First, that assumes that the leadership role should be a fixed position, which isn't the case. Second, this statement assumes the only option for an egalitarian organisation is a form of consensus democracy. Neither of these things is true
You can have a flat organisation in which different people are responsible for taking the lead, and the others hold him/her accountable for not doing so. If I am in a small team with a few engineers, a few designers, and a few marketing experts, and each of them has their own specialty too, then obviously each of them can and should take the "lead" in their respective specialty. There is no need for a consensus on the majority of topics if we trust each other to know what we are doing.
Sure, for big-picture stuff a consensus is still required, and it might even be beneficial to have an inspiring leader whose vision we are realizing, but it's a pretty big leap from there to this:
> Democracy in teams essentially divides the team
Why would democracy do this more than a top-down view? People would still have opposing ideas, they would just not be heard.
> those opposed and forced to act according to the majority will not be cooperative
Again, do you have any reason to believe this is less likely to happen in an organisation where the direction is decided top-down? Because the only difference I see is whether or not the opposing views are visible - and having those opposing views hidden and unexplained actually sounds like a terrible situation to me.
The entire idea is based around a visionair which people can rally behind. Ideally, this would consist of a leader, creating his/her team by handpicking people who believe in his/her idea.
Democracy divides a team more because people usually agree with the loudest voice, not with the best idea. The leader might not have the best idea, but he's more likely to pick a good idea provided by the team if he's given the time to properly think them through.
You don't have to silence the opposition, anyone can do with some advice from time to time. If a choice is made, however, either accept it or leave. Don't hold grudges that will eventually grow into holding a team back.
> people usually agree with the loudest voice, not with the best idea
The problem with leaders is often, that they think they are the smartest and any idea not from them is automatically bad.
This is a problem. Often ideas are linked with people and not evaluated independently of that. We had success in our team with doing information gathering and idea generation as anonymous as possible. People can read and comment on ideas anonymously before it's discussed in person or decisions are made. That way people think of having a hand in the development of more ideas. This helps lessen the influence of large egos. Also it helps people who are shy to participate more easily.
> accept it or leave. Don't hold grudges
Also true. Grudges and constant complaining are not good for team spirit. However if people are often overruled and their reservations turn out to be true in the end, then your decision process sucks.
> Democracy divides a team more because people usually agree with the loudest voice, not with the best idea.
And this does not apply to people rallying behind leaders? I mean, I'm not saying having a leader to rally behind is bad, but if this is the argument in favour of it then the only difference is that we are shifting the level at which these flaws occur.
> You don't have to silence the opposition
And yet I get a downvote simply for having a dissenting opinion...
> If a choice is made, however, either accept it or leave. Don't hold grudges that will eventually grow into holding a team back.
So your implication is that this suddenly doesn't apply in a democratic situation? I mean, sure, if you are comparing one team where people respect each other's opinions to one where they don't and people don't hold grudges, of course the former team will perform better. But why would a democratic team hold more grudges?
You can have a flat organisation in which different people are responsible for taking the lead, and the others hold him/her accountable for not doing so. If I am in a small team with a few engineers, a few designers, and a few marketing experts, and each of them has their own specialty too, then obviously each of them can and should take the "lead" in their respective specialty. There is no need for a consensus on the majority of topics if we trust each other to know what we are doing.
Sure, for big-picture stuff a consensus is still required, and it might even be beneficial to have an inspiring leader whose vision we are realizing, but it's a pretty big leap from there to this:
> Democracy in teams essentially divides the team
Why would democracy do this more than a top-down view? People would still have opposing ideas, they would just not be heard.
> those opposed and forced to act according to the majority will not be cooperative
Again, do you have any reason to believe this is less likely to happen in an organisation where the direction is decided top-down? Because the only difference I see is whether or not the opposing views are visible - and having those opposing views hidden and unexplained actually sounds like a terrible situation to me.