6 ms·

The Types of Leaders Who Create Radical Change

64 points by sds111 9y ago

kelukelugames 9y ago
Please edit title. Per HN rules it should be The Types of Leaders Who Create Radical Change.
- sctb 9y ago
  Done, thanks.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
auggierose 9y ago
Sounds a little bit like: Leadership, Innovation, Marketing. Yeah, it's good to have all of those three.
- api 9y ago
  It's rare because when someone has one they tend to coast on it rather than investing in the others.
ukulele 9y ago
> Why did Occupy Wall Street subside in a matter of months, for instance, while the American Civil Rights Movement thrived, resulting in the passage of multiple laws? This is probably the dumbest comparison we'll see out of HBR. It should be pretty clear that unavoidable discrimination and violence generation after generation is going to anger people and foster action way more than losing money. And if you wanted to find examples in Occupy Wall Street, I'm sure there were people "agitating", "innovating", and "orchestrating". These are so squishy of terms as to be almost pointless.
- BenchRouter 9y ago
  Not to mention that the American Civil Rights Movement had relatively clear goals and a pretty singular focus: Ending explicit state-approved discrimination against black people. The goals and focus of OWS weren't very clear (to me at least): Was it about ending corporate influence in politics? Was it about seeking consequences for what happened in 2008? Was it about wealth inequality? It kinda seemed to be about all of the above. How can you really rally anyone if it's not really clear what they're getting together for, other than some vague sense of being wronged? Also, whereas the civil rights movement had measurable goals (repealing Jim Crow laws, for instance), it's hard to imagine how you measure "success" when your goal is something vague like removing corporate influence in politics.
  - Nomentatus 9y ago
    Replace Supreme Court Judges election by election until you have a majority willing to overturn McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - that would be a clear goal that's pretty darn measurable.
    - BenchRouter 9y ago
      That's a goal that could, quite literally, take multiple generations given how supreme court appointments work. Very few movements have so much momentum that they can bide their time for 30 years.
      - Nomentatus 9y ago
        'tother side has put in more than 40 years, putting us in this spot. I think we can start now.
  - mseebach 9y ago
    As I recall it, OWS explicitly did not have goals as a group, this was something the common meeting (I don't recall the name) in each "camp" was supposed to work out consensually. The few (if any?) manifests that did end being adopted by this process were somewhere in the esoteric to pointless range, and by this time, the process had self selected OWS down to the members that explicitly enjoyed the process. Bottom line, you're not going to get anything done if you don't have any objectives, and it's a lot harder to align large groups of people around specific objectives than it seems.
danielam 9y ago
To be sure, there are plenty of those who criticize incessantly without offering real alternatives where alternatives would be needed, and certainly one can theorize, but what I find worrying about this article is how it seems to be worshiping at the altar of leadership and change (and effectiveness in bringing it about; even the name of the module is "Power and Influence in Society"), without evidencing the slightest concern over moral considerations. Does X need to be changed? If so, to what end and in what ways such that we are behaving morally?
Top19 9y ago
Most change is generational. Went to my city council meeting last night because I wanted to make sure new housing was approved for. There were 300ish people there, probably an average of 60. Very few people under 40, maybe 10 most. Changes happens when old people die, and new people take over who were shaped by different generational events. It’s frustrating in some ways, but really pleasing in others because change will come, even if it looks like it never is going to happen. It’s a healthy tension between preservation and innovation. That being said, if you’re in agitator who succeeds, you’re most likely just in the right place at the right time...
- dba7dba 9y ago
  Another viewpoint is that those people in 40s become more like the people in 60s when they themselves become get older.

64 points by sds111 9y ago

kelukelugames 9y ago

Please edit title. Per HN rules it should be The Types of Leaders Who Create Radical Change.

sctb 9y ago
Done, thanks.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

auggierose 9y ago

Sounds a little bit like: Leadership, Innovation, Marketing. Yeah, it's good to have all of those three.

api 9y ago
It's rare because when someone has one they tend to coast on it rather than investing in the others.

ukulele 9y ago

> Why did Occupy Wall Street subside in a matter of months, for instance, while the American Civil Rights Movement thrived, resulting in the passage of multiple laws? This is probably the dumbest comparison we'll see out of HBR. It should be pretty clear that unavoidable discrimination and violence generation after generation is going to anger people and foster action way more than losing money. And if you wanted to find examples in Occupy Wall Street, I'm sure there were people "agitating", "innovating", and "orchestrating". These are so squishy of terms as to be almost pointless.

BenchRouter 9y ago
Not to mention that the American Civil Rights Movement had relatively clear goals and a pretty singular focus: Ending explicit state-approved discrimination against black people. The goals and focus of OWS weren't very clear (to me at least): Was it about ending corporate influence in politics? Was it about seeking consequences for what happened in 2008? Was it about wealth inequality? It kinda seemed to be about all of the above. How can you really rally anyone if it's not really clear what they're getting together for, other than some vague sense of being wronged? Also, whereas the civil rights movement had measurable goals (repealing Jim Crow laws, for instance), it's hard to imagine how you measure "success" when your goal is something vague like removing corporate influence in politics.
- Nomentatus 9y ago
  Replace Supreme Court Judges election by election until you have a majority willing to overturn McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - that would be a clear goal that's pretty darn measurable.
  - BenchRouter 9y ago
    That's a goal that could, quite literally, take multiple generations given how supreme court appointments work. Very few movements have so much momentum that they can bide their time for 30 years.
    - Nomentatus 9y ago
      'tother side has put in more than 40 years, putting us in this spot. I think we can start now.
- mseebach 9y ago
  As I recall it, OWS explicitly did not have goals as a group, this was something the common meeting (I don't recall the name) in each "camp" was supposed to work out consensually. The few (if any?) manifests that did end being adopted by this process were somewhere in the esoteric to pointless range, and by this time, the process had self selected OWS down to the members that explicitly enjoyed the process. Bottom line, you're not going to get anything done if you don't have any objectives, and it's a lot harder to align large groups of people around specific objectives than it seems.

danielam 9y ago

To be sure, there are plenty of those who criticize incessantly without offering real alternatives where alternatives would be needed, and certainly one can theorize, but what I find worrying about this article is how it seems to be worshiping at the altar of leadership and change (and effectiveness in bringing it about; even the name of the module is "Power and Influence in Society"), without evidencing the slightest concern over moral considerations. Does X need to be changed? If so, to what end and in what ways such that we are behaving morally?

Top19 9y ago

Most change is generational. Went to my city council meeting last night because I wanted to make sure new housing was approved for. There were 300ish people there, probably an average of 60. Very few people under 40, maybe 10 most. Changes happens when old people die, and new people take over who were shaped by different generational events. It’s frustrating in some ways, but really pleasing in others because change will come, even if it looks like it never is going to happen. It’s a healthy tension between preservation and innovation. That being said, if you’re in agitator who succeeds, you’re most likely just in the right place at the right time...

dba7dba 9y ago
Another viewpoint is that those people in 40s become more like the people in 60s when they themselves become get older.