Loomio
October 13th, 2016 13:57

Leadership: Coop vs. Person

Joe
Joe Public Seen by 363

When considering leadership in a model, which do you believe is better? A cooperative of minds and thoughts putting out responses and directives (suggestions) for solutions (decisions) or a single person who claims to see/know what's best for the greater good of the people?

Let's discuss the pros and cons of these two options. But if I may, let's discuss in light of a particular set of tech innovations for how future coops might work.

The two innovations are: 1) muxive; 2) gov avatar. Happy to reveal details of both innovations - if we get enough interest in this discussion topic.

John Rhoads

John Rhoads October 15th, 2016 21:16

For me this is a no-brainer. Coop all the way. I love your philosophical questions. It really gets my mind working. LOL. I at this point I could go on at length about how individual parts make up the whole or "all for one and one for all" etc. For example, 10 people in a group each like a different color. Each person would then put up a proposal that his/her color should be the color that defines our group but we would find a stalemate at the end of voting. It's only when more than one person shares the same color does traction start. What I see is 10 different colors get blended and that is the color. If two people like green while the rest are different, then the collective color is that much more green. This is how our discussion and proposals are interpreted I think. What is interesting is the spirit of compromise. Conversely also, there are 10 people in a group and 9 feel that killing for profit in the name of justice is reasonable and 1 person does not. After voting, it turns out the 1 person had his head screwed on straight while the others are doomed. This is where goup-think breaks down and poses that famous argument about how "democracy" doesn't ensure something "good" will happen. So, it's about whether a good idea gets implemented at all which means there is going to be a lot of debating and argumentation. Because we share well defined beliefs, our debating will be less arduous and tend to be more semantics (how something is said vs. what is said) than content. Now my mind thought of that other famous quote, "when in Rome, do as the Romans". This is all well and good if the Romans are indeed "good". Many times the Romans are not good. Birds of a feather flock together is another. Obviously we are together in this group because we share a common belief and purpose. So, I'm not too worried about the aforementioned internally here. It's about identity and sharing a common identity - and ultimately trying to get the "majority" of the world to see things our way so humanity can get on with living a beautiful life.

Joe

Joe October 15th, 2016 22:15

I like the color mixing analogy John. This is exactly how muxive works, but instead of color mixing it's 'importance item/issues' mixing. With priority lists where everyone is rank-ordering the same items a pure quantitative solution is possible to define the group mix.

Everyone is happy because they get to control their own list and change it anytime. Each participant has exact equal power to impact the group list. So even if I disagree with your list I know your list has no greater impact than mine. Happiness!

Participants need only accept the muxed result at any point in time as the voice of the group. But this does not mean politics goes away. Everyone still tries to sway others to change their personal lists.

New items can be added at any point - given no hard deadline. Often as issues are considered new awareness of possibility emerges, so it's critical to keep most lists dynamic and changeable thru time.

Participants can come and go at will too. No one need tell anyone what they MUST do. If you want to engage in a issue/case/list then you are welcome to either join or leave.

It's real important that no person or committee limit participants. Freedom is key to keeping everyone happy.

If you guys want to test this using a real case relevant to d@w I'd be happy to create a case to play/learn from.

Thanks everyone for allowing me this opportunity to share my innovations.