In meetings of democratic bodies, such as boards of directors and councils, decision-making is supposed to be collective. But in reality this is not always the case. It is useful to examine three decision-making styles in meetings. Consider the abbreviation M.A.D.

"M" stands for Monarchy. Under this style, the Chair makes unilateral decisions. Sometimes the Chair is indeed authorized to do so, but other times the decision making belongs to the group. .There are also times when a group si weak or has many new members, in which case it can benefit from the Chair's guidance and leadership. Therefore, unilateral decision-making is not always bad.

"A" stands for Anarchy. Under this style there is chaos and nothing gets done. Alternatively, the meeting may be unbalanced and assertive members may end up having more clout than others. Some people call this "the tyranny of the minority."

"D" stands for Democracy. Under this style the group makes the decisions. In many meetings collective decisions are reached informally, by consensus. In formal meetings, such as board meetings or conventions of delegates. In such meetings, members rely on the formality of motions to make collective decisions.

Forms of Monarchy

In a democratic body, the Chair's primary roles are to engage members in debate and shared decision-making and ensure that fundamental rights are protected. With a few exceptions (usually noted in the applicable legislation or bylaws), Chairs are mandated to facilitate decision-making rather than impose their own will on the group. Yet many Chairs assume they have powers that are not truly theirs.

An example of monarchy is when a Chair ignores members whose views he or she disapproves of. Another is when a Chair rebuts members' comments with scolding and condescending remarks. Some members may protest this, but most just resign to it. As a result, the Chair's wishes end up being imposed on a weak group.

Yet another example of monarchy is when the Chair wants to close debate on a motion and says: "I will allow one more speaker and then I will take the vote." Under parliamentary procedure the Chair does not have the authority to close debate unilaterally. However, many people don't know this.

To shift from monarchy to democracy, the Chair should say something like this: "We are running out of time. Does anyone have anything new to add to the discussion and if not, shall we proceed to the vote?" Instead of giving orders, the Chair should ask questions and build consensus, even on seemingly small procedural decisions such as closing debate.

Forms of Anarchy

Anarchy has two forms. One is when there is no order in a meeting. Everyone talks at the same time, interruptions are rampant, and nothing coherent gets done. Another form of anarchy is when an outspoken individual or a determined minority dominates a meeting and prevents progress. Anarchy is often difficult to recognize, but it can be even more damaging than monarchy.

Here is a subtle form of anarchy: Ruth, a new board member, introduces a novel idea to solve a problem. Tom, a long-standing member, responds emphatically: "This will never work. It just won't happen around here." Ruth is intimidated, retreats and even apologizes. With no one coming to the rescue, Tom single-handedly dismissed Ruth's idea. This is a form of anarchy, or the tyranny of one member. If no one intervenes, the board loses the novel idea and may also lose the new member.

A simple intervention by the Chair or any member would save both the member and her idea: "I am just wondering: What do other people think about Ruth's idea?"

Democracy: Is it always good for you?

Democratic decision-making should produce two main outcomes: A substantive outcome (pooling everyone's knowledge and wisdom, so better decisions can be made) and a process outcome (more individuals support the decisions because they were involved in forming them).

But Democracy does not always produce good outcomes. The fact that a motion is put to a vote and a majority of the group votes in favor of it does not mean that a smart decision was made. Quality outcomes are unlikely when the group's decision-making is driven by ignorance, turf protection, self- interest, anger, impatience, or a desire for revenge.

Indeed, there are instances when a responsible and inclusive monarchy produces better outcomes than a misguided democracy. Similarly, an individual who is brave enough to stand in the way of a flawed decision may help the group reduce risk and increase opportunities for the organization, even if at the time the individual's participation may feel like the tyranny of the minority.