Organizing Successful Leaderless Revolutions

Every community is a complex adaptive system. A complex adaptive system is any system composed of many autonomous parts, where each part may act independently of every other part, but each part’s actions will influence the actions of the parts immediately around it setting up a self-organizing iterated feedback system within the whole.

Because human beings are hardwired to be status-seeking individuals, every human community will self-organize according to three simple rules of attraction, avoidance, and alignment.

-     Attraction:  follow the one in front of you.

-     Avoidance:  stay in front of the one behind you.

-     Alignment:  stay next to the one beside you.

How these rules get applied will depend upon the context of power relationships within the community. There are two basic types of power relationships – unequal power relationships and equal power relationships. Of course power is equated with status, so whoever possesses power possesses status. This sets up the dynamic of power relationships in a complex adaptive system, and how the rules will be applied. 

            An unequal power relationship is one where there is a position of high power and high status related to positions of low power and low status. Only the person with high power or status possesses the privilege to speak, and those in the low power and status positions must only listen and obey. So the person in the position of high power feels entitled to monopolize information, control decision-making, and command obedience from those in low power positions. The persons in positions of low power feel obligated to obey without dissent or question those in high power positions. 

            Leadership by its very definition sets up relationships of unequal power. The essence of the relationship between leader and follower is one of high power and status to low power and status. This relationship cannot be avoided no matter how benevolent and well intentioned is the leader or follower. It is a self-organizing dynamic set up by the very nature of human beings in community. 

In leader-based communities the content of the three simple rules become:

-       Rule of Attraction:  tell the person above you what you think they want to hear.

-       Rule of Avoidance:  tell the persons beneath you only what you think they need to know.

-       Rule of Alignment:  conform to the gossip around you in either praising or blaming the leaders or followers for the community’s problems.

Because of this inevitable dynamic in leader-based communities, there will always be a corrupt culture of secrecy, inequality, and inauthentic communication resulting in abuse of power.

Equal power relationships are where there are no high or low power or status positions. Each person possesses the equal privilege to speak and shares the equal and reciprocal obligation to listen. So power must be shared and distributed. Decision-making must be collaborative and participatory. The community is characterized by openness and transparency with information. Accountability to one another replaces blind obedience to those in leadership positions above you. Shared competence of all replaces the command and control of the many by the few. 

In the absence of unequal power relationships and with the presence of equal power relationships, the content of the three simple rules of self-organizing communities will be:

-       Rule of Attraction:  seek out people with the competence and expertise you need to assist you in making your own contribution to the well being of the community.

-       Rule of Avoidance:  be open and transparent with others because you want them to be open and transparent with you. (Avoid secrecy and hidden agendas.)

-       Rule of Alignment:  cooperate with others in assisting them in satisfying their own private interests as they assist you in satisfying your own.

             This will naturally occur, you don’t have to force this behavior. Just organize without unequal power relationships and trust the dynamics of self-organizing complex adaptive systems. If you can successfully organize a community without leaders and so without the self-organizing dynamic of unequal power relationships, people will naturally cooperate with one another to achieve successfully the goals of the leaderless community with greater equity and fairness. The dignity of each person will be equally respected and the needs of each person equally met.

Of course this is difficult to do because we have for so long assumed that whenever you get a group of people together as a community or to accomplish some task, you must place someone in charge. As soon as you do this – place someone in in charge – you’ve created a leader-based community of unequal power relationships and will eventually reap the consequences of social injustice, corruption, and abuse of power. This is inevitable given the unwavering dynamic of self-organizing complex adaptive systems. It also isn’t enough just to create a context of equal power relationships and allow the trusted system dynamics to take over. 

Every community, or group of people, committed to some purpose, to be successful, must accomplish certain administrative tasks or management functions. Otherwise there will be chaos. The five basic management functions are:

·      Strategic – Vision – See it (what it is the community wants to accomplish)

·      Operational – Planning – Plan it (how the community will accomplish it)

·      Tactical – Doing – Do it

·      Resource – Funding – Energize it

·      People – Culture – Make it meaningful

So how does a community perform these essential tasks without creating a leadership hierarchy? How can these essential functions be managed without leaders in a leaderless community? No one has yet been able to figure out how to do this intentionally, so every great and noble revolution and reform movement has eventually collapsed into some leadership hierarchy and betrayed the goals that inspired the movement in the beginning and been absorbed by the corrupt rank-based system it was trying to replace. 

