The great man theory is simply wrong. Human beings simply channel or propagate ideas. Even in the biblical tradition it when 3 or more are gathered or a group of 12. A group of 100 people will have all of man’s faculties, just add the inspiration.
And how is it wrong?
Your explanation is gibberish.
A group of 100 people still need one to say “This is what we are going to do” in order for the rest to say “amen”
Rarely do the other 99 all agree. You might get 80 amens… The other 19 will have to live with something they don’t want to live with. Or the 81 will have to not do what they where going to do to have peace with the 19. Either way somebody doesn’t get what they want.
And either way if nobody has the boldness to say “lets do this” then nothing gets done.
And if every group of 100 was going to come to the same conclusion, who is to say that they where right? There are lots of times when the crowd believes what the crowd believes because the crowd doesn’t know what the crowd doesn’t know. Sometimes it is the crazy nutcase who moves society along by going against the flow.
2 Likes
You keep going round in circles trying to defend the entreprenurial model. The automated cooperative maps onto the collegiate model. In the collegiate model a group of experts has to come to a decision and there is no clear rank. This model has its well known limits in its raw form. The third model is the due process bueaucratic model. It produces maximum stability and prdictability but is slow to change and while it can be quite effective is not always efficient.
The short comings of the collegiate model like limited organizational memory can be overcome to a degree today with knowedge systems etc.
But the days of the Jim Jones cool aid pushing ‘leader’ confusing the nurse button with the nuke button are over. Only sheep need leaders. Sheep mode is a form of learned helplessness inculcated by idiotic leadership culture. Its over, we don’t need bullies at work they are useless and limited and result in a massive waste of engagement, creativity and focused human will. The age of the corporation and corpratocracy is over.
I have made my points and you have absolutely failed to address any of them.
You just dismiss me for believing them and try to change the subject.
Leadership is the way the world works. You will not have anything get done without leaders. Leaders emerge because people want things to get done… They solve more problems and the make more progress when somebody is there to champion ideas and to garner a consensus towards a decision.
Leaders do not exist to be tyrants… Tyrants tend to fail as leaders…
The thing about models is is that you can build whatever you want – they either reflect reality or they are just art. The prominent model is used because it works. The model you propose exists too, but only in short spurts. Because it doesn’t work. It either evolves into something like a hierarchal model with strong leaders or it dies. With every few exceptions… I see it happen all the time in real world situations…
Most of the world have guardian personality types. They like to do their job and go home. There is nothing wrong with that. They are not helpless. They are actually quite useful in maintaining order and making sure that processes are followed, limiting variation and increasing quality of products and services. But they are not innovative. That’s not their thing.
Aren’t you trying to lead by arguing so vehemently? Isn’t that oxymoronic? You have an idea about how the world should be and you are trying to build a consensus towards that worldview. That is an attempt at leadership. If people like you don’t argue your case your world will never come to be. But in order for your world to come to be somebody need to lead the charge, and oops, there they go leading…
The so called leaders at their best are just instruments. Getting ego out of the way is the key. The distributed models are levelers. Developmental hierarchies are one thing, power hierarchies another. Human organizations are moving to something more organic like what drives ant colonies. That ant firmware is what the digital cooperative framework can provide. A human mind and a human will are terrible things to waste with zombification and vampirism. Subordination is over.
The time of loss leader is over. A Napoleon is one in a billion. You don’t build the dominant model on glory delusions about super outliers. Statistically they just don’t exist nor exist for more than the bat of an eye. Its pure brittle. You’re advocating straight line linear models that worked for a while but have now reached their unsatisfactory limits. Its like musket carrying straight line revolutionary war Brits against guerrila Yanks or the Viet Cong. Its over.
Its revolution through evolution and what an evolution it is when you throw in the Fermi Paradox, cosmic anthropic principle, infinite parralel universes and black branes. Its telology that stands up. We are moving away from slave based systems to a powerful autonomy of intrinsic equals.
I have worked companies with “self directed work teams” that worked by consensus in nodes.
Leaders always emerged to lead us to consensus. People who can do that gain clout and respect.
I doubt you have worked in such an environment. I give you real word example after real word example and you reply with academic gibberish after academic gibberish.
Self directed work teams and consensus works to a point. But it isn’t a fix all by any means.
