Leadership Teams

Gathers to analyze and address the relations between systems at different levels: the systems that emerge among us as members of the occupation itself, local and regional systems, and large-scale systems (national or international, for instance). We are committed to developing workable proposals for concrete action at all three levels. Our conversations aim to link the movement's practical and theoretical concerns together in the service of collective and individual growth.

Leadership Teams

Postby JerryB » Mon Nov 14, 2011 8:18 pm

Occupy is leaderless - sort of, but we all know that there are responsible people in each area, and in each of the committees, who step up and take leadership roles. These people see a need and step up and act to bring about order from chaos. We need leaders to help teach less experienced people how to do things. We need leaders who are willing to take responsibility of things. We need leaders to recruit volunteers and harangue people to do what needs to be done.

The problem in camp is that the few people who are acting as leaders in their particular areas are getting burned out. They need help and someone to give them well deserved breaks.

We are all equal but different. We all have different strengths and weaknesses. Some people are better at speaking others are better at organizing, some at building, some at cooking etc. In each area we need to find folk who have skills commensurate to the needs.

The reason the Occupy movement is so dead set against having leaders is twofold.
1. In an egalitarian society everyone is considered equal. A leader implies that one person is superior to those being led. It is too evocative of the 1% telling the 99% what to do.
2. There is always a danger of abuse of power (absconding with the money, sexual favors etc.)

I propose that instead of just electing a leader for each area that we elect three to share the job. The three could share the responsibilities so they could take turns with time off, and they could also use the apprenticeship model to teach others.

Each leadership team should include a Master with a lot of experience, a journeyman with some expertise and an apprentice with little experience who wants to learn. One should be of the opposite sex.

Leadership teams would be much harder to corrupt or abuse power because they are watching each other. The emphasis would be on cooperating instead of the competition single leadership engenders.
JerryB
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 10:20 pm

Re: Leadership Teams

Postby JerryB » Mon Nov 14, 2011 9:30 pm

This would work well at the micro level in camp, but could also be used in schools (teams of teachers working with volunteers and/or parents to manage overcrowded classrooms)

This would work really well in the business world revitalizing the apprenticeship program to train the unemployed. Overpaid CEO's could share their millions and get three times the job. Job sharing reduced the unemployment in Germany. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... _blog.html

On the State and National level it might take some doing to change to teams instead of individual politicians, but if you think about it. Most politicians are elected for their charisma and speaking ability. A team could have a charismatic talker to do the PR, and a hard working technocrat to do the actual work and new proposals, and an experienced pol to work the other members of Congress.

Instant runnoff voting should be allowed to allow many parties to run without being spoilers, and the 1st, 2nd, and third, place winners could share the top job or be Pres. Vice president and Secretary of State.
JerryB
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 10:20 pm


Return to Systemic Change Working Group

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron