We’ve all experienced situations where things happen we don’t understand. In any imaginable life scenario, things occur that are against our principles, or we personally feel are wrong. If we had our way, the situation would be completely different. We would do that a completely different way. But we are not the guy in charge! We can express our opinion, but if the person in charge disagrees, or doesn’t think your opinion carries any credence, things will not change. That’s human nature, ie. “That’s life.” Or as my mother would say, “them’s the breaks!”
Well, the point I’m trying to make is that in many aspects of life and human interaction, the person in charge, or the one in authority, is the one who determines the way things go. In other words, it’s the philosophy, beliefs, and opinions of the guy in charge that “dictate” (too strong a word) the course of events or the way things are done. It also depends on how the person in charge is placed in that position. Did he appoint himself the leader? Was he chosen by a committee of a few representatives? Was he elected by the entirety of the organization?
One personal example I can share has to do with planning of golf trips. For over twenty years, my 10-18 golfing friends and I annually took a 4-5 day golf trip to somewhere other than courses in Indiana. We went to areas where there were several courses close to one another so we didn’t have to play the same course over and over. I somehow became the guy in charge who made all the arrangements—course selection, tee times, accommodations. I’m also the guy who made up foursomes and decided if and when we played in a different format other than stroke play minus handicap. It was a big job.
The only things I didn’t decide on my own were where we went and what format we played. Each year, usually in January or February, I emailed every person who might want to go and asked when and where they thought we should go this year. I also asked if they wanted to play a scramble, pink ball, or some format other than stroke play. Most people responded right away because they wanted to go just as much as I did. Some others wanted to go, but didn’t have any specific wishes to share. Once we decided on our time frame and destination, the rest was up to me.
Why me? you say. Well, I did it because I was the only one who wanted to. No one else had a burning interest in it or a strong enough opinion to want to take charge and set things up. So I decided what courses we played, what tee times we had, made sure everyone was paid up, and set up lodging arrangements. I also made up foursomes so everyone played with everyone else at least once. I decided the game format every day—one round one day was a scramble with teams made up as evenly as possible by total handicap. At the end of each round I gathered up scorecards, and three friends and I calculated skins, net scores, and other results.
I became the de facto leader. By default, I became the guy who decided everything we did on our golf trips. I wasn’t elected to this position; I just assumed the responsibility. No one complained about anything except maybe having to play with so-and-so too many times, but it all worked out well. Someone else might have arranged times and formats differently, but I planned these trips for a long time until many of us were no longer able to play golf. I was the only one who expressed an opinion so we did what I decided. There was no one who challenged my authority.
My example of being in charge is very mundane and simplistic and pales in comparison to the changes that occur societally when an election changes the leadership of a company, city, state, or country. Huge differences arise that are not acceptable to everyone. I’m not trying to make any point here other than people have different opinions, and the ones that gain credibility and acceptance are the opinions expressed by the person(s) in charge. At least, it seems to me that’s how it’s supposed to be.
