my thoughts

+some will try to become group leaders because they are the ones who own the land where the group is now cantered.
+some will try to run as a council, (personally I think this is the most viable option) This system would only work if you had job centric titles as well, such as War Leader, Food Leader ...(the gardener) Building leader - ex builders, carpenters, ex-Pioneers-or-Combat Engineers such as that.

+some will go with the totalitarian regime route, the loudest most aggressive personality or the most ruthless one

+some might go with the Mother figure or the Father Figure
+some might go with the BergerMeister style (BergerMeister is like a Mayor with more powers, sort of what Rob Ford wants to be)
+some will be a military setup
+some will just try to wing it
+some will try the family setup, as in the Oldest rules (not bad so long as the oldest does not rule to death and is qualified as well)

Do you remember the movie The Postman with Kevin Costner?
yes it is Hollywood, but the social structures were all based on models of behaviour and situations found in history as well as current situations around the world.

Eastern Europe, Africa, Pre Consolidation of the USA, all showed similar models, similar behaviours and group dynamics. (except for the fellow that called himself Ford Lincoln Chrisler.. LOL just pick one dude..)

Love that move, The Postman with Kevin Costner. Didn't you totally want to live in the town with all the music and dancing. My problem is I dance to a different drummer, for me to follow would be a hard thing to do, unless the leader had a head on there shoulders, like wildernessreturn. I would consider a tribe type village, were each person had a say, talking stick for grope meetings.

Differently I would not just be working one group aka gardening, hunting, Jack of trades is what I like. There is natural leaders and there are natural dictators, the women will soon sort them out, lol

Hey, I have The Postman too, and Waterworld, they are among my favourites.

I was thinking that knowing Robert's Rules of Order by heart would be handy. At our condo we have one fellow that when the meetings start to degrade he is the one who, by quoting Robert's Rules of Order, helps keep the meeting from collapsing into a shouting match. I suspect there could be many types of ways of maintaining order as there are types of groups. I guess the key is that the members agree to tolerate the rules for the sake of the group

its pretty easy to hypothesize what is the best form of Leadership, but the truth is that circumstances will most likely dictate who and how things happen. The weak shall follow, its as simple as that. The people with the strongest skills need to be in front, especially when it comes to the safety and security of your group.
The best thing, as previously suggested, the most experienced hunter leads hunting, the most military leads security, the best gardener leads gardening, ect, ect. That said, leading is a full time job. If you are the fiber of the group and its leader, you are no longer hunting, gathering, or protecting your clan. Perhaps the older and wiser one is best suited as leader? Then again, who says there will be any choice? If you have a small group of 5 or 6, sleep will become a luxury.

Unfortunately it may not be a democracy and if you are not strong in vital skills, you can either follow or leave the group. Even in a well pre-planned group, it is possible that others may show up with unknown skills or lack thereof.

Living in Alberta and having visited many Hutterite Colonies, their leadership structure is set up a little different then you may expect....The phone guy has it bang on,a hutterite colony is not democracy...at all....you have your supreme boss, and then all the section bosses...[ I use boss because that's what they call them..] for example....Colony leader #1..farm boss usually #2,[ dairy boss, hog boss,cow boss,] these guys are pretty much equal # 3....then, the middle management...gardening boss, chicken boss,and every body else are the workers....and they work to better and support the colony. It is a system that would work well with a good group of post S.H.T.F.. people, but you need a good group and regardless of position [ even on a colony] they all help in the garden, all of them do regardless of age or statues....You see, you work for the state, the state being the colony, in return the state feeds and clothes you..the individual owns nothing....Now , I am definitely not advocating communism by any means.....but that's how it works....It works well for survivability and as I said for a post S.H.T.F. WORLD.....I am one generation away from living off the land. My folks did it and I have done it..it takes a lot of work to survive when you are growing and farming your own food and income. You can't run down to the co-op for groceries, so the colony style is a good idea..I know i am rambling but I am just trying to get you to rap your heads around the colony living...

Evenin'

Another good topic. One that best be decided before you need to use it - Leadership.

I am no expert, but I will input my two cents, just in case it is helpful.

People and leaders. I was taught that any group of 12 people contains at least one natural leader. You throw any 12 people on an island, in a room or on a life raft, and in short order the leader will emerge. For this reason, Canadian prison try very hard never to exceed 20 prisoners per unit. Why?? Once you have 24 in a unit, you will have two natural leaders. Two leaders = conflict. If you want harmony, you only want to deal with one leader. That leader will keep the rest in line. Now, you are asking how does that transfer to a survival group.....

Easy, if you want to work toward your group survival you need to have leaders and these leaders need to be working toward the same goal. So, to prevent in-fighting you will benefit from a chain of command or a heirarchy of leaders. In warrior societies the strongest most combat proven warrior is the chief of their clan. He is the top dog. Anyone wanting to challenge the top dog, it was usually a fight to the death. Winner takes all. Oops, I digressed. Use the unit/sub-unit method of dividing and employing your leaders. The best leaders control the larger units of your group and directly under these leaders are the leaders of the smaller units. So, a strong leader should be able to have effective control over at least 100 persons. By employing 10 junior leaders who have 10 followers each. You have 111 working together.

A good leader needs to be able to make decisions, has to communicate effectively with the group, has to be able to plan, has to be able to think - especially for the best benefit of the group, be honest, honourable, trustworthy and being charismatic, likeable does not hurt. But charm alone is not enough in a survival scenario. Politicians DO NOT make good leaders in time of crisis. Their nature of back room, underhanded, backstabbing deals that benefit them first and the group second will not work in the new world order.

I guess that is it for now. Just some food for thought. Who would you prefer to share your foxhole with??

Mountainman.

This is a timely topic as it appears by the various Canadian threads that I read; many individuals are trying to create local networks. They may or may not consciously be aware that these networks would be the precursors to any post-teotwawki communities.

First off, it appears that the first post referring to the Dunbar number is in line with what gc_ was also referencing... it would be very coincidental since 12 units of 12 = 144 and this Dunbar and the Hutterites are aiming for 150. So I'm going to assume that this is an effective maximum cap to work with and keep it in mind if the shtf.

I think it was Traveller who also mentioned 'I'm not endorsing communism' ... If you're afraid to be labelled a pinko-commie; call it social libertarianism instead 😀 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

The Americans go on about Libertarianism and reducing government etc. but classically, it is also concept where the individual OR the group, work together to benefit themselves as independently as reasonably possibly... in NA we have corrupted the concept to mean no government and everyone 'strong, independent, god-fearing' man for themselves. I'm pretty sure that the concept of ownership will go out the window when 150 people have to fight the hungry hordes and the survival-guilt to ensure their next generation makes it.

This concept is a topic close to my heart as I don't fit perfectly with any of the playbooks of the current political parties we have 🙁 I'm a little country and a little rock and roll as they say; so no one is offering what I'm looking for. I just vote for the closest at the time.

Almost sounds like the military. 8 person to a section, (M/Cpl), 3-4 sections to a platoon,(Sgt./WO & Lt) 3-5 platoons to a company, (Capt-Maj.). (Leaders)
Honey, Companies coming! 😯

In most of this discussion it seems that the assumption is that you have a group of people who are established and already familiar with some sort of "system" IN THAT GROUP. The challenge would be to take a diverse group of individuals who for all intents and purposes are unknown to one another and who have no basis in working together in any situation and also minimal basis of trust. Everything has to begin somewhere of course but with this group initially there would be no real "history". There may be a number of smaller groups who come together into one larger. The only real common ground would be that a) they had survived whatever event transpired and b) they wished to continue to survive. The individual small group dynamics would require a real leap of faith and time to grow together and homogenize into one group. Each would bring their own experiences, fears, strengths and weaknesses.. and also their own hierarchy. Each time a new small group presented itself the larger group dynamics would be altered and established bonds and pecking order would be shaken until it was absorbed. At what point would it evolve from acceptance and adaptability to some form of enforcement of what could be deemed the new societal norms for THAT GROUP. The difference would be that of a loose tribe or extended family to actual (cringing to say it) government on even a tiny basis.

JustaBear,

Excellent timing. Very valid observation, too.

In the orderly formation, alignment or assembly of groups or just having a large group to start with; the dynamics would seem to be different. However, any group that forms or changes will go throught the following 4 stages of group development: Forming, Storming, Norming and Performing. You are correct every change, whether it is the addition of a new member or an entire group, the change of leader, or equally important the loss of a member or leader or group - the surviving group dynamic will once again go through the four stages. High performing groups - think special forces commandos, can progress through these four stages in hours or days, and carry-on. Us mere mortals, may never attain the vaulted "Perfoming" level, but we can strive to attain it.

To clarify each level a little more.

Forming: This is the stage all groups start at. This is the when a bunch of people are put together and called a team. Everyone has to learn who each other is, what they are good at and what the team's mission or purpose is. One word to describe this stage: Confusion.

Storming: This stage is when the natural leaders begin to emerge. Members of the group begin to form opinions and alliances with or about each other. In-fighting, challenges and power-plays help sort out the heirarchy of the group. The pecking order. Who is the leader, who are the supporters and who are the followers. This is the most turbulent stage. Some groups never grow pass this stage, as some ego's cannot work with others. One word: Turbulence.

Norming: The third stage is when the group starts to work together to acheive goals greater than personal ones. In groups trying to survive the end of the world, this is the stage when S.O.P.'s - Standard Operating Procedures, are hammered out. Outsiders envy groups that reach this stage, the team work is really starting to shine. Everyone is seeking to be group normal. One phrase: Team Work.

Performing: The final stage is only achieved by the very few. This is the level the special forces and commando units the world over try to achieve. Not all units or teams ever make it. The personal commitment and chemistry required for this level is hard to create, when and where it exists it is usually unstoppable. This is how the few can fight and win against the many. Every member of the team knows the thoughts of every other member. Verbal communication on the field of battle is not necessary. This team works so well together it is as if the whole team works as one animal or machine. It is always best to be a part of such teams than to have to face such a team. One word: Oneness.

Unfortunately, there is no magic formula to make the perfect team. Ego, chemistry, skills, knowledge, experience, age, personal agendas, morals, ethics and opinions all come into play. You spoke of the fact most groups will be formed by stangers under times of stress, how will they be able to trust and bond into a group? Well, under such conditions it is like forging a sword blade. With heat, stress, the hammer and the anvil - the steel (group) will be formed and shaped by the collective experiences and those that survive will forget the crap learned in today's society, distrust, and other emotional thought processes. The heat of battle, the struggle for survival will create the environment for followers to cling to natural leaders. The look in the eyes of the survivors who have no clue what is going on or what will happen next will draw every natural leader to the forefront, even if they have never lead anyone before. These forces will be so strong it will over come the artificial barriers taught in today's society. Good leaders will become great leaders with the more successful outcomes they bring to their group. Also, how a leader resolves failures will influence the greatest skeptic. Groups are not made of stone, thus - group dynamics - always changing. Groups change. Strong groups become stronger. Weak groups get absorbed by good groups or enslaved by evil groups.

Well just some more thoughts on group dynamics.

Mounutainman.

Evenin',

I think this topic and the Sense of Community topic share a similar audience. They go hand-in-hand, for once you establish the community, the next task will be leadership.

Any thoughts??

Mountainman.

Evenin',

I think this topic and the Sense of Community topic share a similar audience. They go hand-in-hand, for once you establish the community, the next task will be leadership.

Any thoughts??

Mountainman.

Good points all. I have never given leadership much thought after SHTF. I figure the boys with the most toys would fight it out while I quietly sit on the side lines and watch.

Leadership Principle #1 - Become competent.