What is the difference between autocratic and participatory decision-making models?

An autocratic leader might be for instance, someone who oversees a military operation, where quick and decisive actions are needed, and there is no room for debate or dissent. But in business during a “peace time”, I vote for the participatory model as a business is always about people, and that is people to be focused on so that they can take care of your clients, and your clients will take care of business.

The main difference I see is that many good ideas are missed or ignored if there is only autocratic leadership. Participatory decision making usually brings out different opinions and from those the best decisions can be created. Yet saying this in crisis situation, like war, somebody must do the painful decision and there simply may not be luxury of time to gather various views, but listening others does not ever harm in any situation.

Na lideran?a autocrática, o gestor toma todas as decis?es por conta própria com base em suas próprias opini?es, julgamentos e pontos de vista. Ele evita consultar a opini?o dos subordinados e mantém uma postura mais distante, levando em conta apenas suas observa??es. Naturalmente, os colaboradores n?o têm a liberdade de sugerir ideias e intervir nas decis?es tomadas pelo líder, pois n?o há espa?o para a participa??o coletiva. Eu, particularmente acho este método pouco eficiente e inflexível. Acredito que determinadas decis?es devem ser apenas tomadas a replicadas aos times, dentre elas, as que fazem parte dos valores e pilares da empresa.

Autocratic is "You" make the decision on your own without input from your team. Participatory Decision means you pull your team together to discuss the situation and decide as a team. You facilitate their reaching consensus, where everyone agrees to support the decision. As a member of the group, you must be willing to support the decision as well.

In case of any IT role, Autocratic Decision Making can be efficient if you know every in and out of the application and you need to make a quick decision without any inputs from team. It can be fast and less time taking. However, Participatory Decision Making is time taking, as the involved participants can challenge your opinion and suggest better ways to achieve a goal. It is more thorough and needs collaboration. Having said that, I think one should not stick to one technique only. Basis the need of the hour we should switch our decision making techniques to get the most out of it.

In business today we need more of a participatory leader who is open to diverse perspectives and ideas and gives room for experimentation and feedback. As of now fostering a culture of collaboration and innovation is of critical importance.

Participatory decision-making is important in a wide range of situations, particularly in organizations and societies that value inclusivity, transparency, and collaboration; and can be beneficial for example when there are complex problems to solve or that require expert knowledge/opinion. It can also help greatly in conflict resolution, which can encourage reconciliation.

"The virtue of democracy is that it has placed limits on the absoluteness of power", says Robert Morrison. Involving multiple stakeholders always takes time but certainly brings lot of perspectives and implicit requirements for a successful delivery of a product/ service. It also cultivates a joint-interest in all the participants to co-operate for the actions planned after such a decision is made. Informed stakeholders with much clear single objective can contemplate the challenges better and so perform better.

O mercado de trabalho mudou muito nos últimos anos. Hoje, as organiza??es prezam pela agilidade e funcionalidade dos métodos. No entanto, empresas s?o feitas de pessoas e o capital humano continua indispensável para conduzir todos os processos. A gest?o participativa é um modelo que promove a colabora??o, estimulando as equipes a serem mais eficazes e unidas. Por esse motivo, ela é um dos processos de lideran?a mais adotados por empresas inovadoras e eu particularmente aplico esse método, principalmente quando n?o há "receita do bolo" para executar uma tarefa, onde o importante é o prazo e resultado esperado.

The participatory model is only truly possible if the organisation has deliberately established requirements around it such that deliberations are documented and a subject of compliance. Notwithstanding, innovation (which is now a life-blood for survival and progress) demands participatory decision-making and is just about only possible in an organisation that is inclusive of participatory decision-making.

The comparison between the two models could be based on historical events, where different leaders used different approaches to deal with the same situation. For example, how did Winston Churchill (who was an autocratic leader) and Franklin D. Roosevelt (a type of participatory leader) handle the Second World War? PS: Churchill was a decisive strategist and a risk-taker, who was willing to gamble on bold and unconventional plans. Roosevelt was a flexible negotiator, who forged alliances with other countries and mobilized the American public to support the war effort. He was also an innovator, who initiated various social and economic reforms, such as the New Deal or the Lend-Lease Act.

Autocratic decision-making should be reserved for situations where it is truly necessary, and leaders should strive to strike a balance between authoritative and participatory decision-making based on the context and the expertise of the people involved.

Autocratic decisions are fast to make but not easy or fast to implement. Communication is pivotal to helping the working group or stakeholders understand the nature of the decision and the target objective to aid them in their effective planning.? The participatory decision-making model allows for better transparency and deep insights into the probable limitations of a decision, allowing the working groups to prepare for and plan for the challenges that are already in sight. It in turn helps the teams to hold themselves responsible and accountable for problem-solving much better than in a project driven by autocratic decisions!

Los modelos de toma de decisiones autocráticos y participativos difieren en quién y cómo se toman las decisiones. En el modelo autocrático, el líder toma decisiones rápidas y eficientes sin la participación de los demás, pero puede ignorar las opiniones valiosas del equipo. En el modelo participativo, los líderes involucran al equipo en la toma de decisiones, fomentando el compromiso y la colaboración, pero el proceso puede ser más lento. En resumen, el autocrático se centra en la eficiencia, mientras que el participativo valora la colaboración.

Por assumir as decis?es de forma centralizada, a lideran?a autocrática prioriza regras bem determinadas, sem espa?o para que os colaboradores se manifestem ou interfiram nos direcionamentos. Quando comparado ao líder democrático, é possível identificar que aqueles que encaram a autocracia como linha de gest?o podem ter mais agilidade e controle nos processos — por depender do parecer de uma única pessoa. Ainda, podem gerar produtividade, oriunda da press?o estabelecida pelas orienta??es do gestor. Em contrapartida, a lideran?a autocrática pode sobrecarregar o líder, provocar ambientes tensos e conflitos entre os membros da equipe. Ainda, por n?o contribuírem, é comum que os colaboradores apresentem desmotiva??o e baixo engajamento.

When time is limited, risks are minimal, or introducing a democratic approach would only complicate matters, it is advisable to opt for an autocratic decision. Conversely, when confronted with a more intricate problem, one with higher stakes or involving a larger number of stakeholders, it becomes crucial to carefully consider the most suitable path for the project or company. For privately-owned companies, where only a select few individuals are involved and the majority of benefits accrue to a small group, the autocratic model often suffices. However, in the case of public companies or larger groups of stakeholders, even seemingly insignificant decisions can transform a straightforward issue into a complex one.

In my experience, autocratic decision making is usually necessary when quick and decisive decisions need to be taken to achieve success; such decisions can be extremely strict, with high standards, strict adherence, no room for negotiation, and sometimes has a high social dominance orientation.

From my experience, the main issues with taking decisions are not their future impact. Rather, their ownership and accountability are the key source of challenges during implementation and evaluation. With my scientific background, I tend to apply the de-compositional reasoning in order to understand the components of whole situation. By looking at each part separately, more trusted insights can be generated to inform the selection of the method; whether autocratic or participatory. However, I think we need to minimize the autocratic methods as possible as we can. And for the sake of taking fast decisions, its useful to assign a small team of the seniors as a “project power house” that is responsible for smart and fast response.

When time and risk are at their minimum or a participatory model does not lead to a final decision, autocratic decisions can bring benefits. When the working groups are large and the complexities are hidden or unclear, a participatory model brings more clarity to the decision-making process and is certainly a better choice.

In every construct of decision-making, in my opinion, it's never done alone. Even if one person calls the shots, there were and are others that may have influenced the final decision. Autocratic decision-making is great for short-term one-off situations. However, when looking to make a change shift directions, or plan for the long term, participatory decision-making is necessary. There has to be consideration for everyone who will be impacted by the decision. It must be collaborative. Shifts and change takes time. It's great to see things from a high level, but the benefit comes from those who can look up and see how to get to the top. Those who are looking up are usually those who are at the heart of the work.

I agree, I think that even with a participatory model decisions can be made in a timely manner. It all boils down to who and what's being decided. Just as we set deadlines for goals the same goes for team initiatives. A warden in an army may have to make a quick decision, but truly how quick is quick? They still set a time when the decision needs to be made and craft a plan of action. When an unplanned event happen and the president has to give a statement within an hour, there is a plan of action. I haven't seen someone make a decision that impacts others, without setting a time limitation or consulting others before deciding, even in urgent situations.

Concordo! Tudo se resume a situa??o e necessidade. Assim como é definido prazos, metas e procedimentos, o mesmo vale para a??es e iniciativas oriundas aos liderados.

Una vez se elija el modelo mas adecuado el trabajo no para ahi. Incluso, es aquí donde el verdadero trabajo empieza. Para tomar la mejor decision posible se tienen que hacer una serie de preguntas específicas a la situación que se enfrenta para así poder recolectar la mayor cantidad de data que corrobore ciertas hipótesis que ya se tenían. La idea de la toma de decisiones es que se tiene que tener alguna hipótesis de como se puede resolver el problema para así respaldar esa solución con datos

From my experience, both models have their advantages and disadvantages, and their wise combination would serve best. And returning to Churchill and Roosevelt's case, history admits that they were both effective leaders in their ways, who complemented each other’s strengths and weaknesses. They shared a common vision of bringing peace to the world. They respected and admired each other’s leadership qualities and achievements and thus managed to save the world.

The most important criterion to consider when choosing between autocratic and participatory decision-making models is the specific context and the goals of the decision-making process. The key is to be flexible and choose the most appropriate model based on the unique characteristics of each decision and its context.

Restricting decision-making approaches to only two models poses risks. Similar to situational leadership, decisions should be contextually driven. I use a simplified adaption of the Cynefin framework, crafted by Dave Snowden, as my go to methodology. It categorizes situations into five domains: Simple, Complicated, Complex, Chaotic, and Disorder. This framework facilitates informed decision-making tailored to the intricacy of each situation, thereby optimizing the likelihood of successful outcomes.