Here’s the proposition. Rule by committee isn’t a good thing.
In the worst-case scenario it leads to the “Lawrence of Arabia” problem, wherein you spend so much time trying to figure out how to rule well, you fail to notice when your sovereignty is being stripped away from you under your nose. Alternatively, it leads to the phenomenon of “settling”, wherein the pressure of arriving at a consensus allows all sorts of sub-optimal scenarios to creep in.
It’s probably not a coincidence, consequently, that great leaps forward tend to be associated with charismatic visionaries who, thanks to a near hypnotic effect on colleagues and associates, end up attracting the sort of approval and following that allows them to sculpt the future as they, not others, see fit.
Once in charge these guys tend to rule absolutely, deploying their wealth and power – often generated by early career triumphs – to implement the change they believe in. A lot of time, their greatest directional successes come as a result of forming monopolies or near monopolies in the areas they operate in. Read more