Leadership & Authority

[eskimo]

True leadership is about service ñ service to those you lead.

When you step forward to lead, you naturally open yourself up to criticism, dissent, doubts, and other concerns about your qualifications. Such actions are your followersí attempts to qualify your ability and earnestness to lead them. In fact, if youíre approaching your service with a healthy mindset, youíll know itís in your best interest to always address and attempt to satisfy the concerns of those you lead regardless of how well-founded or unfounded those concerns may be.

Authority is an entirely different concern. Those with authority are given charge to maintain a certain state of being within a group, organization, community, or society. Their responsibilities are not necessarily to lead but to maintain or preserve. Those in authoritative positions know that they need to detach from and not relate at the same level of the body of people over whom they possess the authority, lest they jeopardize losing their sanctioned power.

Can an authority figure and a leader be one and the same person? Sure, the example of a school principal immediately comes to mind. This combined role works in such an organization because of the relatively underdeveloped nature of the members. The principal has to not only lead and show how things are done to his or her students, but also to categorically express and enforce what will and will not be tolerated by them.

But as we move our focus to organizations with higher levels of individual development, the functions of leadership and authority must be separated. Take, for example, American society. The president is the leader but the power of authority is predominantly exercised by lower-level law enforcement officials, such as police officers. However, should the leader of a society also be the prime authority, then less a democracy weíd have but more a dictatorship or monarchy.

As the members of an organization continue to develop, the functions of leadership and authority should continue to separate as well and become more and more distinct. But if an authoritarian fails to gradually relinquish his or her authority, then the organization risks stifling its own progress and the development of some of its own members as the more developed members depart for freer pastures and the remaining members languish in the comfort of repressive authority.

[B the student]

those are some good thoughts on leadership and authority, eskimo. glad I read it. I'm a curious bastard so I am wondering how do you think the 44s are lead/run?

[vsoy]

Another facet of leadership that comes to my mind is the fostering of leadership qualities in the group. For a group to be effective, the leader can not do everything and it is best for the health of the group for the leader to delegate. With the responsibility of a small task, members learn leadership skills and eventually take on larger leadership roles. Eventually, members become leaders and the organization grows as a whole.

With authority figures, I think of control or enforcement of rules when I think of authority. It seems like a more static relationship and members have less say in who gets to be an authority figure whereas leaders in most groups are chosen by the group.

With 44s, we're all here because the message resonanted with us. We didn't choose the founders, we found them, joined and contributed. So I guess if you're still here, you're choosing the leadership. If you don't agree, you leave or get banned. Having some people moderate the threads is one way of developing 44s skills and so I'm inclined to think this forum is more leadership based with some authority from the founders to ban people.

[eskimo]

those are some good thoughts on leadership and authority, eskimo. glad I read it. I'm a curious bastard so I am wondering how do you think the 44s are lead/run?

First of all, I like the Fighting 44s and what it represents. I think it was founded on good ideas and principles. In addition, there are some very intelligent and insightful members who add a great deal to the discourse on the forums, which I often enjoy reading and/or participating in.

Now, I think there can be improvements in leadership among its founders. If development of its members are one of the key goals of the 44s, then they can definitely make some adjustments in their approach and handling of some of the members, especially with some of the ones who need it most.

But in addition to the founders, there are also members who provide ad hoc leadership from time to time by posting on various inspiring topics or sharing their inspiring personal stories or trying to influence positively in a supportive capacity -- and these things are all good for those who are receptive.

And depending on its organizational goals, the Core 44s may decide to adjust their approach with the development of its members or opt to preserve their current stance and maintain a forum that accommodates and graduates a constantly-revolving flow of members.

[B the student]

in an ideal situation i might agree with you eskimo, but we must not forget that the founders (or D more specifically, as ZG and GT are busy with life, and Lopan and Shibelsheki have their own deal on here) have other responsibilities besides maintaining this site. It's easy for us to criticize him as being too harsh with our more wayward members, but I don't recall D or any of the founders being that way with anyone who didn't deserve it. Sure, we all hate to see someone get banned, but it is a necessary function in order to maintain the integrity of the site. And it takes a good leader to make those kinds of decisions. We've really progressed well IMO, and I credit that in large part to better moderation, D's hardline stance against stupidity, and our abilitity to retain worthwhile members and attract more great members.

