Home > management > Two Paths

Two Paths

As a small group of people assembled for a purpose greater than each individual grows, some form of structure is required to prevent chaos from reigning. The top path shows the emergence of  a group of integral coordinators while the bottom path shows a traditional, stratified CCH being born.

Which group would you rather be a part of? If you say you’d rather be a part of the “circular” group and you’re lucky enough to be a part of one, you’re still likely to get hosed down the road. You see, if your group continues to grow, it will naturally gravitate toward the pyramidal CCH caste system. That is, unless your natural or democratically chosen group leaders don’t morph into CGHs or BOOGLs and they actively prevent the subtle transformation from taking place.

If you’re currently embedded in a CCH and one of its leaders bravely attempts to change the structure to a circular, participative meritocracy, fugg-ed-aboud-it. The change agent will get crushed by his/her clanthinking BOOGL and SCOL peers, who ironically espouse that they want circular behavior while still preserving the stratified CCH.

  1. PhilN
    September 9, 2010 at 8:43 am

    So you are saying there should be no vertical mobility in any organization? And, all people have the same ability to perform at the same level and must be treated exactly the same? Hmm, I think all people are different and that people should be rewarded for their work and allowed to keep the fruits of their labor. Call me a capitalist pig but some people are much better at certain things than others and that includes leadership!

    • September 9, 2010 at 12:15 pm

      Does the word meritocracy mean the same to you as communism? Doesn’t meritocracy imply that people are different? I’m all for democracy and meritocracy – not patriarchy, entitlement, and “appointment”. In the circular or spherical org, natural leaders emerge based on merit and accomplishment; they’re not “appointed” by some entitled bozeltine or set of clanthinking, in-bred bozeltines. The group democratically decides who leads at any moment and when to replace underperforming leaders. Leaders don’t disconnect and distance themselves from their colleagues, so they retain some understanding of what everybody is doing, coordinate the effort, and pitch in if need be. Leaders are in place to serve, not be served.

      Everyone is treated the same (fairly) but not paid the same. Salaries are public for all to see and the group decides who makes more than others based on merit. People are allowed to keep the fruits of their labor and not have the lion’s share of them siphoned off by do nothing patriarchs who did something once a long time ago to ascend to the throne but haven’t done nothing since – since they can’t be dethroned.

  2. muckfish
    September 9, 2010 at 8:55 am

    I’d rather belong to an autonomous collective anarcho-syndicalist commune

    • September 9, 2010 at 12:25 pm

      Awesome video – LOL! Hey Phil, if you come back to get “the last word in”, you gotta watch the video.

  3. PhilN
    September 10, 2010 at 9:39 am

    OK, I’ll bite, and BTW, I love MP, and this clip is often played on Mike Church’s (right winger) Satellite talk show…

    BD: Does the word meritocracy mean the same to you as communism?
    PN: Ah, no… How could it?

    BD: Doesn’t meritocracy imply that people are different?
    PN: Yes

    BD: I’m all for democracy and meritocracy – not patriarchy, entitlement, and “appointment”.
    PN: How have you come to the sure conclusion that these pejorative adjectives about corporations are running amok in America’s business community. That conclusion certainly fits the leftists media spin — but its just spin. Especially, since you have been employed at the same company over the last 20 years?

    BD: In the circular or spherical org, natural leaders emerge based on merit and accomplishment; they’re not “appointed” by some entitled bozeltine or set of clanthinking, in-bred bozeltines.
    PN: How do you know this *didn’t happen* at most of the companies you “like”?

    BD: The group democratically decides who leads at any moment and when to replace underperforming leaders. Leaders don’t disconnect and distance themselves from their colleagues, so they retain some understanding of what everybody is doing, coordinate the effort, and pitch in if need be. Leaders are in place to serve, not be served.
    PN: I’ve tried (several times) to explain the “tyranny of the majority” to you in the past. Minority groups get no respect and are ill treated in a pure democracy. Would you like your life ruled by “fleeting memes” that are the fad of the day and topple the last majority with the new one?

