> "I'm the lead, and we are going to do it this way": avoid it for as long as you can, but do NOT hesitate to use it when it's the appropriate answer.
Taking this approach with skilled people paid to think can easily be interpreted as being dictatorial and often stifles future contributions.
> Take the time to listen to everyone and to form an educated decision. Explain your conclusion once, twice and even thrice.
This implies a rigid hierarchical structure, one lacking collaboration. Again, this approach might work with assembly line workers but won't fly more than once or twice with people paid to solve problems.
> In that case, it's your duty as the leader to play the dictator and impose order.
And it will be soon your duty to find people to backfill those who have better opportunities to pursue.
> If it happens though, don't forget to re-establish trust with your team members and make sure they understand the circumstances that led you to act in that way.
There is no "re-establishing trust with your team" when this form of "leadership" is employed. Once trust is broken, the only employees who remain are those with no better options.
I've worked with engineers like this, who have a massive god-complex. If you think your job is to second guess your manager's knowledge and experience, why are you working under them? You should be working as a manager somewhere else. You are not a peer, you're part of a team reporting into a person that company has entrusted to lead the team.
> I've worked with engineers like this, who have a massive god-complex.
Championing collaboration in a team environment where members are employed for their skills is to acknowledge the value of those members. How you equate this to "a massive god-complex" is a mystery to me.
> If you think your job is to second guess your manager's knowledge and experience, why are you working under them?
Again, collaboration is not "second guessing." It is an effective technique used to identify and pursue an optimal approach given the information known at the time.
> You should be working as a manager somewhere else.
Don't "should" on me. "Should" in the bathroom and wash your hands afterward.
> You are not a peer, you're part of a team reporting into a person that company has entrusted to lead the team.
Management is a personnel role, not a subject matter expert role. Many excellent managers do not possess the skills or domain expertise of those they manage. The great managers I have had the pleasure to work with would freely admit this if asked.
That you imply an organization chart reflects the ability to make informed expert decisions based on where one resides in same confirms to me a myopic understanding of management in general, let alone "how to lead in a room full of experts."
The only thing that matters is - Have you personally implemented your ideas in the real world or not? I don't care much for theoretical mumbo jumbo. You keep doing your thing and I'll keep doing it my way that I know works. It is irrelevant what you can "confirm" about me and my views - what a pompous thing to say!
> The only thing that matters is - Have you personally implemented your ideas in the real world or not?
Yes.
And I have made the mistake of "being a dictator" early in my career, only to learn that collaboration and valuing team members yields success much more often than me unequivocally imposing my viewpoint due to reporting structure.
> It is irrelevant what you can "confirm" about me and my views - what a pompous thing to say!
If you have management philosophies which differ from the limited communications in this thread, then obviously I am unaware of them until and unless you decide to share them here. Until such time, all I can do is draw conclusions from what you have posted thus far.
As to "what a pompous thing to say!"
This is the second time in this thread you have projected a judgemental position regarding my prose. The first time can easily be rationalized as perhaps a reaction "in the moment" or a poor choice of words. Now that you have done so again, I have to surmise the origin resides in yourself.
Taking this approach with skilled people paid to think can easily be interpreted as being dictatorial and often stifles future contributions.
> Take the time to listen to everyone and to form an educated decision. Explain your conclusion once, twice and even thrice.
This implies a rigid hierarchical structure, one lacking collaboration. Again, this approach might work with assembly line workers but won't fly more than once or twice with people paid to solve problems.
> In that case, it's your duty as the leader to play the dictator and impose order.
And it will be soon your duty to find people to backfill those who have better opportunities to pursue.
> If it happens though, don't forget to re-establish trust with your team members and make sure they understand the circumstances that led you to act in that way.
There is no "re-establishing trust with your team" when this form of "leadership" is employed. Once trust is broken, the only employees who remain are those with no better options.