Posted by thuso on October 13, 2005, at 10:09:55
In reply to Re: delegating out some of the tasks, posted by Dr. Bob on October 13, 2005, at 1:37:28
> Right, deciding and enforcing the rules. I think a specified leader is important, too. Badly in what way?
There are a few possible scenarios that I can think of (assuming no specific leader):
(1) Of the group of deputies, one will probably stand out and take the lead (guessing the person with the strongest personality). That in itself isn't necessarily bad, but if there is no control of what person takes that role then you can have problems. It's too easy to try and implement a personal agenda and push for something that would end up contrary to the best interests of the group.
For example, I am writing this in a training course right now and we are discussing how to make a decision as a group. In this exercise we had to determine as a large class where we wanted to go on vacation. We had 5 choices and used a paired-choice matrix to make the decision. Technically, we should have used a democratic process to decide. Didn't happen. I dominated by expressing my choices louder and more aggressively then everyone else. In the end 90% of the matrix was filled in with my choices even if some people wanted the opposite choice. I wanted to go to the Mediterranean and I made sure it was known and chosen. Completely my agenda and I got what I wanted. That's what I worry would happen if no "leader" was chosen to administer the democratic process.
(2) If it becomes democratic with no "official" leader, then I can see it turn into a government-like structure where every decision takes forever to decide and implement. Without a leader there will have to be a very structured way of doing things. I don't think that will really be possible.
If you think about it, the US government was set up specifically so that no one group has all the power. That's where our balance of power comes in. Our founding fathers knew what could happen if a democratic government was set up with only one group making all the decisions. And even within our own balance of power structure, if you ask a lot of people (dem or rep), they will say that the Supreme Court has taken more power than was given too them and the judges use their own political viewpoints as a determining factor when analyzing constitutionality.
(3) I'm also worried about the deputies ending up being too rigid with the rules and policies. I always think about neighborhood associations with this issue. Too many associations lose all the elasticity in their enforcement of rules, and that is the last thing I want to happen here. If people think you're too rigid now, the potential is even greater when you're talking multiple people. Even though I'm a very black & white person, I think there needs to be a little understanding of certain circumstances. One of the things I like about here are the rules and the fact that every rule applies to every person. I just worry about bad judgments being used and no direct leader (i.e. your role now) there to reverse the decision. If one of the deputies makes a mistake and is too harsh on someone, I don't really see a reversal happening. That would undermine the authority of the original deputy. I'm sure the kind of leader you have in your head of taking over won't have the same level of authority you have on these boards right now, so the deputies won't have to say that the ultimate decision is yours (i.e. the leader's). Even though deputies right now have authority to help you "police" the board, there is still the feeling and understanding that they're not overly powerful and that you overpower them. It is very comforting to me that that they are under someone's direct authority. I have much more respect for their decisions and actions because of this.
Now when I talk a specific person as the "leader", I don't necessarily mean someone who has veto power and/or has the ability to make any decision they want (i.e. your role right now). The ideal would be to have a group administering the board with a leader taking on more of a managerial role to make sure things run smoothly for the group. They would obviously need some power to make sure the group stays focused and on track and doesn't deviate from the agreed upon policies.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that I personally have yet to find a forum online that is run under a group structure and flourishes or even survives. Every successful online community (or even in real life) has a leader. It's too easy for things to go sour when people from a community run things by themselves.
> I guess part of it is preparation, but I'd also like input and help...
I'm always full of ideas. :-p I just think this post is loooooooong enough as it is. Sorry about that! ;-)
poster:thuso
thread:564410
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20051013/msgs/566433.html