consensus style, and it’s worth lifting your team’s motivation and morale so they can execute your decision with efficiency and grace.
Even though you declined Kenny’s suggestions, he felt heard and stayed committed to the project. Despite not getting his way, he still volunteered to craft the Kanban board. And look at those Post-it® Notes! They look great!
Ultimately, you have to use your best judgment in choosing which decision-making style meets the moment. I encourage you not to automatically discount the more assertive Consultative style. I think you’ll be surprised at the reception from your team when you do it well.
I’m curious to hear about your own experiences! Please comment and let me know your opinions, especially if you’ve turned your Kanban boards into craft projects!
_______________
¹ I’m a software engineer and sometimes a tech lead or engineering manager. Started life in IT consulting, flying out to work at clients’ engineering teams, then some corporate IT, and these days, at a San Francisco tech company.
² For you military geeks or vets out there: I spent 21 years in the Army Reserve. Private First Class → Staff Sergeant (E-6) → Captain (O-3E). Four overseas deployments. Mostly worked in Transportation, though I started in Supply and ended in Civil Affairs. Yes, I was a POG. All my ‘war stories’ are about bureaucratic shenanigans that only other military bureaucrats would find funny.
³ If you thought Burning Man was all drugs and play, well, someone has to smuggle in those drugs safely! Lol, joking! There’s an immense amount of collaboration at Burning Man, and I’ve learned a lot about leading people without much formal authority, as we’re all volunteers out there.
⁴ For the non-Americans: okay, okay, if we want to be nuanced here, in international affairs, yes, we can be very, very “f — you” at times. I promise: we still love all of you. Truly. Even the French.
⁵ There’s a less strict variation of unanimous consent, sometimes called Concord or Agreement, that I’m a big fan of for certain situations. The communities I see it used in partly derive this method from Quaker decision-making practices. From what I’ve seen, this involves making sure everyone is either a yes or at least not passionately against the final decision. Many people say they practice Consensus but de facto end up with Concord because the former is too hard.
