I\'ve managed my uni\'s research club, and what I found was all too often when things go wrong it\'s b/c of the tyrany of the many. (popularity) I envisioned a system of two leaders. the second being the ear for the members, and the primary keeping an eye on the business.
For example: A bit of in-fighting begins. The second calls a vote with the group to solve a problem, and popularity wins. The individule would lose, except the primary was wise to what was going on, and was paying attention as the pieces fell into place. Now at this point if it were deserved, then the primary would take no action. OTOH if it was the group that was wrong, then a veto would be called. No further action taken, and the issue dropped.
You can get caught up into people to such a degree that you lose sight of what you are out to accomplish. So if you split those duties the purpose can be rescued, and if made delecate, nobody\'s feelings hurt either.
This what you mean?