Each revolution starts out as an authentic voice against unequal power relationships. But failing to understand the self-organizing dynamics of communities, they create leadership positions and before you know it they have reinstituted the same old relationships of unequal power they were fighting against. Only now different people hold the positions of high power and status. This does not need to happen.

I believe a community, or revolution can succeed without leaders if they organize to perform the above functions through peer-based, or leaderless management vehicles; namely, peer councils, rotational stewardship positions, and mentors.   

Peer Councils  (See pages 127ff of Myth of Leadership)

Peer councils are composed from all individuals within the community. With peer councils, a greater sense of community is developed that fosters increased competency in all members of the community. Councils provide the vehicle for this development by creating a space of genuine dialogue. The goals of peer-based councils are as follows:

·      To foster a sense of equal standing and genuine communication among all persons

·      To allow everyone in the community to contribute to decision-making in the five functions of management

·      To ensure that everyone in the community begins to think and act like a valued and important contributor

·      To provide everyone in the community the opportunity to discover, develop, and increase their own unique set of competencies and abilities

Striving for and achieving these goals, the peer councils tap into the whole intelligence and talent latent within the community. Council size can vary from between 10 to 150 council members, or even include the entire community. These councils are directly related to key areas of organizational decision-making. So we have the Strategy Council; Operations Council; Tactical Council; Resource Council; and People Council. These councils, through peer-based deliberation, possess responsibility and authority for the critical decisions in their respective management function.

Membership, if it is divided up within the community, should be rotated in periods of three months, six months, nine months, and twelve months. Those who demonstrate great potential to contribute in any particular council can be made mentors or given rotational stewardship positions within the council. Selection to councils can be voluntary, random, or elected.

Rotational Stewardship Positions  (See pages 142ff of Myth of Leadership)

Obviously, not every decision can or should be brought before the entire council. Day-to-day and routine decision-making can be delegated to administrative positions within each council. The essence of rotational stewardship positions is those in administrative positions within the councils have definite term limits to fill their management assignment. These administrative positions are responsible to the council out of which they were selected. These stewardship positions are for individuals, teams, or task forces. After their time is up, other individuals will be chosen and the rotation continues. This will keep the energy flow through the community generative. Rotating who has important positions on a regular basis is a very important to prevent any sense of leadership entitlement or permanency. Rotating stewardship positions on a regular basis will give more people a greater chance at participation and contribution. Also, the fact that people share in the ownership of carrying out important tasks means that they also share in the burden of communicating knowledge and information to others. This improves teamwork and knowledge sharing in a manner that makes communities self-correcting. 

Mentoring  (See pages 107ff of Myth of Leadership)

Mentors play the crucial role of linking the various peer councils with one another. They create the network. In many ways, mentoring replaces leading, and mentors replace leaders in peer-based, leaderless communities. A leader leads followers, and the implication, given the myth of leadership, is that this leadership is “over” others. It is the command and control of others using rank-based authority. A mentor advises and counsels others. A mentor may possess greater expertise, knowledge, and experience and shares this with members of the community who are lacking in these areas. It is a relationship, not of rank, but alongside of the one being mentored. The difference in symbolism is very important. A mentor is a person committed to the improvement of self and others. The commitment is an essential part of the mentor’s body, heart, and mind. With the body, the mentor models; with the heart, the mentor counsels; and with the mind, the mentor teaches. To the true mentor, the physical and emotional needs of others become his or her spiritual need. 

The mentor teaches with the mind, not by lecturing, but by asking the right questions. Examples of mentoring questions are:

What do you care most about?

How are you being affected personally?

What do you believe is the main problem or issue?

What do you believe should be done?

What do you think others would say?

What do you hope for?

The mentor counsels with the heart through sincere, empathic listening. The mentor models with the body by being an example of the peer attitudes and values in interactions with others. Mentors counsel councils and rotational stewardship positions, but they do not vote or take an active part in the decision-making process of the community.

Some more thoughts on the principles of localism: Principle Three – Regeneration

We are pilgrims in an unfinished universe. We are co-creators of our collective future. It should be a future we accomplish, not through coercion and force, but through the subtle influence of persuasion, cooperation, and joy.

- From the Myth of Leadership: Creating Leaderless Organizations

Principle Three – Regeneration (regenerate the world at the local level through the practice of innovation and creativity in finding new ways, and improving old ways, of meeting our needs in our local communities):

I always find inspiration in E.F. Schumacher’s Small Is Beautiful. On page 35 of the new Harper-Perennial edition, we find his three suggestions to scientists and technologists of the 21^st century – suggestions to regenerate our communities at the local level. He says,

We need methods and equipment, which are:

-       Cheap enough so that they are accessible to virtually everyone;

-       Suitable for small-scale application; and

-       Compatible with man’s need for creativity.

As begin to practice the five principles of localism (reduction, replacement, regeneration, responsibility, and reconnection), these three objectives should guide our job creation in local industry in a manner that is environmentally healthy and economically sustainable.

There are today innovative companies around the world seeking to do this. One great example of this effort is PlantLab, a Dutch agricultural engineering company focused on developing the technology to make possible indoor local food production. (See http://www.plantlab.nl/4.0/) They are developing the technology for local communities to grow all the food they need locally. Local communities should become active in partnering with innovative companies, like Plantlab, and seeking to solve our human problems at the human scale of localism.

As local communities become both more self-sustaining and self-governing, they can begin to export best practices and ideas to assist other communities in meeting the needs of community members at the local level (Principle Five – Reconnecting).   

We possess the wisdom, the competence, and the resources to create a world where each human might flourish and satisfy his or her deep existential needs for respect and security. Such potential, however, will only become the reality when we focus and work at the local level.

Some Thoughts on Principle One of Localism - Reductionism

The Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s need, but not for every man’s greed.

                                                                                    - Gandhi

Principle One – Reductionism (decrease our dependence on distant and external sources for the provision of necessary goods and services):  I have often thought that we live in a world of incredible abundance and beauty when measured by our basic human needs to live good lives, but we live in a world of great violence and scarcity as measured against our actual practice of driving economic growth with our limitless desires. The ancient philosopher, Epicurus, suggested that nature easily supplies what is required to simply satisfy our real needs, while our desires for unnecessary things will constantly upset our happiness.

Epicurus taught that only three things were required for human happiness.

1.              Friends

2.              Freedom or self-sufficiency

3.              A reflective life

He believed many fail to meet these three simple requirements, and so fail to be happy, in large part because they fail to distinguish the different types of wants they experience. (He realized long ago what happiness psychologists are now empirically confirming; namely, we are terrible at knowing what will truly make us happy.) Epicurus said the first type of want is natural and necessary. This is a desire for those things that are both harmonious with a good life and required for it as well. These were wants that had to be satisfied in order to live a good life, and yet nature had made these things easy to acquire – things like enough food and shelter to be neither hungry nor homeless. The second type of wants were natural but unnecessary. So these are things that are harmonious with a good life but not required. These might be things like cell phones, TV’s, many electronic devices, etc. The third type of want was for things that were both unnatural and unnecessary. These were things that were not only not required to live a good life but would also jeopardize your ability to live a good life. Any of our needs taken to an extreme become unnatural and unnecessary – large homes, big cars, designer clothes, over eating, etc. His basic idea was that if we could simplify our wants to be congruent with our natural and necessary wants, then we’d have more time to pursue those activities that actually increase our sense of living a good life – more time with family and friends, and more time to engage in self-reflection. Yet our world seems to incite people to chase after unnatural and unnecessary wants and so to lose their freedom to indebtedness and have no time for friends or self-examination.

I had a student, not too long ago, decide to take yellow post-it notes and go around her apartment and label all her possessions as natural and necessary, natural but unnecessary, or unnatural and unnecessary. Her goal was to get rid of all the unnatural and unnecessary items, to find ways to minimize all the natural but unnecessary items, and then from that point on before any purchase she would ask, “Is this item natural and necessary?” If it wasn’t, she wouldn’t buy it. She told me this exercise was fantastically liberating and freed her mind from financial anxiety and envy. She discovered surplus time to spend with family and friends, and more opportunities to enjoy community. All experiences that have a greater and more long lasting affect on our sense of wellbeing than the acquisition of more and more material goods and services.

