4 ms·
> Things always go south when you have volunteers bossing around other volunteers. You showed this well. Thank you for finding this pattern and telling about
by mitchtbaum 11y ago
> Things always go south when you have volunteers bossing around other volunteers.
You showed this well. Thank you for finding this pattern and telling about it clearly.
> The answer is to keep all volunteers equal.
(Un)Fortunately this would break. Logically, how can you have one group of equals enforce their rules with unequal power? Naturally, influence (roles(?)) emerge(s). For social animals to want to stick together over the long haul, (1) an elder's view needs to carry a good bit of weight. This makes it possible to retain experience and membership, because these elders are our gateway to the past and they get tired and battle worn. The young learn from those with the experience and use it to build their future. (2) Members need to both use influence and limit it. Mocking leaders and their work, behind their backs and in-front of them, joking with them over the flaws in their work help them to keep their heads from filling with hot air. When someone takes on more responsibility, people will naturally and comfortably give them uneven support if they mutually respect and believe in eachother. This means some have more influence than others. When this flowing power gets a kink in it and builds up in any one place, then it will flood the basin. As long as work gets done and individuals cultivate good relationships, then a community will stick together and most everyone will feel like the community has good balance.
My experience with this: studied this a bit within anthropology and sociology, lived with these dynamics in and among Drupal (a self-described do-ocracy, perhaps a holocracy) community members for over ~10 years, and have a deep interest in natural processes that contribute to social order.
A related snippet from you guessed it with several links to springboard into related research:
Anthropologists maintain that hunter/gatherers don't have permanent leaders; instead, the person taking the initiative at any one time depends on the task being performed.[13][14][15] In addition to social and economic equality in hunter-gatherer societies, there is often, though not always, sexual parity as well.[13] Hunter-gatherers are often grouped together based on kinship and band (or tribe) membership.[16] Postmarital residence among hunter-gatherers tends to be matrilocal, at least initially.[17]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer#Social_and_economic_structure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer#Social_and_eco...
- sandworm101 11y agoThe other advantage of true hunter/gatherer activities is that their physical nature allows people to rotate in and out of roles naturally. If you are walking in the woods, everyone has down/slow days. Hiking/climbing groups know this and so rarely have dedicated leaders. Look at the military groups that occasionally climb mountains (ie wounded warriors on everest). On day one they throw the entire "rank" thing out the window. They know it doesn't work for mountaineering. Instead decisions are generally made by the person least tired/hungry/dehydrated at the time. That's how a hunting party would work: If Bob's got a sore foot today, he isn't going to be the one flushing the deer and instead might be today's planner/leader.