(Image via Getty)
Consider first a dictatorship:
“You say this. He says that. I can’t bear the quibbling. We’re doing X. Go execute it.”
That’s the dictatorial style. It has its advantages: You have a decision; you know what you’re doing; you can carry out your marching orders.
But you will, of course, tear your hair out over it: You must get to the dictator first. When the dictator is about to say something silly, you must influence the dictator quickly. If the dictator makes the wrong decision, you must meet with the dictator privately, and convince the dictator that the dictator didn’t mean what he (or she) said. Meetings with the dictator are likely to be uncomfortable. Why should a person have to deal with this?
Consider next a democracy:
“You say this. He says that. We don’t seem to have yet reached a consensus, even among ourselves. Please send out an email to some people explaining what the positions are. After you send the email, we’ll look at the responses. Then we’ll schedule a meeting to discuss this. See what time is open on all of our calendars a couple of weeks from now. I understand that the issue requires a quick decision, but I want to come to agreement among ourselves before I make a recommendation to management.”
That’s the democratic style. It has its advantages: All opinions are respected; everyone gets to express themselves; if you do reach an agreement, everyone will be happy.
But you will, of course, tear your hair out over it: We need a decision, for heaven’s sake! Opportunity is passing us by! It doesn’t really matter if we do X or Y, so long as we know what direction we’re heading in. We’ll never reach a consensus, and now we have to waste time writing emails and having meetings, even though that process won’t take us anywhere. Why should a person have to deal with this?
I have some bad news for you: You pays your money and you takes your choice. You can have type one: the boss (or partner) who’s decisive and moves things forward. Or you can have type two: the boss (or partner) who strives for consensus. But you can’t have both simultaneously.
So: Hope for a happy medium. Hope for a boss who listens to a decent amount of debate, closes the debate, and then makes a decision. That’s all you can ask for.
And don’t be too offended by the person you’re working with. Everyone will occasionally be a little too dictatorial, or a little too democratic, for your taste. That’s life.
Don’t ask for perfection. Don’t ask for someone whose taste for discussion will always, precisely match yours. That won’t happen.
Just ask for someone who’s reasonable; understand that people’s tastes will always vary; and accept the fact that you’ll always think that the boss was unreasonable in one way or the other.
Mark Herrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and is now deputy general counsel at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and Inside Straight: Advice About Lawyering, In-House And Out, That Only The Internet Could Provide (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at inhouse@abovethelaw.com.