Because authoritarianism gives the leader dominance, it allows for a clear decision-making process. Unfortunately, it kills the initiative. Since interpersonal relationships are not valued, they can only deteriorate. There will be winners and losers at the end. This creates a sense of injustice or even anger in those who do not benefit. The tragic end of Georges Bess (Renault) in 1986 is a caricatured example of the failure of authoritarianism.
Compromise, a reflection of our modern societies, has developed widely, especially in intergovernmental organizations. By allowing for the consideration of different points of view, it promotes group cohesion around common interest and peaceful development. On the other hand, the decision making process takes longer. It introduces a lose-lose logic, even as everyone tries to minimize their loss. For example, COP15 in Copenhagen was considered a failure because only a minimal climate agreement was reached. Authoritarianism and compromise aim to erase or reduce the impact of differences, while co-creation strengthens them by uniting them. They will no longer be the object of combat and will become resources.
Co-creation has its roots in ancient social practices of collaboration, but its conceptualization and its development are very contemporary. This attitude can be summed up by the idea of pursuing an attainable goal that I want and that someone else also wants. Although it is very powerful, its development is undoubtedly hampered by the variety of terminology (cooperation, effecting, integration, transformation, invention). Co-creation fosters innovation, creating value for all. It develops trust because it is based on win-win logic. On the other hand, it requires skills in managing complexity. Based on freedom of commitment, it doesn’t work every time.
The literature describes what makes an effective leader. It is he who understands the sources of divergence, builds trust, supports interdependence and creates the conditions for the integration of diverse perspectives into innovative solutions. But he doesn’t tell us how to do it. Recently, we have come across a case of a request from an employee who needs the consent of his employer to start an activity outside the company and thereby earn extra income. An entrepreneur does not want a conflict of interest, nor does he want it to disrupt the life of the company. The employee wishes to work independently and vary his activities perceived as repetitive.
An authoritarian attitude is one of acceptance or rejection. A compromise would be to define the exact conditions for the performance of the activity, which minimizes the loss of both parties. An attitude of co-creation connects falsely disjointed goals. For example, the employee wants to diversify his activity and so does the employee. Both are looking for an increase in income. The employer is looking for opportunities and motivated, independent people to develop new activities. Sharing the value to be created is possible.
The “effective goals” method uses co-creation as a driver of change and suggests a three-step sequence. The first favors the expression of a plurality of goals. These are then linked according to the means-effect logic.
Ultimately, the goal of the method is to connect current means with desired futures. This method applies to business situations, but also to political or geopolitical or even personal situations. These new approaches aim to unify differences rather than eliminate them.
Also Read: Global Economy Remains Strong Despite Slowdown | The IMF lowered its growth forecast for China