Wish I'd found this topic sooner. A lot of good points here, and this is a topic that not enough people put thought into- not just the leadership aspect either, but group dynamics as a whole. Social structures are likely to also be modified to various degrees depending on the group's demographics. Familial relationships and interpersonal relationships come to mind, because at some point people will do what people do often but polite people don't discuss- and I'll leave that for you all to ponder.
One thing that distresses me personally is the talk of councils, etc. That's fine for day-to-day operations when time permits. Someone mentioned they'd be able to follow someone, but wanted veto power. Hogwash. You want to lead without responsibility. When unfriendly strangers are coming for your stuff or your loved ones, you do not have the luxury of decision by committee! There has to be one person, and one alone, that will make that split-second decision, right or wrong, but they need to count on their group following that decision until the crisis is past.
I, too am a Federal Corrections officer. I deal with group dynamics every day, with inmates, with staff, with management. It's an eye-opener. A good middle manager (A CM, as we call them) can make or break any group. The keys to good leadership that I've seen are simple- volumes have been written on the subject, but it can be boiled down to this:
A good manager (leader) knows what capabilities his/her people have, and their skills. Those people are given tasks that suit them best while providing what the group as a whole needs. A good leader can give praise and criticism without prejudice and at appropriate times. They will organize efficiently, but not be afraid to get their hands dirty with the rest of the group. They will make a decision quickly based on the information they have, but be able to adapt as conditions or information change. They will take responsibility for their failures, but attribute success to the group. They put their group's own welfare and well-being ahead of their own advancement. Unfortunately, as JimyB I'm sure knows, good leaders - truly GOOD leaders - are few and far between, and you won't know until they are put to the test. Don't expect any group to keep it's original leader for long unless you luck out from the start.
Just like a few of us from the military have seen. In my step fathers time in WWII, He said thee were two types of officers, the good ones, and the ones that turned they're back to the enemy....Dead.
"We 'Prep.' to live after a downfall, Not just to survive."
In a worst case scenario a good leader will die with you... if death is to be the outcome. With a bad leader YOU will be the one to die and the "leader" will be the one to run and run another day.
JAB
I couldn't agree more with NorthernCX.
Those who believe that in a life-and-death (or similar) social reality, a group would be able to survive long term with a council model is in for a rude surprise when the SHTF. A council-style ruling environment exists when a number of primary objectives are comfortably taken care of already (shelter, security, food, etc.), and are foreseen to remain that way.
I would suspect following any kind of long-term societal collapse, or major infrastructure destabilization, this comfortable type of living would not exist. Full-on democracy exists when people aren't worrying day to day whether they'll eat, or be eaten.
As much as someone would love to believe that a utopia of equal decision making can exist if the old world falls away, this is highly unrealistic. Humans' natural tendency to dominate and, for some, to be dominated, will always surface. Better to understand how people think than believe it's possible to undo thousands of generations of genetic programming.
From first-hand experience, I can say that being the leader isn't all it's cracked up to be. However, I've always believed that if I felt I could do a better job, I would voice my opinion step up. And I regularly have. But if the person leading the team is credible, reasonable, and makes sound decisions based on logic and with thought of the welfare of the entire group, I have little problem supporting that individual.
We could sit around for another 500 years to discuss how and what would work, but once the lights go out, people will just be people. 🙂
Howdy Everyone,
Here is NorthernCX's post on another thread that I believe has as much value on this thread as the other. NorthernCX, I hope you do not mind too much. But your words will find an audience here as well. Good observations and points about groups, plans, structure and leadership.
Mountainman.
central Alberta bug out location
by NorthernCX » 23 Dec 2012 22:55
Just a couple thoughts here (and I don't claim to be an expert, but I deal daily with large numbers of people of differing backgrounds, social levels, moral levels, etc,):
Buster, good on you for trying to put forward this idea. It has its merits, but as I'm sure you've seen here, preppers are naturally suspicious of other people's motives- and rightly enough so. I've often thought that not enough people have the foresight to have any kind of plan/gear in the event of SHTF or large natural disaster/war/what-have-you, and of those, many only think of themselves as an isolated island. Others want to be part of a community, a collective. Most recognize that in a worst-case scenario, prepping is not just about survival of the family group or individual- it could very well mean survival of the race/culture.
Any group of people, especially a group of individuals, needs to take into consideration compatibility. In every aspect. For a group to function, there has to be; a) a purpose to banding together; b) some kind of understanding of 'general rules' for the group as a whole- the Golden Rule? The Ten Commandments? It doesn't have to be organized, but there has to be something; c) SOMEONE has to swing the gavel and be able to make decisions for the group. I am not speaking of governance, but of survival. Someone must, in some fashion, be the de facto 'leader' or spokesperson for the group. In a survival scenario, there will be times when decisions, IMPORTANT decisions, LIFE AND DEATH decisions, will need to be made, and followed WITHOUT HESITATION. There is no time for a democracy when the wolves are at the gate, and chewing on the walls. Discussion can occur only when the crisis is past.
This is one thing that I see spoken of very little, and discussed even less. For a group to function, there has to be some kind of structure, like it or not. If it's a pack of outlaws you want, ruled by whomever is fastest with their weapon of choice, or a commune of vegans, many of the societal norms we take for granted will be null and void. You may find yourself judge, jury and executioner, final arbiter of all matters. What kind of behaviour will the group tolerate? Encourage? Shun? Marital groups - monogamy, polygamy, polyamory? The devil is in the details, as they say, and without sounding smug and tramping on other people's beliefs, my personal opinion is that if SHTF in the worst-case scenarios, God (whatever God you prescribe to) is likely sitting this one out and probably doesn't get to have an opinion.
