I Wonder...???

I've been thinking of so many random things lately.

First, let me set my last post straight.

Highlander is a movie, and a TV Series. The premise is that the Highlanders are immortal. But: "In the end, there can be only one." So the Highlanders battle to the death. They can only be killed by decapitation. When this happens, the victor experiences what is called "The Quickening."
And this is where my riddle came from, because the baby's movement is also caled "Quickening". Since I experienced it, I must be a Highlander. Although, I suppose if I had thought it through, it would have seemed kind of morbid to suggest I chopped someone's head off...

Another thing I've been mulling over:

Since quitting the FSG, I've been wondering about something. There are a lot of people in the group that are strong of opinion and loud of voice, who immediately go on the Warpath when irritated or inconvenienced. They tend to take over the meetings, taking charge of discussions that have nothing to do with them (like decisions to be made for another person's committee). Often, it seems these people get what they want by being pushy.

Some people, myself included, are much more subdued and tolerant of decisions or events in the group. We seem to be more willing to facilitate a discussion and a vote rather than focusing on only our solution, until it's the only option. To me, it seems we try to be more consistent in following the By-Laws of the group, without feeling emotional about what may happen.

But which is the more effective leadership style? Is it better to be the quiet and consistent leader, who seems to get run over by the more aggresive personalities...Or is better to be that aggresive person, taking over every discussion and decision no matter who really should be in charge?

I really don't know. I know that personally, I don't want to be that aggressive person. I find them selfish, self-serving and hypocritical most of the time. For they often use By-Law abidiance to their advantage when it suits them, and then ignore it when it goes against what they want. Or, they use Politically Correct issues to their advantage to win favor with more "powerful" individuals, but dismiss them when it inhibits an idea of their own. I've also heard it has been said of certain individuals of the aggressive sort that there are people who complain frequently about them.

Now, how do I know people do not complain about me, or other more quiet individuals? I don't, and that's the point. But I suspect that more people roll their eyes at the antics of the aggressors than at a person's timid but fair approach. After all, who really wants to hear the same two or three people complain over and over and over again...and who really wants to take on an activity or committee when they know that there are people who are just going to steamroll all their hard work until nothing of it is left...it would seem to me that people would come to dread dealing with "that guy"...

I guess what I am really questioning is am I the "Good/Natural Leader" that people kept telling me I was, or were they being polite, saying the appropriate thing to say at an individuals last meeting? I suppose I was fair, and for the most part, free of emotion in my decisions, but is that really all a good leader is??