Someone once said that leadership/management is easy if you don't have to deal with people problems and if you can get someone else to make the tough decisions. True, but we wouldn't be considered leaders or managers if we didn't assume the accountability for our areas of responsibility. Yet, I believe we sometimes confuse responsibility and authority, which can lead us to use our power unilaterally and make the tough decisions without help from others. "Going it alone" can cause us grief and angst, and often will result in less acceptance from the others in our organization who are affected by our decisions. There are better ways to approach these difficulties.

The buck stops here
We have all heard the expression, "The buck stops here", made famous by President Harry Truman in the early 1950s. President Truman had a wooden sign with the slogan that resided on his desk, and he believed that it was the president's duty to take responsibility for the decisions made by the executive branch.

Most of us would agree that the ultimate decision-maker in any organization, company or country, has to assume the responsibility, be it credit or blame, for decisions emanating from his or her office. However, what is left out of this cute slogan are the steps and processes that tell us how the ultimate decisions were made. Was the information just gathered by or given to the president, and he read it and made the decisions all by himself? Or, did he ask others to analyze the information and give him advice so he could weigh the alternatives and then decide? Or, did the president gather his advisors and cabinet members and work together as a group to identify the problems, the criteria for decisions and the various alternatives that could be considered? Were the decisions in groups made by the president alone or by consensus? Were some decisions decided in different ways? We don't know for certain, but I would surmise all of the above-mentioned methods were used, depending on the circumstances. Regardless of the decision making process, we as citizens only knew then (and only know now most of the time) that the president told us he was taking full responsibility, as he should.

Decisions are followed by implementation
Have you ever experienced a situation when someone made a decision without input from anyone else, and then heard lots of people grumbling about it later? Did the grumbling affect the way people went about not only discussing the decision, but the way it was actually carried out? Of course, we all have experienced these kinds of decisions and fallout from them. Commonly, others will say something like this, "If he had only asked me, I could have told him ...", or "How did she arrive at that lame brain decision? Didn't she think about ...?" What they (maybe we) are saying is that from their (our) perspective, the decision maker either ignored or was not aware of information that could have improved the decision and made the implementation process better. As we know, when decisions are thought to be bad ones, they often fail to be effective, and ultimately the decision maker has to make a change. Thus, when decisions are poorly made, morale suffers, time is wasted, costs increase and opportunities might pass us by.
The secret to good decision-making rests on the concept that we have to consider how the decisions will be accepted. It is best when we have the following formula at work:
Good decisions + Acceptance by those affected = Successful implementation

Consider these approaches.
The presidential examples I gave earlier address the three types of ways we can make decisions. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. The key is to use the appropriate method depending on the situation at hand.

1. Tell and Listen. With this approach, the leader or manager decides unilaterally and then tells others of his or her decision. Others might ask questions and seek understanding, but the decision is already final and must be carried out.
Advantages: This is the most expedient method.
Disadvantages: It places a huge responsibility on the leader to know and understand everything. Others might have helpful information and/or ideas that might work better. Acceptance might be low. Others might feel unmotivated to make the decision succeed.
Most appropriate for: Situations where time is of the essence, for example, emergencies. Or, this might be appropriate when extreme confidentiality is needed, i.e., layoffs, plant closings, etc.