Posted by thuso on October 15, 2005, at 19:40:27
In reply to Re: Looooong Post » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on October 15, 2005, at 17:43:17
>And I guess some people view him as a tyrant (I don't see that it is inevitable that he is!) but some people (mostly blocked people I guess) see him as a tyrant and they reject his leadership.
>I never said calling him a "tyrant" was a bad thing. ;-) There have actually been people in history who have acted as tyrants and done a lot of good for humanity and future generations (even if at the time it wasn’t so nice). What else would you call him? He wasn’t elected leader. He wasn’t born in the position. He created the community and rules it with an iron fist (not necessarily in a bad way). His rules are the rules to follow, if you break them or disregard them you are punished. I guess the problem is that we keep using political leadership terms (i.e. monarch or tyrant). I think we would be better off describing his managerial leadership style rather than compare him to a political leadership style. I think that would fit much better.
> But other people... Have observed his leadership over time and they may come to view him as something of a charismatic leader if they respect (though not necessarily agree with all of) his moderating decisions...
>Definitely! But what I was saying is that I wouldn’t be surprised if some rules were changed or relaxed once he left.
>And so I guess that at that point... You could move from having one leader to having a small group of leaders...But it would help things out a lot if the moderators were given the opportunity to rationalise their decisions as well... And to reverse their own decisions... And if there is conflict in the group of moderators... Then I suppose all they can do is try and offer rationalisations as to why they think x is the best thing to do for the boards. And hopefully... That could work. Though I guess there would need to be a way of deciding should people continue to disagree. I suppose Dr Bob could step in... Or people could vote...
>The way I see it is that he’s trying to figure out how the boards can continue without him completely. Not that he still wouldn’t be around or even visit, but that the boards wouldn’t be dependant on him and expect him to step up as the leader. And I personally see it as a problem if the moderators have a big conflict. I can understand them working through little problems, but once a big problem shows up I don’t think it would be good for the community to see the leadership arguing. At least to me, it would undermine their authority and I would easily be able to figure out a way to take advantage of it (not that I would!). As soon as their authority is gone in people’s eyes, the community will fall apart. That’s what I don’t want to happen.
>And from there... Well... The more you get people internalising the rules and willing to assist in the process...The bigger the group of leaders is going to get...And you might eventually...Be able to self-govern / self-regulate behaviour in line with the rules…So that you could have self-governance at the level of the large group. Or possibly... Things will disintegrate. At which point... We wait for the emergence of another leader???? Or maybe Dr Bob will have to step in again... And some people... Do view Dr Bob as a tyrant. And they might do better if they had a small group of leaders rather than just one individul. They might even... Want to join the group of leaders. They may be able to internalise their rules and rationalisations and go on to contribute to that process...
>One phrase for you to think about..."Too many cooks in the kitchen!" A big group of leaders is a very bad idea...especially when there is no hierarchical structure. And with such a diverse group of people on the board, I can almost guarantee you that self-regulating behavior will not happen without defined leadership roles and authority. It’s a great thought to want to have a board that is self-regulating and self-governing (I’m assuming you mean no specific leader), but in reality we are humans and it is not in our nature to self regulate. How many cultures do you know that are successful at self-regulating? Not too many.
I’m a strong believer in the need to have a leader that can be a guide and a strong pillar that the community respects and knows will stand strong to keep the community running. Whether it is one permanent person or the job changes, I personally can’t see this community surviving without someone like that. That’s how a lot of people here view Dr. Bob. You can tell it in your guys’ posts in this thread. He’s the constant and pillar that you’re looking for in a leader. You greatly respect him and so it is sad to think that his time here may be ending soon (even if it is years away). If someone like that can step in, then I think that this community won’t have too much of a disruption. Consistency and reliability are key. I really hope that there is someone that is like that. It might even be wise for Dr. Bob to choose the person(s) and train them so that when he is ready to leave, he can slowly let them take over until his job is gone. It would help us learn to trust them and have respect for their authority and see that Dr. Bob's leaving isn’t going to be as bad as it seems. Just a thought.
poster:thuso
thread:564410
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20051013/msgs/567325.html