Should organisations be run as benevolent dictatorship?

I suggest that the word 'Should' is misplaced and might be replaced with 'Can'.

If rationality, governance principles, and people-management principles are to be complied with, then benevolent dictatorship is hard to justify. If on the other hand you pursue outcomes while still staying within the legal threshold, then dictatorship may be the way to go.

CEOship, by its very nature, has a dimension of dictatorship anyway. The question is how far can the CEO push his/her judgement and desires without due consultation?

'Can' benevolent dictatorship work? It certainly can work in certain contexts with certain people. Is it a guarantee of outcome - no.

'Should' benevolent dictatorship exist? It depends on the individual, the nature of the organisation and the context; and even then it is no guarantee of outcome.

As with most things in life, there are very few universal truths.

Buffet buys Heinz - now that's a saucy move!

I happened to be listening to some radio commentary relating to Prisoner 'X'.

One caller said, "How long can Israel live off the memory of the Holocaust" or words to that effect.

That really threw me and I haven't been able to stop thinking about it.

As an analogy, how about we 'eliminate' in gas ovens one third of all Australians but we include in that number the caller's grandparents, parents, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunties, cousins, children and friends.

How long will he continue to remember that event? I am sure it will be for his entire life - and I'm sure his progeny and their progeny and their progeny will remember it too.

How long have the poor Australian Aboriginals remembered the massacre of their forebears since  the late 1780s. They still remember it - and rightly so.

The Prisoner 'X' episode will be an excuse for every grubby anti-Semite to crawl out from under his dung pile to spread his toxic brew of hatred and intolerance.

Many in the media and others are quite ready to demonise Geert Wilders as 'hateful and intolerant'. To me he appears no more 'hateful and intolerant' than the people who he is accused of being 'hateful and intolerant' about.

Just look at what is going on in Europe, Africa, Middle East and Asia. Certainly no Nirvana of Tolerance in those places.

I'm not suggesting that one attitude justifies the other but let's get real here - Wilders is clearly reacting to the capitulation  of his country (and the rest of Europe) and countrymen to a foreign culture. I don't just mean foreign as 'not from here' but foreign in terms of 'strangeneness' of what his countrymen are accustomed to. He is justifiably concerned about his country's living reality, and fearful of what is in store in the years ahead.

I have been a liberal all my life - but being liberal doesn't mean that just because someone else wants to do things to you or your environment, that you have to let them. Liberal thought and tolerance cuts both ways - it's very ecumenical to be tolerant and loving to  all - including new migrants with their distinctive cultures. But what happens when the 'loving' is only one-way and the people you are tolerant of are not reciprocating the tolerance.

Do you say "Oh well - doesn't matter" or do you attempt to protect what is your intrinsic makeup and character?

That's your choice of course, but I suspect that there are millions more people in Europe who share the feelings and concerns of Wilders but are too intimdated or fearful to say anything.

Got this today: Hurray! I have one of the top 5% most viewed @LinkedIn profiles for 2012. http://www.linkedin.com/pub/profile/0/145/426

Europe has had a schizophrenic attitude to the Jewish Community over centuries. Some states have been amazingly supportive while others have been notably antagonistic.

However, there has always been a strong current of anti-Semitism throughout Europe, regardless of the official state rhetoric (and law).

With the recent growth of a significant Muslim population, one type of anti-Semitisim has been reinforced by another type of anti-Semitism to the point, where it is expected that within the next 30 or so years, Europe will effectively lose its entire Jewish population.

When the Jews of Europe are no more, which minority will the anti-Semite then turn its attention to?

Pro-gun proponents argue for more people to be armed so they can repel attempted mass murders before they eventuate.

I was playing this out in my head to see how it would work in reality.

Suppose a gunman opens fire on someone at work and kills them. The only other person in the area takes out his gun and kills the shooter. The noise is heard by others who rush into the room to find the second shooter standing there with a gun in his hand with two dead bodies at his feet.

How do people know which of the three was the culprit? They don't know which is the culprit and aren't aware that one of the killings was a 'rescue-shoot', so they assume the live person is the culprit and shoot him too, since he has a smoking gun in his hand.

Do the pro-gun proponents have any suggestions on how to solve this one?