[A camel is a horse]

A camel is a horse designed by a committee, they say, and I concur. What's the significance of group leadership? Anything that's by a group decision gets somehow wrong, compromised or flawed. I don't say group decisions aren't good but instead saying are at most poor in that they're either a boon or a bane.

Sometimes we despise control freaks and autocrats, but are necessary in that we quickly know the subject of reference to point at whenever things are wrong or right, unlike with a group. What is good about such leaders is their ability to be frank and bold, and their decisions quick to be carried out. Doing anything in a group form hides accountable responsibility of others and not totally binding, something that defeats the purpose of leadership.

When you lead, it's either you're good or bad at it. Those you lead feed from your energy and style, and reflect that back, and sad when it doesn't come back good. Let the message be one, even if not from you the leader, be it but communicated by one channel, you or one chosen rally point of that. Not controlling that your voice won't be heard. If you want to weaken an organization, put two equal heads at the top and you're done with it. Have one head of the group and all else will fall into space.

In conclusion: getting your way through a baculo may seem bad and unfair, but what nations proved from time to time is that soft approach leadership is characterized as weak and impactless. We naturally by default need a voice and face to fear and respect in presence and absence. If you find yourself not in that category is good in that you're the good one but history shows the bad guys almost always come out tops because they don't mess around with authority given. Decide as a group but make the call as the leader...dp