Mainly where doing what you have always done isn’t going to work anymore. The node is always most happy to continue its course. but that doesn’t always work. Stopping what you are doing and starting something you don’t do are key strategic moves that are outside the scope of a work node…
That can be fixed, see the other thread. But again having democratic systems in the work place is simply the overriding most important concern at this point. We either get it there or we lose it everywhere. That is where we are at. The alternative is people as property, which is mass murder possibly worse than genocide and will lead to nuclear human extinction.
No it isn’t.
I work for a boss and I sure as hell ain’t his property.
Hyperbole will only get you so far. When you start believing they hyperbole too literally you are just being silly.
Don’t kid yourself. Every command he/she gives you reinforces his/her false superiority and damages your psyche. Don’t defend subjugation, its sychophantic.
How am I going to know what my customers need done if He doesn’t tell me where the work is, and what it is?
I am supposed to conjure it form thin air?
You are being insanely silly.
If my customer asked me directly to come do a job for them would I be their slave too? The reason they ask me to do something is because I have the power to make it so, and they do not. Work is power, not subjugation.
1 Like
Contractor is a different situation, completely. Customer supplier different as well. These are not boss employee as above.
Why is it an ounce different? Sometimes my boss sells my services. Other times I sell my services. I never do what I don’t choose to do. If my services are not ample he will cease his contract with me. If I do not feel compensated, I will cease my contract with him.
My work entitles me to his money. I have the power. He does not. If I quit, he cannot get work done that he needs to get done until he finds and pays somebody else.
If I where to have to spend most of my time selling, and less of my time engineering, I would have a much worse career because I would have to spend my time dealing with things I am not so good at and I would not be able to spend as much time doing the things I am really good at. Having somebody find customers, find work that they need done is a massive service to me. Solving the customer’s problems is a massive service to them. Everyone wins.
Boss/employee isn’t anything different than contractor. I do his work or I don’t. He likes me and continues to give me work or he doesn’t.
Very important! Also, dealing with things you hate to do, that’s probably the worst, at least to me.
Say you’re a worker who hates paperwork and accounting and Warren rescues you from your miserable worker life, and now you finally get a chance to spend 1-2 hours a day doing freaking accounting.
But notice the title boss. That is master.
I do hate doing expense reports.
Maybe the fact that I do them is why I am a slave…
What do you say @warren. Ought I just quit turning in my expenses because my tyrant accounting department doesn’t deserve to know where I spent the company’s money?
1 Like
[quote=“jreighley, post:55, topic:5321, full:true”]Using a DAO is necessary in SAFE’s case because it is going to need to be decentralized with no point of control that can be intimidated or seized… But building to much complexity or too many layers in such a DAO could very well be it’s downfall. It is very hard to amend once people are earning money, even if that money is not well spent, because you will need the consensus of those benefiting unfairly in order to move back to what is fair.
[/quote]
A thought that popped in my mind recently is that safenet doesn’t need to be the thing that catches on to change the world. Safenet can change the world simply by giving the person/team that can create the world-changing protocol the anonymity necessary to do so without being attacked by the NSA. In that case, safenet 1 would need only come out the door with the anonymity and token system to bring in the investor types. the aforementioned team could then create safenet 2 using capital acquired from safenet 1 and that project would have the benefit of having a defined and likely partially profit-driven team maintaining it so you would avoid internet fights over necessary program changes and the like entirely.
A wife-husband sandwich shop in which wife’s managing the store and making sandwiches while the husband works in a delivery is therefore slavery for the husband.
It’s really fun to watch @Warren keep going like this, to 70+ comments, with 0 support and 0 likes 
Some signs are subtle, other less so… But he claims he’s right so it must be true!
1 Like
I agree with his dislike of the word “boss” though. I much prefer employer or team/department manager or whatever the actual role of that person is. No one is going to be my “boss”, ever.
2 Likes
It is all semantics though… They are still going to have the same role. It doesn’t really matter what you call it, the role is either needed and useful or it is not. For the most part for most things, It is a needed role - and the more complex and the larger the scale of the business , the more needed it is.
In most cases there is a guy who can fire you – and it doesn’t matter what you call him (or her) he is what he is.
I strongly disagree, words have a lot of subconscious power, it matters a lot. “Your boss” implies dominance on a personal level.
2 Likes