Let’s say a “suitable” committee, the composition of which you have no say in, simply appoints the President of the United States, without due electoral process (of course, you also lose your right to vote forever). Would that be ok?

In any case, the point the book makes is that when people have the right to vote, freedom results. When people do not have voting rights, dictatorships result, along with fear. Freedom is more important than the individual leaders, who come and go by virtue of being voted in or out.

I’ve read the book that Amanda references, and absolutely agree with the book’s fundamental premise: that context is an overwhelmingly crucial factor in human behavior. Context determines the nature of conversations. If you’re elected, you’re going to have one type of conversation with your ‘followers’. If you’re not elected but have power over somebody, you’re going to have another type of conversation.

It’s a systemic issue, rather than one of individuals. I highly recommend the book as it uses Systems Thinking to get to the core causes workplace behaviors. A truly enlightening read.

You raise a good question, and the answer was right on. However, it missed what may be the most crucial point: a clear and complete understanding of what was meant by “chaotic.” You can study leadership and build skills, but unless you know specifically the results that are hurting you – and what other factors contribute to those results – you’re likely to get the same results over and over again. It’s quite possible – I would say likely – that other factors contribute to your leadership problems. Look closely at the dynamics behind what “chaotic” means (if you’re ever able to get deeper into it) and you may find many things outside your control. The question then becomes how to work with those issues, and that could be a good question for middle and upper management – and a test of their own leadership, which they might not appreciate.

Also, it seems to me Amanda’s first comment is incorrect. To be a leader, one must be accepted, not elected. The path to the position is far less important than what you do with it once you get there. I note that some elected “leaders” do not lead, and some appointed “leaders” are excellent (and of course vice versa). Her last point, though, is excellent – to evaluate your skills in the context of your organization’s culture. It could be that there’s nothing wrong with your skills; you might just be in the wrong place.

Best of luck,
Dave (former public sector organizational consultant)