Also, I'm not so sure the 44s is in the business of "saving souls" nor do I think it is the sole responsibility of the leader to do the "saving". If anything, it should be the community's responsibility. I think that instead of "saving souls" the 44s provide the tools for someone to save himself/herself. Because ultimately it is up to the individual to decide whether he/she wants to change for the better. Of course, with new members there's a lot more leeway in how they conduct themselves, over an established member that has shown he/she has no desire to learn or to grow but rather wants to shit all over the place.

vsoy: good addition and response. For a group to be effective, the leader can not do everything and it is best for the health of the group for the leader to delegate
this quote in particular I found interesting and agree with.

[eskimo]

We've really progressed well IMO, and I credit that in large part to better moderation, D's hardline stance against stupidity, and our abilitity to retain worthwhile members and attract more great members.

I agree.

Even in the short time I've been a member of this site, the levels of consciousness and development individually and collectively have increased markedly. We should definitely be proud of that and keep it going in the same direction.

The fact that you passionately defended the founders in your reply indicates to me that you are vested in the 44s and see yourself an active part of the community that you espouse -- and that's great stuff for an organization.

But to specifically ask me what I thought about how the 44s are led/run and then to get upset (impassioned) when you read something you don't necessarily agree with...?

...We still have some ways to go. But we'll get there.

[B the student]

i apologize if my response seems hostile, eskimo. i guess my style of debating could use some tweaking. i am not upset with you or your belief at all. I simply wished to challenge your idealism by assessing the reality of the situation. sorry if it came off a lil harsh.

Even in the short time I've been a member of this site, the levels of consciousness and development individually and collectively have increased markedly. We should definitely be proud of that and keep it going in the same direction.

I feel ya on that. I think you've been nothing but a positive presence on this board and glad to have you on the team. :D

[eskimo]

Thanks very much, man.

And I feel you've set a very powerful example with your actions.

[Dialectic]

Terrific thread. I'll address as much as I can:

eskimo:
As the members of an organization continue to develop, the functions of leadership and authority should continue to separate as well and become more and more distinct. But if an authoritarian fails to gradually relinquish his or her authority, then the organization risks stifling its own progress and the development of some of its own members as the more developed members depart for freer pastures and the remaining members languish in the comfort of repressive authority.

Not sure if this is a reference to us, but trust me, I have no desire to be authoritarian or tyrannical or what have you. The situation is a little more complex: there are issues of ownership (the Founders, and really, Lopan and I), compensation (there is none, save emotional/ spiritual, so how much can we ask for from mods and reps?), cost (we're footing the bill in money and time), along with what's being discussed, namely, the development and maturity of a community and its members. There are also time constraints, and limitations to what can be accomplished in anonymous online interaction.

vsoy:
Another facet of leadership that comes to my mind is the fostering of leadership qualities in the group. For a group to be effective, the leader can not do everything and it is best for the health of the group for the leader to delegate. With the responsibility of a small task, members learn leadership skills and eventually take on larger leadership roles. Eventually, members become leaders and the organization grows as a whole.

I totally agree. I would ideally like to delegate general forum moderation and basic questions about the stance and vision to our Hydra. Can I really ask this of them? Is this even possible and effective, given the limitations of time and communication?

vsoy:
With 44s, we're all here because the message resonanted with us. We didn't choose the founders, we found them, joined and contributed. So I guess if you're still here, you're choosing the leadership. If you don't agree, you leave or get banned. Having some people moderate the threads is one way of developing 44s skills and so I'm inclined to think this forum is more leadership based with some authority from the founders to ban people.

I'm not sure if a lot of people have noticed, but we don't want you to blindly or even unblindly agree with us on anything. Hell I want the Founders and the Mods to argue. But I want it done along intelligent and insightful and witty lines. This means no meaningless garbage like 3k's, no vicious attacks or constant questioning of fundamental precepts like Xenzu's, and no bigotry like dragon2s or even seoulbrotherno1's intelligent form (and he left of his own accord, and I wanted him to stay).

