Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Mitch Joel

GET UPDATES FROM Mitch Joel
 

Can Leaderless Organizations Win?

Posted: 11/01/11 01:13 PM ET

Whether it's the Arab Spring, the Tea Party movement or Occupy Wall Street, what is it about leaderless organizations that makes it all seem so strange to us?

In 2006, I made the six hour drive from Montreal to Boston to attend the first PodCamp Boston unconference (a participant-driven or self-organized gathering). Prior to that, I had attended some of the initial BarCamp events. The idea of a self-organized event was foreign then... and it's still foreign now. Some of the initial questions I had about driving to PodCamp included:

  • What if I get there and no one shows up?
  • How will I know if the sessions are any good?
  • Where do I get my nametag?
  • Where are the networking events taking place?
  • Is there a travel sponsor with a rebate on nearby hotels for those attending from out of town?

Those questions are driven by a traditional conference mindset. Here are the unconference answers to those questions:

  • If you get there and no one else shows up, then I didn't do my job of letting others know about the event.
  • The sessions will only be good if I chose to either lead one or encourage others to lead them.
  • You bring your own nametag.
  • You have to connect with the other people who signed up on the wiki and make your own social events (and encourage others to join you!).
  • You're a big boy, call some hotels and negotiate a rate for yourself and for others.

Leaderless events and organizations act and feel weird because they are weird.

We expect others to lead us. This is why there are so few great leaders when compared to our overall population. It's not easy to take the responsibility for success and to be able to drive results, and get others to not only believe in you but to follow you. The media struggles to find a figurehead or someone to interview in these self-organized groups and revolutions like the Arab Spring, the Tea Party movement and Occupy Wall Street, but because there is no defined 'leader' (mostly because these groups are self-organized), they are chastised for not having in place a more traditional (and hierarchical) structure.

So, can leaderless organizations truly get results?

Obviously, they can (and do). The real challenge is that these structures are new and platforms like social media have (finally) brought us to this unique moment in time where we can have leaderless and self-organizing groups affect true change in our world. This past weekend, Clay Shirky (best-selling business book author of Here Comes Everybody and Cognitive Surplus) tweeted, "Back from delivering coffee & gloves to #OWS. Hundreds of people hunkering down in freezing rain, an amazing act of patriotism." The magic of the Internet is that the power of open source has now expanded beyond the borders of software development. Individual acts of patriotism can now be viewed cumulatively in a much more powerful way -- and with every act of patriotism comes a cumulative effect as they are shared and exchanged in both our protein forms and in the online channels. That cumulative effect springs new ideas for people to share and gather around. It's as mindless as lolcats and as powerful as the overthrowing of repressive governments.

Who are we going to blame?

As a society we want to point our fingers at someone -- an individual. The truth is that the murkiness of pointing our fingers at a leaderless group makes it difficult to find a target for our energy (either positive or negative) and it is somewhat unsatisfying to get angry at a faceless organization when it comes to a specific issue. The truth is that we're going to have to learn how to adapt to this new reality. While great leadership can never be denied, what we're truly seeing here is that the 99 per cent are now connected and their power, rage and passions are not only hard to deny, but it's even harder to ignore.

Leaderless groups are only going to increase as people continue to get smarter through our technological engines of connectivity and their desire to share and connect.

Mitch Joel is president of Twist Image -- an award-winning digital marketing agency. HIs first book, Six Pixels of Separation, named after his highly-successful blog and podcast of the same name is a business and marketing bestseller. 

 

Follow Mitch Joel on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mitchjoel

Whether it's the Arab Spring, the Tea Party movement or Occupy Wall Street, what is it about leaderless organizations that makes it all seem so strange to us? In 2006, I made the six hour drive from ...
Whether it's the Arab Spring, the Tea Party movement or Occupy Wall Street, what is it about leaderless organizations that makes it all seem so strange to us? In 2006, I made the six hour drive from ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 11
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dagmaclugh39
Nomen est omen.
10:33 AM on 11/02/2011
OWS is democracy in action--something the Democratic and Republican parties aren't. All a citizen is to a political organization is twenty bucks every couple of years, and a meaningless vote.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sgillhoolley
Occupy the discussion.
10:23 AM on 11/02/2011
In some ways Social Networking lead to this new way of thinking. Leaders are problematic in many ways. For one, people have lost faith in their leaders, be they spiritual, government, or business. They have all let us down too many times. We have reached a point where many people think they have better ideas on how to solve the problems than the ones our "leaders" are coming up with. Leaders, as the article points out, act as a foci for both good and bad attention. Leaders can be intimidated, bribed, or coerced. The faceless masses cannot.

The democracy that we live with seems to be unresponsive to the electorate. Poll after poll shows overwhelming (2/3) support for a range of issues that are never even brought up, except to take the opposite course, by our "leaders". Business executives give themselves ridiculous bonuses, money that would otherwise go to investors or be re-invested back into the business. The leaders have changed the rules over the years to benefit themselves only, at our expense. So it makes sense that people are done with the hierarchical model.

I think Direct Democracy is one of the major changes that will emerge from this movement. People want a say in how things are done, not in who gets to decide.
05:20 AM on 11/02/2011
Neither the so called arab spring nor occupy movements are leaderless. They have goals and the main conspirators that take great strides to remain as invisible as possible. In the mid east there is enough angst and pent up rage due to decades of repression to create the conflagration. Here though many in the media and those being paid to be on the ground keep making the effort they can not "manufacture" the needed amount of blind foolishness needed to get the fire going.

The question in arabia will be what will be the next area of hatred and destruction. Israel, the US or their religious differences. Here the question will be for occupy, When will the currency manipulaion stop being so profitable and the poll numbers so negative that the tides, adbuster et all pull the paypal links. Fortunately we are getting close!!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ignacio sanabria
Mirror synapses at work
04:04 AM on 11/02/2011
Interesting concept. Perhaps people are accustomed to be lead and when this does not happen, they will resort to lead themselves.
photo
WI Patriot
Defending the Constitution.
06:20 PM on 11/01/2011
Can leaderless organizations win? Well using history as a guide the answer is no. This was figured out before Christ...

"A disorderly mob is no more an army than a heap of building materials is a house"
~ Socrates


Mobs are great at destruction. They do not build anything however. Toppling a government is no problem compared to building a functional one.


But - if you look at ~them~ "they" are not "leaderless" at all - there is an officially unofficial Occupy Wall Street "General Assembly" with published minutes, 301 members ("300" would be more apt in my opinion)....who issue votes and majority rules.......sounds kinda familiar doesn't it? It is an organization that uses a representative assembly of 301 people.

http://www.nycga.net/category/assemblies/minutes-ga/


Apparently the NY Fire Dept took their generators, and they want them back. The minutes refer to approve "legal representation" to get them back.


Sounds like organization to me. Representation. With all of that comes power (among themselves):

41.2.3 P #3:
"The GA has the power to make movement wide financial decisions"

And notes about trying to establish a budget. An operational organization mainly about day-to-day logistics, and a movement sub-organization to project their political "aims"



So if Occupy Wall street was a government - I would call it an Absolute Monarchy with 301 Monarchs who cannot be replaced under any circumstances and whose decision is absolute.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sgillhoolley
Occupy the discussion.
10:26 AM on 11/02/2011
Lacking a leader does not automatically make a large group a mob. The General Assembly is open to any who bother going. There are many General Assemblies going on all over the country. Much of the discussion is happening online. It is far more than 300 people who are discussing the problems and potential solutions. Of course there is organization. That only proves it is not a mob. But your claim that 301 people are deciding for everyone else is patently false.
photo
WI Patriot
Defending the Constitution.
01:02 PM on 11/02/2011
Accoding to their own minutes, the General assembly determines where funds go nationally........

Sure there are more than 300 people discussing things - but only 301 matter.

Less than 1%. Funny how that works - eh?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Whistlejackett
Hey stop doing that
06:07 PM on 11/01/2011
A great article Mitch, and long overdue. I really cannot add much to it other than what I discovered a few weeks ago. I was given a link to a new "open political party" in Canada. No real leaders, and no party associations. The reason being, that people can vote on issues rather than party policy. So no matter what your affiliation, you can belong. Here is the link to the OPC,(Online Party of Canada". Take a look if you are curious, it really adds to your column.

About OPC « Online Party http://www.onlineparty.ca/blog/about/
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
beckjr2000
been there done that & tired of it
05:24 PM on 11/01/2011
"Hundreds of people hunkering down in freezing rain, an amazing act of patriotism." An amazing act of stupidity!
04:17 PM on 11/01/2011
Greetings Mitch and Citizens...

To Be Or Not To Be...

I think that question can be easily answerd. I think you should consider conducting a case study of the current administration of the White House and within that case study you may find the answer to your question...

Warm regards,

Michael Winters
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jsgaetano
Legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus
04:14 PM on 11/01/2011
((Can Leaderless Organizations Win?)) - There's a difference between being a leaderless organization, and viewing each member as a leader.