LEADERSHIP AND DEMOCRACY




What is the menu for dinner? If this question is asked in a group the menu can never be finalized as there would be as many suggestions as there are taste buds. Same thing happens with much more confusion if opinion is sought in a group for taking a decision on contentious issues. It is easy to talk democracy which can be best used to select who has to lead, but how to lead is not to be decided democratically.


A leader by virtue of his very designation and assignment has discretion and accountability vested with him. People who expect democratic functioning want to snatch the discretion and leave the accountability. The demands of leadership are such that decisions are often sought with low inputs. Quick analysis and judgment (like a batsman in cricket facing a fast bowler) are the need of the hour and there would be hardly any sense in democratic decisions here. 


No doubt on matters concerning the majority where visionary goals have to be set and reached through proper planning and performance modules it cannot be a solo judgment affair, but still need not necessarily be democratic. Democracy is only for the decision of choice of an individual by the majority ruling. Mostly political leaderships are decided by democracy but there are many more done through appointments. All leaders have responsibility and accountability and function based on their style of leadership.


What is important is delivery and not style. Leadership style is best learnt from sports where a winning captain especially in games like cricket where decisions are taken almost when every ball is bowled or a wicket falls while batting. Once the captain wins more than loses people do not talk of captaincy or democracy. The same logic applies in all leadership positions be it a CEO, District Collector or Police. A leader has the grasp and understanding of the larger picture in which he operates and the nuances of decisions affecting that picture are unknown and inscrutable to the common man.


When they lack inputs their suggestions would be empty. The leader too lacks inputs on many issues yet a successful leader keeps good Samaritans for advice, view point, opinion and estimation before deciding and such counsels do feel the sense of accountability too. Where decisions are immediate a successful leader always has the courage to believe his intuition.


Autocratic, dictatorial, oppressive and high handed are some of the epithets used against people who are perceived as undemocratic. All these attacking statements would get diluted if the leader is benevolent by being kind and compassionate to the needy and have high percentage of right decisions. He might have been elected democratically but need not act so. He can remain a autocrat but benevolent in his actions and successful in his role.





    **************************************************************************
Visit blogadda.com to discover Indian blogs

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

GOOD BAD AND UGLY IN RIGHT PROPORTION IS LEADERSHIP

METRO TO RURAL POSTING OF BANKER---LEARNINGS ON BRINJAL AND TOMATO

EDUCATION AND SCHOOLS