A lot of people say I kick off anyone who doesn't agree with me, or I only allow certain types of discourse and I'm limiting discussion in a bad way. Without going into it too deeply, this is a pre-trans fallacy: what looks like regressive and authoritarian behavior is actually more open-minded and health-promoting. It is immoral to poison bodies: that's easy to see and judge. It is also immoral to poison minds: that's harder, and a lot of people get it wrong. Freedom of speech is limited: you can't shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre. The results are easy to see. But you also can't lead people into tunnels of pathology and narcissism, and that's a lot harder to recognize. We run this forum on the premise that I, Lopan, the Founders, and the Hydra recognize this better than your average bear.

eskimo:
Now, I think there can be improvements in leadership among its founders. If development of its members are one of the key goals of the 44s, then they can definitely make some adjustments in their approach and handling of some of the members, especially with some of the ones who need it most.

You have not been here very long, so I understand your criticism. You are, specifically, criticizing the hardline stance I take and the harshness with which I treat some members.

In the beginning, we were patient with everyone, we discoursed intelligently with everyone, we gave everyone second, third, fourth, fifth chances, banned them, invited them back, gave them sixth, seventh, eight, etc. chances.

This doesn't work. This drains the Founders and Mods, and the energy wasted on people/ personas who just don't give a fuck. They won't engage in discourse respectfully or intelligently, and they aren't here to grow, they're here to piss all over the damn carpet. Even ones who may not have that intention can still do it. You don't need to want to be pathological to be pathological.

So to save ourselves energy and time and to MAKE CERTAIN this board appeals on both intellectual, spiritual, and entertainment levels (no mean feat), we do what we do. Do I admit my mistakes and go over and over my responses and what I do? Hell yeah. Read my latest entries in the Founders. But I have never been mean or abusive or petty: there have been bullies and propagandists and fanatics in these rooms, and they have to be dealt with on their developmental level.

B, vsoy, eskimo, thank you for a great thread. I'll comment on the later posts when I have some more time.

[Dialectic]

Oh and for a semi-related discussion (I assume the Xenzu debated kicked this off in eskimo's mind), go here:

http://www.thefighting44s.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=3113

[Dialectic]

An example, eskimo, of the viciousness and hostility we have had to deal with here:

http://www.thefighting44s.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=2727

Integral Slanted, the most calm, intellectual, rational, and to some, boring and incomprehensible area of the forum. I'm addressing some concerns from evil_fux, discussing cognitive development, transrational awareness, and the pathological structures of religions, when out of NOWHERE Taliesin Stormheller busts in with a raving mad, viciously mean attack.

Out of respect for this section of the forum, ITP, and the efforts of all the smart and compassionate people out there working on behalf of ITP (consciously or not) I actually held the fuck back in my response, stayed civil, and stayed rational.

TS's post is just the tip of the iceberg. I let that one go because she's been here a while, she's young, and her heart's in kinda the right place. Perhaps you haven't seen a lot of the absolute hostile and petty and mean and irrelevant shit we've gotten here because we've deleted it all to make room for worthy posts. Am I to respond in a thorough and rational and civil way to every post of this manner in the hope of helping the member grow? What's the likely outcome of such an approach?

Exhaustion, rage, wasted time, and absolutely nothing to show for it in the general case. Are you willing to do this indefinitely? Can I ask this of mods or ad hoc leaders when I can't (and shouldn't) do it? I even asked Kwak and Seoulbrotherno1, two people I'd gotten into vicious arguments with, if they wanted to be leaders, if they wanted to lead the Kamikazes and help with their collective growth and development. They ignored me and mocked me.

Can you give me, concretely, a more effective approach than the one we're taking now?

[eskimo]

Dialectic, I appreciate reading your perspectives and experiences on this issue. No, I haven't been privy to all the incidents and altercations that have led to your decisions to ban the members you speak of, so perhaps it was a bit unfair that what started as a general post of my ideas on leadership evolved into more of a specific "criticism" of the leadership here.

My original post was inspired by the feud with Xenzu and meant to provide some general guidance on leadership to any who may be receptive to it, but truth be told it was based on some recent observations of the way you and Tojo handled a few of the recent incidents with members.

