3 ms·
Relevant reading: http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm This is a 1970s article about power structures in the
by potatoyogurt 11y ago
Relevant reading: http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm
This is a 1970s article about power structures in the women's liberation movement, which also tried to embrace structureless, "flat" leadership. What you're describing isn't new, it's a lesson that's been relearned many times.
I'm not entirely sure that trading explicit power for implicit power is a good thing. It can definitely build a more collaborative atmosphere when done right, but it also can be very disorienting and opaque for new or less savvy people.
- richmarr 11y agoFor reference, another approach to 'flat' leadership is the Consensus approach used by the Quakers and Occupy movement, amongst others. Discussed recently here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9617665 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9617665
- Animats 11y agoThe problem with consensus structures comes when you want to actually do something. That's part of Occupy's problem. They never converged on goals, or an agenda of actions. Few seem to use Robert's Rules of Order any more. (Except union meetings.[http://www.ueunion.org/stwd_tipsrununmtg.html] http://www.ueunion.org/stwd_tipsrununmtg.html]) Those rules built on the assumption that the goal of a meeting is to make decisions, which are then acted upon. Motion, discussion, vote, on to the next item. Without that kind of structure, the loudest voice in the room tends to win. The military has the interesting convention that the most junior person in the meeting speaks first on a topic. This is to avoid everybody agreeing on an off the cuff bad idea from the senior officer present. [1] http://www.ueunion.org/stwd_tipsrununmtg.html http://www.ueunion.org/stwd_tipsrununmtg.html