    BD: Everyone is treated the same (fairly) but not paid the same. Salaries are public for all to see and the group decides who makes more than others based on merit. People are allowed to keep the fruits of their labor and not have the lion’s share of them siphoned off by do nothing patriarchs who did something once a long time ago to ascend to the throne but haven’t done nothing since – since they can’t be dethroned.
    PN: The do nothing patriarchs that are siphoning our wealth are not in the corner offices, they’re in DC! We need to dethrone a few of them in November! Term limits for the Senate now! You have your sword at the throat of the wrong den of thieves BD!

    • September 10, 2010 at 11:24 am

      Wow, a point by point “logical” and un-predjudiced analysis and refutation – I’m honored. Damn, arsed on my own blog. I hate when that happens.

      Of course, I don’t know squat (cuz I’m a L’artiste as I openly and transparently communicate on my “About Me” page), but you have all your “culled” facts, right? Next time, I’ll try to provide “irrefutable references” for the self-anointed scholars who read this blasphemous blog. But wait, I think you may be the first one since I was dissed by an esteemed professor a few weeks ago.

  4. PhilN
    September 10, 2010 at 2:56 pm

    To certify my pedantry…

    References
    ———-
    [1]. Alexis-Charles-Henri Clérel de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
    [2]. Plato, The Republic
    [3]. John Stuart Mill’s, Essay on Liberty
    [4]. James Madison letter to Thomas Jefferson -> “a majority… united by a common interest or a passion cannot be constrained from oppressing the minority, what remedy can be found…?”
    [5]. Aristotle believed “LIBERTY” was at the core of a Democracy, not a simple majority -> The “majority rule” is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without governmental or constitutional protections of individual liberties, it is possible for a minority of individuals to be oppressed by the “tyranny of the majority”.

    • September 10, 2010 at 5:19 pm

      Impressive, professor Phil. So, if you’re against “democratically chosen leaders”, which is different than “majority rule” (no?) what process do you recommend for installing and removing leaders? Privileged bloodline like the MP King of Britain? Forceful take over by those select few “who know better”?

      I think I asked you this several times before, but I don’t remember getting a direct answer.

  5. PhilN
    September 11, 2010 at 12:43 pm

    I did answer this. The U.S. constitution was the first and best of its kind in organizing a “republic” not a “democracy”. The founders new that throughout history Democracies had all failed. The “republic” nature of our constitution has been getting chipped away at for years by the left. Now we are becoming a Marxist / Socialist / Progressive democractic country (much akin to the EU countries) with seperate tax payer sows suckling all the piglets of each multi-cultural identity group.

    • September 11, 2010 at 4:23 pm

      Let’s try again. If you don’t think leaders should be democratically elected, how should leaders be installed and removed from power over my and your lives? Let me try to make it easier: “I, PhilN, think leaders should be installed by ——— and removed by ———-.” Please fill in the blanks for me cuz I couldn’t understand your answer. But I’m sure it’s just dumb ole me.

  6. PhilN
    September 11, 2010 at 5:23 pm

    OK, this is just one example, of how our republic has been trashed by progressives. Before the 17th ammendment (oh yes, 1913 a very “progressive” year), U.S. Senators were elected by State Legislatures NOT directly elected by popular vote. The original intent of our founders was to balance power across all branches of government, and across the people, the states, and the Federal government. This progressive ammendment gutted states rights, and now we have Senators that cater to lobbyists and special interests rather than serving their respective states. Read more History BD, and we can talk…

    • September 11, 2010 at 8:17 pm

      Yet another try: “I, PhilN, think leaders of organizations of people (for-profit, non-profit, public) should be installed by ——— and removed by ———-.” Please fill in the blanks for me.

  7. PhilN
    September 12, 2010 at 7:05 pm

    OK, now you are being flippent.

  8. September 13, 2010 at 3:52 am

    Sorry, but I still don’t know where you personally stand on the installation/removal of leaders. Are your preferences different depending on the type of org involved? I don’t want to judge, I just want to understand. If you reread the post, it doesn’t mention or imply anything about federal/state/local governments – I wasn’t trying to comment on any of the stuff you’ve veered off into.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: