I'm really disturbed by the process of choosing Captains in Primary Schools here in Sydney. If our local primary school is typical of the public school system then it is basically a popularity contest.
Candidates promote themselves through a poster and a speech (apparently all candidates are uniquely qualified, caring, brilliant at public speaking etc.) and then the pupils decide via a straight ballot paper. I understand the teachers have a little influence but do we really appreciate children from (let's say) year 3 downwards to be able to make sensible choices over a poster and a speech?
It gets particularly frustrating when one person is elected who is famous throughout the school for their (note the non-gender specific language) bad behaviour in class. But they are well popular with the kids. Leadership is about being well known it has nothing to do with good character.
And then we wonder why our political system is in a mess?
I think this has a lot to do with confusion over consensus and consent, between popularity and leadership, and listening and representation.
Leaders who are appointed through a straight popularity contest will:
- Seek consensus rather consent all the time. Consensus is an ideal but people disagree most of the time about most things. Frequently consent to move ahead is what is required.
- regularly do what is popular rather than what is needed. It is built into the way we think about appointing leaders right from primary school.
- get confused about what representation means. Good leadership listens to all those who are represented. That does not mean that the leader has to present all possible views of those represented though.
(Although it has been so long since I posted anything maybe you've all gone to sleep!)
[PS Coincidently I've just noticed an article in the SMH complaining about awarding Dave Warner the man of the match instead of Kiwi Doug Bracewell - apparently it was decided by a vote from Australian viewers!?]
