Group Leadership

After recent events in certain "groups" and their members, I doubt that I could add anything of constuctiveness....(is that even a word?)

Anyway, The problem lies as I see it, upon the shoulders of one man/woman that would try to hold a group together.

That person would have to be "special", in that they ALONE would have a knowledge of 99.9% of a group, the individuals, and the dynamics involved in such an undertaking....
NOT likely!

Honestly, I can see drawbacks to all types of leadership...(I know, I'm the stubborn hard-headed type!)

I do agree with the idea of having "pre" and "post" leadership when it comes to certain scenarios....
No one person can do it all, know it all, and therefore, make all the decisions, all the time.

The person I'd select, has to have "either" a military background, OR a person of exceptional knowledge of tactical scenarios.
But, there are the old wannabe's, the armchair general's out there, that PROFESS to be able to do it all.
WE know better.

I do not advocate use of the military system as far as making each and every person in a group, a certain specific rank...
That will most definitely cause problems....

So, what do you do?
Draw straws?
To determine who will stand guard at night, and who does the dishes, and which one will have "laundry Duty"?
Problems arise quickly and they will be severe.

The entire group must somehow come to an agreement, and if necessary, put it in writing....???
No one person controls the group, and democartic approach or not, voting on some issues also will leave others in the cold, so to speak.

I personally witnessed a vote in a group re: recruiting of new members, and it was by far a disaster, at least far as I was concerned...
A raising of the hands, did not quite go as well as expected!
Can or should "YOU", the person that brought a new prospect into the group, be allowed to vote?
Or, should you simply refrain, in the interest of the group?
Problems again!
Then, others see how you vote, and 'IF' they are loyal to one particular group, or member as friends, or perhaps owe them a favor, or maybe even money, how do you think the vote would turn out? ( I saw this happen!)

The looks between certain membres was not a secret, and everyone had an idea of exactly what was going on! (and of course the outcome)
I think after seeing this, it was a 'no-brainer' that any voting should be done via secret ballots. (perhaps an unnecessary waste of time?)

Quoted from prior...
"This is however all academic and in an ideal situation, once reality and human nature set in you run into the fact that who evers name is on the deed of the area where the group is, is likely going to at least on certian topics if not in general, have a bit of my way or the hyway mind about things, especialy if this was thier home and the rest have come to join them."

I have seen what actually has taken place, and it grew very apparent, quite rapidly....In fact the property owner has the ability to SWAY any decisions made by, of, and for the group as a whole, as they hold these people "hostage" in a sense.

Example:
Recent meeting; half or more of the "groups" members were absent from a meeting, due solely to the recent 'flu bug'.
Now, I see there were MANY changes made in their assignations on the newly "written" roster, as it were.
Some people have no group assignment now, some were simply non-existant on the roster, and still others were given FAR TOO MANY shoes to fill.
Interesting concept in a democracy.

8 of 18 members, present in the meeting, voting, all of course with the leader, (quote-unquote on that title), as they require leadership, in whatever form it may be for now, be it good, bad, or totally indifferent, to each individuals skills, ages, physical condition, etc., etc.

This was heinous at best, in my opinion.
There are always limitations and skills, that MUST be considered.
You just do NOT put anyone out on a guard duty position, that has NO experience in that field, just as you do NOT want a gardener as your emergency surgeon!
But, this is what is taking place.

Now there are cause and effect reasons, to be sure...the main reason for this would be: that you have 1 person doing far too many things at one time , which would be impossible to handle. Another: no one else will volunteer for the position, or most have no skills or knowledge in the areas needed.
Someone has to fill in the blanks..
Not a good scenario.

But, how many groups have: a doctor, a dentist, a surgeon, a midwife, a gardner, a carpenter, an engineer, a botanist, a horticulturist, a baker, a cook, etc., etc.?

Some have a few, few have most, and I dare to say, that none have all.
What are you to do?
Kidnapping is illegal, from what I have gleaned over my years!
And, you probably would not want a dentist, or doctor, working on you, that you recently had taken away.....( I know I wouldn't!)

So, it all comes back to either: 1 person in charge, which is highly unlikely to posess the skills needed, or the persons within the group, to make decisions,based on.....?
A lack of knowledge, incentive, .....

You either have a democracy, an dictatorship, or, a monarchy!

Groups seem unable to settle things amiably amongst themselves, and then the real trouble begins...Before long, you have chaos, instead of a group.
When you have 1 person that says "this is how it shall be", then they either accept that, or they leave....

Somehow, and please, forgive me the insanity of this statement:
It all reminds me of cannibalism.
The strongest will prey upon the weakest, not necessarily the juiciest!
It is and to me, remains to this time, a real dilemna.
I wish I had all of the answers!

Bill

 

Great,...
when I posted, my thread, it deleted half of my post!
I was quoting Monkeyman and Minuteman's threads....
Bill

 

I think that there are multiple sides to this issue.

 

The person that could delegate the best should have the final word .
I don't know how anyone could be the be all and know all of anything just to many variables in this .
It's just my family or should I say families ,our kids are grown with families of their own
but the wife and I are still the center of the hub (or if you wish the retreat )for the family .
We have no bills everything is paid for we have 50 acres ,two of our three kids live within 10 miles and one about 3hours away .
I don't know about everybody else but we have many skill levels ,we have our own Preacher .
Any decision of any kind goes to the person that can best deal with it .
That is just the way it is around here.

 

There are many kind of leadership styles you could choose. If you were commanding a fort for God and King there is a definite appointed hierarchy and any steps outside these well defined lines could result in lash or firing squad.

If you became a self appointed strongman you will have to continually withstand challenges by those who feel perhaps they are stronger and and think they might take you and or your body guard.

Funny thing is, one form that might work very well was often used by Pirates. Yup Pirates. The leadership was rather parliamentary in effect. The crew could choose it's captain placing their trust in him for overall leadership. He was (contrary to the movies) not a totalitarian. Yes there was a code of conduct that every pirate knew but the captain was bound by it as well. If things were not going so well or the crew held a lack of confidence in the captain and his decisions he could be challenged at any time to a vote of confidence if several of the crew would agree on it. The whole crew would take a blind vote and if the captain lost he would be replaced by a voted on member of the crew. As a matter of interest, successful captains learned to generate commitment prior to sailing by having crews vote on all major decisions, such as where they would sail, the rules of conduct, how they would divide treasures found and the election of their officers. This approach prevented one man from hijacking the overall desires or safety of the crew. If the captain did well he remained captain and got his double share of the booty. Except for the being a pirate part, it was a good system that rewarded merit rather than the Crowns view of privilege.