False Negatives 1: Decision-making

Many leaders are primarily and purely pragmatic in their approach.They do not feel a need to have a systematic approach as a complement. However, they will ensure the presence of systematic types in support roles. Such leaders are usually intense, driven and may be charismatic.

Q:How could this have been omitted by R&T?

A: Perhaps the self-report method in a quasi-academic situation biased responses towards more respectable categories.

Pragmatic decision-making is common, and an essential complement to enable other methods of deciding to become leader-like: cf. the Rationalist-Achiever-Director; Systemicist-Strategist and Empiricist-Expert-Boss.

Dynamic pragmatists tend to be power-centred as well: note the ultra-low orientation to people and the ultra-high focus on the task. However, many pragmatic opportunists and incrementalists are not primarily power-centred.

The Chief is an exceedingly powerful leadership style and rather common. Chiefs insist that the way to achieve is:

● assign responsibilities to the right people
● give them the resources
● set the policies
● let them get on with the job
● emphasize accountability
● ensure regular performance appraisal
● focus on efficiency, procedures, systems and rules
● use hierarchy and match the person to the role.

The Chief is a structuralist decision-maker with the pragmatic approach as the second string to his bow. That string enables rules to be broken and problems to be rapidly snuffed out—but only if they seem likely to impede delivering the desired results. Note that Chiefs relate to people instrumentally.

Is «Chief» a Good Label?

Not too bad, given its policing and military connotations. In the military, the soldiers are instruments identified by name, rank and number. They are expected to do their duty. Something similar often applies in firms.

The instrumentality of the style will be less pernicious if the hierarchy is well-constructed. Subordinates then have sufficient discretion to feel free to use their own judgement, and there is sufficient control of their context by the Chief for them to feel safe and firmly guided.

THEE offers a framework of 28 levels of work to accommodate the effective and desirable design of any organizational hierarchy in the various arenas within society: read more.

The Imaginist is a responsive decision-making approach that is far too concerned with people to focus properly on task outputs. Such people find roles in supportive functions like personnel or organizational development, and gravitate to welfare and therapy organizations. However, an Imaginist can only serve as a leader, if he or she activates a viable leadership category. That could be the Visionary Leader—not mentioned by R&T and best appreciated via different THEE frameworks.

There is also the Dialectic approach to decision-making, also known as a "bargaining" "arbitrating" or "negotiating" style. This is responsive and rarely supports leadership except in the political realm. Much pragmatic incrementalist management can morph into fuzzy dialectic handling if the organization is sleepy or a government bureaucracy. Leaders of groups struggling for power in society may well adopt this approach—read more in the politics satellite.

For further details, visit this page in the Deciding & Achieving satellite.