Localism, in part through the principle of reductionism, leads us to simplify our wants to those that can be satisfied locally and aids us in achieving the three objectives Epicurus claimed essential for our own happiness.

The Land Ethic & Regeneration

Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but on thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together. All things connect. Continue to contaminate your own bed, and you will one night suffocate in your own waste.

-       Chief Seattle

When all the trees have been cut down, when all the animals have been hunted, when all the waters are polluted, when all the air is unsafe to breathe, only then will you discover you cannot eat money.

-       Cree Prophecy

A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.

-       Aldo Leopold

Leopold in his wonderful essay on The Land Ethic enlarges the boundaries of what we consider our community to include soil, waters, plants, and animals – what he calls the biotic community. He offers as a rule to measure the morality of our actions within our communities the affect on the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic world.

If we consider that we inhabit a dualistic world – the biotic and abiotic – where the abiotic community includes buildings, roads, and other human-made artifacts, and the biotic includes soil, water, air, and all organic life – then this rule can be taken as a measure for evaluating the human constructed environment, or the abiotic world.

As we consider the third guiding principle of localism – regeneration, we can be guided in finding innovative solutions by respecting the integrity of the biotic world – meaning recognizing wholeness by refraining from dividing the biotic community into artificial and unhealthy segments; stability – building in a sustainable and self-renewing fashion; and beauty – ensuring that our human constructed environments are perceptually appealing by fitting harmoniously into the already existing biotic and abiotic environments.

Localism and Diversity

From the point of view of Buddhist economics, therefore, production from local resources for local needs is the most rational way of economic life, while dependence on imports from afar and the consequent need to produce for export to unknown and distant peoples is highly uneconomic and justifiable only in exceptional cases and on a small scale.

-       E. F. Schumacher

If localism in peer-based communities is not to become a meaningless utopian scheme, certain concerns will need to be addressed. I’ve been thinking about the problem of diversity and localism – how to prevent localism from creating islands of sameness and homogeneity of beliefs and values within a larger pluralistic culture; or how to prevent localism from stifling differences and enforcing a bland conformism. I would appreciate readers’ thoughts on this issue. Here are some of my own.

How can we protect and permit pluralistic approaches to living our lives within local communities? Buddha was supposed to have once said – “Think of what you desire and realize that all living things want and need the same things; they just go about seeking them in different ways.” This perhaps provides a clue of seeking unity in the midst of diversity. If we posit that what we all share are the basic existential needs for respect and security. We just need to allow for some disagreement on the right and wrong way of satisfying these shared needs.

What guidelines might help us in achieving unity in diversity, so that each person in our local communities can satisfy these common needs in their own way? I was reading some essays by James Rachels (The Legacy of Socrates: Essays in Moral Philosophy. Columbia University Press, 2006.) and found a few possibilities in his essay on Socrates’ contribution to ethics in a democracy. This is my own reformulation of some suggestions found there into three possible guiding principles.

First, localism must realize that the community cannot favor the interests of some members over others, but that each member’s interests count equally. In council meetings, for instance, the diversity of perspectives must be represented even if only by proxy.

Second, local communities must recognize and respect individuality. The community must tolerant conduct that the majority might disapprove of as long as the conduct does not harm the interests of others.

Third, standards of community life must be flexible enough to accommodate the personal conscience of all members and not impose controversial dogmas, and be established upon reasonable and commonly accepted norms. For instance the “ten new commands” offered by Bernard Gert might be sufficient (See Common Morality: Deciding What to Do. Bernard Gert. OUP, 2004.):

10 Rules of Universal or Common Morality

1.              Do not kill.

2.              Do not cause pain.

3.              Do not disable.

4.              Do not deprive of freedom.

5.              Do not deprive of pleasure.

6.              Do not deceive.

7.              Keep your promises.

8.              Do not cheat.

9.              Obey the law.

10.           Do your duty – as required by the responsibilities you freely take upon yourself.       

This is only a first take at thinking of ways to protect diversity and foster pluralism with peer-based communities practicing localism. I’d appreciate other ideas and feedback.

Peer-Based/Leaderless Management Vehicles

Peer Councils  (See pages 127ff of Myth of Leadership)

When an organization charters peer councils, composed of individuals from all ranks and areas of the organization, employees get out of their hierarchic roles and are able to see things differently. People from all over the organization get to know one another and learn how to communicate genuinely. People productively work together and cooperate when they share common goals, receive proper information, have the skill sets and are able to recognize, utilize and balance each other’s strengths and weaknesses. Many of these necessary elements are missing in the traditional rank-based organization with its centralized authority and top-down command structure. With peer councils, a greater sense of community is developed that fosters increased competency in all members of the organization. Councils provide the vehicle for this development by creating a space of genuine dialogue. The goals of peer-based councils are as follows:

·      To foster a sense of equal standing and genuine communication among all persons

·      To allow everyone in the organization to contribute to decision-making in the five functions of management

·      To ensure that everyone in the organization begins to think and act like a valued and important contributor

·      To provide everyone in the organization the opportunity to discover, develop, and increase their own unique set of skills and abilities

Striving for and achieving these goals, the peer councils tap into the whole intelligence and talent latent within the organization, giving it strength over any rank-based rival. In my consulting practice helping develop peer councils, I discovered five key peer councils that can be chartered to leverage the competitive advantage of our organizations. Council size can vary from between 10 to 150 council members. These councils are directly related to key areas of organizational decision-making. So we have the Strategy Council; Operations Council; Tactical Council; Resource Council; and People Council. These councils, through peer-based deliberation, possess responsibility and authority for the critical decisions in their respective management function.

Membership should be rotated in periods of three months, six months, nine months, and twelve months. Those who demonstrate great potential to contribute in any particular council can be made mentors or given rotational stewardship positions within the council. Selection to councils can be voluntary, random, or elected.

Rotational Stewardship Positions  (See pages 142ff of Myth of Leadership)

Obviously, not every decision can or should be brought before the entire council. Day-to-day and routine decision-making can be delegated to administrative positions within each council. The essence of rotational stewardship positions is those in administrative positions within the councils have definite term limits to fill their management assignment. These administrative positions are responsible to the council out of which they were selected. These stewardship positions are for individuals-, teams, or task forces. After their time is up, other individuals will be chosen and the rotation continues. This will keep the energy flow through the organization generative. Rotating who has important positions on a regular basis is a very effective way to begin fostering peer-based organizations. Rotating stewardship positions on a regular basis will give people a greater chance at participation and contribution. Also, the fact that people share in the ownership of leading means that they also share in the burden of communicating knowledge and information to others. This improves teamwork and knowledge sharing in a manner that makes organizations self-correcting.

Mentoring  (See pages 107ff of Myth of Leadership)

Mentors play the crucial role of linking the various peer councils with one another. They create the network. In many ways, mentoring replaces leading, and mentors replace leaders in peer-based, leaderless organizations. A leader leads followers, and the implication, given the myth of leadership, is that this leadership is “over” others. It is the command and control of others using rank-based authority. A mentor advises and counsels others. A mentor possesses greater expertise, knowledge, and experience and shares this with members of the organization who are lacking in these areas. It is a relationship, not of rank, but alongside of the one being mentored. The difference in symbolism is very important. A mentor is a person committed to the improvement of self and others. The commitment is an essential part of the mentor’s body, heart, and mind. With the body, the mentor models; with the heart, the mentor counsels; and with the mind, the mentor teaches. To the true mentor, the physical and emotional needs of others become his or her spiritual need.

The mentor teaches with the mind, not by lecturing, but by asking the right questions. Examples of mentoring questions are:

What do you care most about?

How are you being affected personally?

What do you believe is the main problem or issue?

What do you believe should be done?

What do you think others would say?

What do you hope for?

The mentor counsels with the heart through sincere, empathic listening. The mentor models with the body by being an example of the peer attitudes and values in interactions with others. Mentors counsel councils and rotational stewardship positions, but they do not vote or take an active part in the decision-making process. In council meetings, mentors are to play the role of sage.