• A top-down approach: Using formal authority, like “command and control” as defined in week 1.

• A bottom-up approach: Instead of telling subordinates what to do the leader is asking for problems and solutions from the lower levels of the organization.

• A substantive approach: Simply finding a substantive solution to a specific problem, either top down or bottom up.

• A process approach: Creating decision-making rules about how one will decide.

We have found that none of these approaches are perfect. They all have their advantages and disadvantages. Top-down approaches do not respect the knowledge of organizational members. Bottom-up approaches may invoke strategic behavior by subordinates. They will answer the questions the way they like. Substantive solutions might not be accepted. From a professional’s perspective the decision has been made by someone who doesn’t have knowledge about the matter. A process approach may take too much time, especially when participants have incentives to delay the process, because they do not like the course of events.

To close this chapter, we propose two ideas that will help to tackle the dilemma.

The first idea starts with the four leadership approaches. The approaches may be imperfect, they are not mutually exclusive either. This means that over time it is possible to combine or alternate these approaches to mitigate the risks of each single approach. This is a complex job, of course. To do this well, identifying and recognizing these approaches and risks is crucial.

A second idea tackles the issue of time. Organizational members will meet each other time and again, just like the networks in week1. A leader may decide substantially and top down, neglecting the ideas of professional subordinates. This may be effective on the short run. But what if a next decision has to be taken with the same people? How to avoid that they will behave strategically or just resist? This suggests that effectiveness on the short run may harm effectiveness on the long run. For assessing effectiveness, ask yourself two questions. First, was the leader effective in the sense that she attained her goal? This is effectiveness on the short run. Second, have conditions for future cooperation been created? This is about trust.

As a consequence of the recurrence of decision making with the same people, trust is important. Trust facilitates cooperation in future. See trust as an investment in relations that might become important for a next decision, that might even be more important than the current decision.