Far and away, when I am in a small group and decisions need to be made, most people would prefer that someone else make them. There are notable, and loud, exceptions. Four year olds, for example, very much want to make decisions. But for most adults, I’ve found that the majority typically prefer that someone else ponied up and decided where we go to eat or in what order things will occur. This is because, one presumes, they are not so concerned about the exact decision making them happy. They are generally willing to go along with most reasonable things.
Let me stop and remind you that this is my general experience. Perhaps you live in a world of sharp elbows and loud demands. Perhaps you teach fourth graders or lawyers or interact regularly in some other highly vocal and demanding group. Or maybe you make lots of high stakes decisions on a regular basis where people care deeply about the outcome. But let’s set those aside for a minute and talk about the endless low stakes decisions of day to day living.
In such relaxed groups, it can be very handy to declare that some specific person will make the decision. It is not quite as important who that is, and they should, of course, consider the feelings of others, but they are the one who makes sure something gets decided; usually by agreeing with a consensus view or deciding between two fairly close alternatives or whatever. That person is the leader, even if they aren’t the king or the dictator. They don’t actually need to be particularly impressive to do this job. They need to be willing and they need to make decisions.
Among the many ways of thinking about how a father leads a family through the priesthood, this is perhaps one way that might be more important than we realize. Fathers are to make sure that general passivity doesn’t mean that the family business is overlooked. Prayers are said morning and night. Family home evening happens in a coherent way. Scriptures are studied and there is a plan for how that is going to happen. It is not brain surgery and it does not require any particularly unusual skills, but it does help to have a clear rule about whose job it is to make sure that these things were not overlooked. Not as a dictator, a jerk, or totalitarian; more like as a facilitator or life coach. 
An alternate model would be for each family group to decide who is in charge of each of these things. But, see above, most people don’t really like making decisions . Some groups would not really decide and the lack of uniformity would make it more difficult to train and reinforce the principle in the church. So there are costs to pre- assigning the person in charge, because they may not be very good at it or they do it wrong, but it does have two advantages. It is a clear and easy rule that reduces certain kinds of confusion and it ensures that the father is shoved into the middle of family life. Some fathers will always be highly involved. But other parents, disproportionately men, I think, would benefit from a shove into the middle.
The father, then, shouts “Vamos!” and gets people into the car, or into the living room for prayer, or whatever. There is a lot of flexibility in families to figure out the details in a way that works for them. Because this doesn’t mean the mother can’t or won’t do those things as well, but the father is expected to make sure, in the end, that it has happened. So when I am trying to make sense of the injunction to preside, this is actually one of the ways I do that.
 And heaven forbid anybody in the 90s actually making a decision at Blockbuster about what movie we’re going to watch that night.
 Although let me make clear how little I would enjoy being referred to as a life coach.