Democratically Elected Leaders

It's not just fashionable these days to support the concept of democracy, it's virtually unthinkable in many parts to even question its status as " the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried" (Churchill in characteristically tongue-in-cheek mode, see here)

Recent news stories attacked GW Bush for his decision against allowing embryonic stem cell research. There are two main apparent discrepancies: the papers focused mainly on Bush's emphasis in saving children's lives contrasted with the widespread death in Afghanistan, Iran and Lebanon; I'm interested here in thinking about Bush's many speeches about promoting "democracy" in other countries while he takes an executive decision that goes against the majority public opinion in his own country.

I think Bush had no choice other than to veto the legislation, and I think that it is the workings of democracy itself that gave him no choice. Having said that, you'll be glad to hear that I agree with Winston that democracy is better than "all those other forms that have been tried"!

When we look at team leadership, is democracy the best system? Is it better for the team leader to be elected by members, someone liked and popular, someone with the popular support fo the team?

As you know from previous posts, I've been reading Belbin's seminal book Management Teams. His research at Henley Managment College seems to suggest that teams with democratically elected team leaders don't perform as well as those where the leader is appointed from outside for having appropriate skills and characteristics.

I wonder whether to some extent the elected team leader is hamstrung by their own popularity in the same way that Bush is hamstrung by the party machine that backs his campaigns?

I also wonder how many of us have ever worked in a team where we got to vote for the leader?

That's enough politics. Good night, everyone!

All the best,

Dave Bull
Team Coaching Network Ltd
http://www.teamcoachingnetwork.com