The leadership debate continues....

So since my post on leadership a little more than a month ago, I have still been thinking on various aspects. There has also been some major changes on the local and national leadership scenes that I think merit some comments if not discussion.

Locally, Larry Di Ianni got the boot. I was greatly surprised and exceedingly happy to learn that the citizens of Hamilton voted in Fred Eisenberger as our new mayor. Di Ianni was a crook and I'm happy he now has time to think about how he screwed this city.

The federal liberals have a new leader in Stephane Dion. Going into the leadership convention Dion was a desolate fourth of seven candidates when most believed there wasn't really more than two candidates and Gerard Kennedy barking at their heels. Who would have thought that the man the federal liberals decided would be the best choice to lead them and (they hope) the country has two citizenships. That's right, their man Steph holds not only Canadian, but also French passports.

Does this mean that if Steph fails as a Canadian politician, he can always resort to getting a job with the French. Am I the only one that thinks he should hold loyalty only to the nation he wants to lead? Apparently so. I have to say that I'm a little disappointed. More than a little actually.

Onto the law enforcement front. The RCMP are going to be getting a new boss. Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli is resigning his position. Some would think in disgrace, but I do not. His handling of the Arar case was to say the least piss-poor. However, he is still (as of this writing) the only federal official that has apologized to Arar. In addition to which, Zaccardelli is not getting a "golden parachute". He is retiring with only the pension he has earned through the RCMP. I think he finally realized that regardless of how political his job is, he is first and foremost a cop, and a leader of cops.

Zaccardelli refused to discipline subordinates and instead took the blame for all that has happened. He apologized for his actions and the actions of the RCMP and when he was told that he no longer held the confidence of his boss, he tendered his resignation. All of which are marks of a good leader.

All of this brings me to where I am going with this missive. Point number one: when someone attains a leadership position, one of their responsibilities is to train their replacement. Jean Cretien trained Paul Martin (before the rift) but Martin didn't train his replacement. Which lead to a months long fight for the leadership and resulted in a leader with French citizenship.

Point number two: people in leadership roles should never be comfortable. There is a reason that people who hold leadership positions are given limits on the term of office. The problem lies when these same people get so concerned with keeping their job, that they forget to do their job. Their are countless examples of this.

Where you don't, as a general rule, see this behavior is the military. If you are appointed to a command position, your term is usually three years. If you do really well, you will get another, and hopefully better position. The point is that you know you will not be in your current job in a few years so you make every effort to leave the job in a better position than when you found it.

Should this idea be mandated? Interesting question. Even if someone is elected should they still be forced out after so long? For instance, you can only be President of the US for two terms. I think this is good; it should make them think about what they leave behind.

Take for example the union leadership at work. The same core people have been basically doing the same job for years. They are voted in year after year. The question is, are they voted in because the majority believe they are doing the job better than anyone else can do it? Or instead is it that no one who wants a change is brave enough to be seen in opposition to the establishment? I can only speak for myself and what I know from firsthand knowledge and I will say the side of that fence you land on generally depends on how long you have been there.

However, I'm straying. Based on my experience, knowledge, and training, the longer you have the same job, the less likely you are to try something new and possibly innovative. So regardless of how good a leader is or is perceived to be, I believe that reasonable limits on the time on office should be mandated.

Otherwise you run the risk of a dictatorship.

Be well all.