Generally, you seem to come across as very defensive -- more so than you should. Perhaps it's from continuously dealing with pissants after pissants on this board, but the more that manifests, the less effective will be your influence. The result -- those who are relatively more developed and seek more intelligent discourse will feel oppressed, especially if you are too quick with the ban finger.

Yeah, I understand and agree there are constraints to what you and the other founders can do on such an online forum, especially since you guys are the ones providing all the resources and time in maintaining it.

As for specific examples, I think you handled that incident with TS well. I don't know what prompted her to express herself that way, but you got her to recognize (at least express) the inappropriateness of her actions.

For a concrete approach on future matters, I would suggest ignoring those who make the vicious personal or unfounded attack and not reward that particular behavior with your time and energy. Or perhaps just simply state that you'll not justify their action by addressing their comment. Trust me, doing this consistently will get the message across to those who typically initiate such aggressive behavior much more so than if you were to engage them with fire. Just be sure to reach out to them and offer sound leadership during better times.

Lead, then support, while protecting (yourself and those in your charge).

That's how you develop the people who generally cause you the most ire on this forum.

And I don't know if anything I said alters your comment below about pre-trans fallacy (I don't know what that means), but I'd welcome learning more about what you mean by it.

A lot of people say I kick off anyone who doesn't agree with me, or I only allow certain types of discourse and I'm limiting discussion in a bad way. Without going into it too deeply, this is a pre-trans fallacy: what looks like regressive and authoritarian behavior is actually more open-minded and health-promoting

[Dialectic]

Eskimo, thank you for your considered response. I want you to know that I checked out your site the day you joined (as I check out everyone's), and I do appreciate the experience and outlook you bring to us here. You, in all likelihood, have contemplated and experienced much more concerning the principles of effective leadership than I, and I do appreciate this.

I'll write more on this later, so let me briefly address immediate issues:

1) The Xenzu, and other similar affairs, could have been addressed more sensitively and skilfully by Tojo and I. We recognize this. Our responses are most likely a result of sporadic and brief regression, though I emphasize it is never without cause. We are nothing but courteous and respectful to our more reasonable and compassionate members.

2) I will gladly go into my "pre-trans" reference in more detail. As an introduction, please read the posts under the Declarations dealing with Integral Theory and Practice. Considering your interest in integration and chi (or "subtle energies"), I think you'll find them interesting, if not enlightening.

[Dialectic]

(I just realized that eskimo and others can't respond to threads in the Rules, so this has been moved here for now.)

[eskimo]

Well, thank you, Dialectic, for your kindred words.

Just a little nugget of wisdom to share with you and your followers:

You need not waste your time and energy fighting with an aggressor, especially if you're already established in your arena. Merely defend yourself and move on. Do not get goaded into a fight, for you have much more to lose than they.

Typically, the ones who are often aggressors are usually insecure themselves and know their place relative to yours. If you're strong enough to ignore and not reward their action by engaging them, it'll wound them much worse than any counterattack. But when necessary, defend yourself and move on. Do not get embroiled in a spitting match with someone who's done nothing but practiced spitting all their lives.

Develop into a strong individual and pick and choose your battles. And then lead others to greatness.

And if you're doing things right, you're followers will naturally step up to defend you, as an arm rises up to defend one's head.

[Dialectic]

eskimo, I'll try to address your concerns as thoroughly as I can:

When you step forward to lead, you naturally open yourself up to criticism, dissent, doubts, and other concerns about your qualifications. Such actions are your followersí attempts to qualify your ability and earnestness to lead them. In fact, if youíre approaching your service with a healthy mindset, youíll know itís in your best interest to always address and attempt to satisfy the concerns of those you lead regardless of how well-founded or unfounded those concerns may be.

I agree with everything you say here; my one question, which I'll develop more later, is whether I (or Lopan and I, or the active Founders in general) am really a leader in any significant conventional sense.

Authority is an entirely different concern. Those with authority are given charge to maintain a certain state of being within a group, organization, community, or society. Their responsibilities are not necessarily to lead but to maintain or preserve. Those in authoritative positions know that they need to detach from and not relate at the same level of the body of people over whom they possess the authority, lest they jeopardize losing their sanctioned power.

I have objective power/ authority here, that is clear: Lopan and I have power and ownership over the structure and content of this entire site. Outside of this site, in the context of North American Asian influence, we have nothing. Fighting 44s has no sustained collective physical/ political manifestation.

But as we move our focus to organizations with higher levels of individual development, the functions of leadership and authority must be separated. Take, for example, American society. The president is the leader but the power of authority is predominantly exercised by lower-level law enforcement officials, such as police officers. However, should the leader of a society also be the prime authority, then less a democracy weíd have but more a dictatorship or monarchy.

I'm not certain I entirely agree with this distinction, as the president has a great deal of direct high-level authority: the ability to veto things, grant pardons, approve nuclear strikes, etc. I think I may see what you're getting at, though.

As the members of an organization continue to develop, the functions of leadership and authority should continue to separate as well and become more and more distinct. But if an authoritarian fails to gradually relinquish his or her authority, then the organization risks stifling its own progress and the development of some of its own members as the more developed members depart for freer pastures and the remaining members languish in the comfort of repressive authority.

Sure, I do agree with this. Now that you've been given a sort of backstage pass and have seen the new mod structure and ideas that go behind this structure, what do you think?

Incidentally, what held me back from from "assigning duties" before was not an unwillingness to "share power," but rather, to ask for formal obligation from people who don't really know us personally and have no personal stake in the success or failure of the site. I thought it was unfair.

Also, I'm not certain a government analogy entirely applies, as we don't govern anything. We are simply a platform for self-expression and community networking. As such, a "democratic structure" doesn't really apply here: we're more a company than we are a governing body. But I get your point.

(I'll answer each of your posts in separate posts.)

[eskimo]

I think the recent developments in the structure of this site are absolutely wonderful and inspiring. You can sense the excitement as the mods take ownership of their respective forums -- if they didn't believe in this site and its potential (and ultimately you and the other Vanguards), they wouldn't respond in such a way.

Now, since you have the infrastructure in place you can focus more on leadership and less on management. I'm confident you've got trustworthy and more than capable people handling the day-to-day moderation functions of this site, so now your challenge is to provide them and others with strong, effective leadership.

Be responsive to your mods and take care of their needs and they'll turn around and do the same to those under their watch. Provide positive energy and inspiration and these things will be passed on as well. Remember, your actions (leadership) set the tone for all others to follow. But if you're currently indebted to anyone, you'll have to repay them in kind before your influence will be received by them.

I don't know of the Core's future plans with the Fighting 44s but as long as positive energy fuels this site, people will naturally be attracted to it. And if the 44s evolve and adjust to accommodate the growth and development of incumbent members, then the organization will grow as well, perhaps even to include a physical presence.

Some ideas to chew on for now...

[Tyger Durden]

This is a really good thread.

I think it should be moved to OMEGA ATTRACTORS.

It is getting buried here in WETWORK and the concept of Leadership is a very important issue and/or goal to strive for.

[B the student]

not a bad suggestion. done.

[Tyger Durden]

not a bad suggestion. done.

^ thanks!

does any one have suggestions on "leadership" reading material?

I've read books such as the HAGAKURE, THE ART OF WAR, THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF MALCOLM X and have garnered some informal leadership by the "learn-by-example" method, but I'm sure there are other books out there.

I think autobiogaphies are very good examples.

Is there such a thing as "leadership" VISUAL material, i.e. movies of great examples and techniques?

[vsoy]

I can't think of any good movies illustrating how great leaders handle difficult situations at the moment (I guess historical or classical movies), but another way to explore concepts in leadership is to get involved in leadership positions in groups you are interested in. If you are in college, there are a plethora of opportunities.

One particular college organization that has a strong leadership component is the national service co-ed fraternity, Alpha Phi Omega. If you like to get involved in volunteer work, then this organization can help you develop leadership skills (by organizing service projects and holding leadership positions. It's not part of the greek system so no $500+ social fees or hazing, but lots of opportunities for fun.