There are four ways to approach the problem of choice. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Idle approach the leader does nothing resultant to make an astute decision. In essence, the decision is to give the issue a chance to determine itself. This approach lets things fall where they will – it is very basic in normal grassroots leadership. However, it cannot be considered balanced, since practically no thinking is done. From a methodological point of view, it is not objective because the boss gives up the possibility of having a positive impact on the result. There may be very strong motivations to refrain from influencing the outcome (for example, the desire to remain impartial in the determination of an issue) but at the same time there is little reflection on the substance of the choice itself. Reactive approach: the leader defines a strategy by responding, potentially unprepared, to decisions made by different partners in the issue. Again, this approach is unconventional and fairly regular grassroots leadership. Sometimes, choosing reactively can give the impression of being a discerning display under a given set of conditions, but be careful: responding to the activities of others without first investigating the overall situation can certainly expose the leader to unexpected risks. It's a dangerous approach that, as history appears, is repeatedly abused by military strategists and chess bosses, further bolstering their good fortune. Obviously, responding without the benefit of careful scrutiny is neither a reasonable nor an adequate methodology. Proactive approach: The leader establishes a strategy, first by deliberately breaking down the problem situation into its meaningful context, then formulating and evaluating upcoming measures that increase the likelihood of achieving the leader's vital goal or strategic objectives by agreeing to any appropriate limitations, and exactly at that point settling on the decision. This is the normative way to handle grassroots leadership in a competent administration. Since it depends on cautious reflection, the use of accessible or available data, and an awareness of previously defined objectives, goals and imperatives, it is a reasonable approach. Interactive Approach: The leader tests the core issue by trying different things with conditional approaches before making the final decision. Consequently, the question of choice itself is used as a testing ground to investigate the feasibility and attractive quality of possible elective arrangements. While there is some legitimacy to this approach, all in all it is experimental in nature and is fraught with imperfections. For one thing, many issues do not allow for multiple attempts at agreement: once a solution is attempted, that's it; there is consequently no possibility of addressing the problem in the first conditions. In any case, although it is possible to repeat the tests, the costs and even the risks of doing so may be unacceptable. Moral issues also arise when tests affect other people. Rationality refers to conduct that is in accordance with reason and logic. In the context of decision making, rationality implies three things: Purpose: The leader has an all-round characterized goal and one or more objectives. Intent: Every single applicable move made by the leader (and his operators) is planned to achieve the expressed goal or goals. Consistency: all moves made by the leader actually contribute to the achievement of the expressed goal or goals. Accordingly, whenobjectivity is conveyed to the forefront, a higher meaning of choice can be: Decision – an irreversible responsibility of planned resources to achieve a goal. That's Ronald Howard's definition of decision. And by his understanding, on this site if a so-called "decision" is later reversed, it was never a real decision to begin with. Authentic decisions involve concomitant action. The accompanying technique provides an approach to reasonably guide basic leadership: Recognize and define the problem. Data collection strives to uncover important realities identified with the problem of choice. This often boils down to a tracking problem. Regular sources of data are distributed articles and reports, internal organization documents, publicized overviews and knowledge, individual perspectives and assumptions of different partners separated by meetings or surveys or even casual discussions, competent advice and the leader's direct perception of real factors related to problems inside or outside the association. Collect information: Data collection attempts to uncover important realities identified with the choice problem. This regularly boils down to a research problem. Regular sources of data are distributed articles and reports, internal organization documents, advertising overviews and knowledge, individual perspectives and assumptions of different partners separated by meetings or surveys or even casual discussions, competent advice and the leader's direct perception of real factors related to problems inside or outside the association. . Identify action alternatives - Innovation is key in this period of the choice procedure. As the leader assembles the data, possible organizational options begin to take shape. Conventional grassroots leadership relies vigorously on subjective criteria in consideration of individual instinct, experience, and judgment with a specific end goal to create activity options. Likewise, more organized strategies can be invoked, for example conceptualisation, central meetings and quality circles. The emphasis should now be on producing conceivable action plans, not on censoring or evaluating options. The recommended slogan here is: Think new (don't be forced by usual reasoning). Determine Evaluation Criteria - Keeping in mind the end goal of evaluating activity choices, the leader should first decide the evaluation criteria and the relative meaning of each standard. Clearly, the criteria and weighting decided for the evaluation will determine which elective is chosen. In this sense, the leader must try to be as objective as possible in deciding the structure and relative weight of the evaluation criteria to prepare for individual, authoritarian and social predispositions that could discredit the rightness of the choice. Evaluate alternatives: The leader examines the advantages and disadvantages of each optional activity according to the evaluation criteria. Benefits and costs are evaluated and the potential of each optional feature for achieving the expressed objectives/goals is noted. Weak options are screened and a negligible set of favorable choices is resolved, often comprising few top contenders. Select the best alternative - This is the exemplary basis of leadership: the decision. At this point, it is usually said, the boss should be sure which option offers the best strategy. Therefore, the choice is made in light of individual judgement. However, even in fairly complex matters, the best option may not be immediately clear. Or even worse, an option of,.