Might be more than 2 cents there, but there you have it. Best of wishes in your endeavours.
There is a lot of good, thoughtful discussion taking place in this thread. My take so far, for a group to be successful:
There has to be an organizational structure; Members must conform to that structure.
There has to be one leader; The leader may change as conditions and times slowly evolve.
There needs to be "lieutenants" of specific elements such as security, food production, medical etc.; Each lieutenant should be responsible for probably no more than 5 individuals.
For existing groups and newly formed groups the leader should be selected now. Once the SHTF there will not be time to allow a leader to emerge to lead the group or to sit down and elect one democratically. In times of extreme conditions, after the SHTF, micro-democracies, councils or consensus won't offer the time critical decision structure to allow for the groups survival.
Some things to consider are that most people are followers not leaders and that the size of your group may be defined by its organizational structure.
I don't mind at all gc_mountainman; I'm glad to contribute.
I live in a small town that does have a mayor and town council. I really have no idea of the number of preppers in this town is but I doubt it is more than 3 dozen. That said, the political dynamics of this town swings like a pendulum and crosses a few social barriers in every swing.
Let's face it, in a democracy elections are little more than a popularity contest similar to the crowning of a prom King and Queen. In reality elected official are seldom more than those who can verbally paint the prettiest picture for the future most convincingly. The politician that gets the most people to believe (is most convincing, regardless of the lies they tell) their vision of the future is the rosiest even remotely possible, they get the most followers/votes.
When the SHTF those community leaders who do not have a realistic plan will fall by the wayside. Until the SHTF lots of people will be leaders for the glory and prestige. When the SHTF our society and values as a whole will reset (and I doubt for the better). Right about the time a 'leaders' belly is hitting their backbone or they are looking at the wrong end of a 'bang stick' (as Larson of 'The Far Side' liked to call guns) they will faint and it will be troubled times until a new leader is established.
I would dare say that the same will hold true for some of the 'leaders' of prep groups. I don't mean to be negative about the whole scenario but reality can be ugly, especially when the world is at it's ugliest. When the chips are down and everyone is in a panic the true leaders will come forth and be recognized. Until such a time I doubt that most true leaders will surface.
For those Federal Corrections Officers, (I hope I got that right???) in the event of a prison riot did you see power struggles and/or leadership among prisoners change hands? I believe that a prison is a micro collection of society but will display dynamics of society at it's worst. I don't expect SHTF to sprout another generation of peace and love hippies in a commune.
I don't wish for this to happen but will be pleasantly surprised if it doesn't.
BTR
Than= I’d rather be rich than poor.
Then= I first became hungry then I ate.
There = She is there now.
Their = They have their things.
They're = They're going to the mall.
To = They came to the house.
Too = That's too bad.
The person that want to be a leader usually turns out to be a tyrant. The person that would rather not be a leader but is voted into it, is usually the best intern leader. Some leaders will put themselves in the GOD mode, where they think every thing that they do is thru divine intervention. Be sure of who you follow for the right reason.
"We 'Prep.' to live after a downfall, Not just to survive."
There are too many scenarios where we will try to survive for many years before worring aboat " leaders".I prefer spent my time to figure out what kind of difficulties will arise with different dissaster and how to prepper for it.This talk aboat laeders reminds me too much of communist system where ewerybody was chif and no indians.
JUST MY OPINION. DO NOT GET UPSET.
Henry
Leadership is a major concern for me. I struggle with reconciling the knowledge that a group can be much stronger than the individual with my experience with groups and, in particular, leaders. I've taken leadership roles in the past, most often because nobody else wanted the role, but also as a defensive play to stop the wrong person from getting the job. I don't really want to lead and would prefer to focus on my areas of expertise, but I'm usually disappointed by the quality of leaders I end up with. I have very little patience for the self-important types who seem to end up in leadership roles more often than not.
That leaves me thinking I'd be happiest going it alone, or with a very small group. The problem is that there is a lot of work to go around and there certainly can be strength in numbers. I prefer to avoid confrontation, though I won't hesitate to voice a dissenting opinion if I feel I have to. That said, if it's an option, I'd probably prefer to walk away from a disfunctional group instead of trying to change the leadership.
I have been very impressed with a lot of the people who post here. There seems to be a lot of people who are very open to ideas and differing points of view, which bodes well in terms of group dynamics. I'm just not certain how to find a group that would be a good fit or how to ensure that a poor leader isn't chosen.
I echo your concerns. Have you met any members face to face? There are usually meetings planned and if you attend you will get a better feel for who is who and what is what with different individuals. A few of us from the Hamilton Area are meeting this Sunday if you are interested in joining us. PM me for more info.
Jab
Howdy All,
With more and more new members joining us, it seems like the right time to bump this topic back to the top. Those new to the Forum when you have time, this is a good topic thread to read from the beginning. Many great points are brought up. If you do not belong to a group or some network of like-minded folks, it is good to know some of the dynamics that can make one group flourish and another flounder.
In the time of need, may the best leaders step forward and take charge..........
Cheers,
Mountainman.