Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by the author(s) do not represent the official position of Barbados TODAY.
By Dennis De Peiza
In democratic societies, decision-making is often assumed to be based on consensus. This is an ideal which ought to be observed considering that the decision-making process should involve people in the process of consultation and discussion. In an imperfect world, not a utopia, it is to be expected that leaders would sometimes act contrary to accepted and established practices and procedures. When a leader fails to engage with others or invite them to share their opinions or advice, this could be a sign of overconfidence and individualism over-inclusiveness. It might also be seen as a sign of disregard for team members and what is meant by participative leadership. What stands out is the fact that decisions made may not take into consideration the concerns and feelings of others.
These are worrying signs that the democratic and participatory leadership style has given way to the autocratic and authoritarian style of leadership. In a democratic society, it becomes a major concern where the autocratic style predominates. This will most likely become an issue where it is viewed that autocratic leaders make all the decisions themselves. In essence, they do not consult their team members or encourage them to make or to be a party to decision-making. The leader shoulders the responsibility for making decisions and expects to have acceptance of and compliance with the decision by team members. There is the theory that leaders who resort to making unilateral decisions do so to effectively communicate that they are in control. This may be perceived as a weakness of the leader. It is a cause for concern in a democratic society if team members are prepared to accept this type of dictatorial behaviour.
This approach could be unhealthy for the cohesiveness of a team. The dominance of any one individual can be construed to mean a lack of confidence and trust in other team members in the decision-making process. The downside of unilateral decision-making is its impact on the working relationship, and how it potentially reduces the commitment of other team members to the decision-making process. Unilateral decision-making as a practice, should be avoided at all costs. Notwithstanding this, there are times when peculiar circumstances may force the leader to make a unilateral decision. However, it is to be reemphasised that unilateral decision-making should not be the norm. Â
Trade union leaders should be conscious that they are directly accountable to the membership for their actions. Trade unions elect an Executive Committee or Council, of which the president is a member. The president or chairman by whatever name given, is required to consult and to follow the mandates of the membership. In civil society organisations which include trade unions, this does not give the president absolute power and authority to make unilateral decisions. Individuals who venture to act in such a manner are well aware that they run the risk of having a vote of no confidence being tabled against them. It requires a special meeting to be called by the membership to table a vote of no confidence. On the other side of the coin, politicians take the liberty to make all types of decisions and do so claiming that they have been elected by the people to govern. In the Parliament, it is possible to table a vote of no confidence, but the possibility of achieving such is not unlikely but usually highly improbable. Â
In the workplace, the practice of unilateral decision-making is sure to encounter a push-back response. Within the workplace, it is the norm to engage in the process of collective bargaining, as this leads the parties of the employer and employees to reach a joint agreement. The beauty of this is that there is the engagement of the consultation process.
An example of unilateral decision-making on the part of the government can be identified in the instance where there is a breakdown in the collective bargaining process between the government as the employer and the trade union as the representative body for labour. There is a tendency for the government to revert to Parliament to legislate the wages and salaries of public officers when the parties fail to reach an agreement. This is a collective form of unilateral decision-making in which politicians determine that they can unreservedly exercise the authority vested in them by the populace to manage. This is nothing short of an abuse of power.
Dennis De Peiza is a labour and employee relations consultant with Regional Management Services Inc.
