When forming a survival group, what structure of organization is best? Having one leader with people under that person at various levels of having the entire group share leadership and responsibilities? Why?
I'd like to say no leaders and have an entire group share, but leaders tend to naturally do what they do and likewise with followers.
I go for simple majority rule. I aint a blind follower. I think discussion, debate and then vote. If its something I just cant give in to then ill sit out, we all share that right. I do value some opinions more than others but I try to give equal weight to differing opinions.
I expect every member to bring a skill or expertise to every decision and I expect them to always advise the group with the best of intentions.
As for having one leader, eh I dunno. Seems like a dictator would get his self dead pretty quick in my world.
Maybe if your skill is gardening, then your kinda the garden leader. Or if you are in charge of security then your the security leader. But you both will have equal weight on any decision that affects the group.
I expect every member to bring a skill or expertise to every decision and I expect them to always advise the group with the best of intentions.
As for having one leader, eh I dunno. Seems like a dictator would get his self dead pretty quick in my world.
Maybe if your skill is gardening, then your kinda the garden leader. Or if you are in charge of security then your the security leader. But you both will have equal weight on any decision that affects the group.
Well said. Ditto
I think a small council of elected representatives.
If the group is less than 20, then 3 on the council.
Group 20-40, 5 on the council.
Group up to 100, 7-9 on the council.
Council members share responsibilities of chairing the weekly meetings in a rotating fashion, though the leader has no extra "power", only keeps order in meetings. Obviously, a number of issues would be required to be put before the entire adult/voting body of the group. Other issues could be decided by the council themselves with a simple report to the main assembly.
I just don't see a group of survival-minded individuals over 6-8 people staying cohesive for very long without some kind of structured and representative government. There are just too damn many opinions on how things ought to be done, and a lot of people who think their way is the best. How are you going to organize watches, sweeps, security, provisioning, care of the young/old/weak/sick, cooking, cleaning, etc., without having some kind of sectioning, some kind of council or government to answer to? Someone steals my bedroll or rucksack, or someone refuses to take their turn on latrine duty, or to contribute to the welfare of the community, how you gonna deal with them?
The danger is in longevity sitting on the council, I think, as well as too much power given to one or a few individuals. Maybe serving 3-month to 1-year terms with no consecutive service allowed? I dunno... it's a tough choice.
If the group is less than 20, then 3 on the council.
Group 20-40, 5 on the council.
Group up to 100, 7-9 on the council.
Council members share responsibilities of chairing the weekly meetings in a rotating fashion, though the leader has no extra "power", only keeps order in meetings. Obviously, a number of issues would be required to be put before the entire adult/voting body of the group. Other issues could be decided by the council themselves with a simple report to the main assembly.
I just don't see a group of survival-minded individuals over 6-8 people staying cohesive for very long without some kind of structured and representative government. There are just too damn many opinions on how things ought to be done, and a lot of people who think their way is the best. How are you going to organize watches, sweeps, security, provisioning, care of the young/old/weak/sick, cooking, cleaning, etc., without having some kind of sectioning, some kind of council or government to answer to? Someone steals my bedroll or rucksack, or someone refuses to take their turn on latrine duty, or to contribute to the welfare of the community, how you gonna deal with them?
The danger is in longevity sitting on the council, I think, as well as too much power given to one or a few individuals. Maybe serving 3-month to 1-year terms with no consecutive service allowed? I dunno... it's a tough choice.
The answer to many of your questions is to shoot them. Steal, get shot. Dont pull your weight, get shot, dont pull latrine duty, get shot.
While it may sound harsh, its actually pretty easy. Just be respectful, work towards a goal, treat others with dignity, be trust worthy and get along. If ya cant do that consistantly, you put the group in danger. Put the group in danger and you put yourself in danger.
Think to the movie "red dawn" when the kid went to town, got caught and had a tracking device....he had to pay.
I agree... but I can't condone execution for minor issues. Theft, yeah, that's a biggie. But I'm just saying, in a group there are often lots of viewpoints, none of which are the clear choice when it comes to safety issues. Just general running of a camp/compound.
I think thats where natural leaders come in. They dont lead as much as they steer. For example; take you, id try to steer you towards training us in first aid or smoking food. Doesnt mean id force you to do anything, but a good leader would steer you toward your strengths. If you were totally against the idea, id just accept it and deal.
I think its so important to bring a can do, get it done attitude along with a skill set. Leadership should be a trait many should have, as well as being a good follower.
Certainly not one big leader. The Council idea is the right idea. American Indians did it like this. They had many things right before the whites came along.
Everyone has a job, everyone contributes. Anyone can have a chance to come up with a good idea and present it to the council.
Everyone has a job, everyone contributes. Anyone can have a chance to come up with a good idea and present it to the council.
I fall on the opposite side to most of you on this one. At first, I think you need a dictator. One guy/gal to make decisions and get things done...Assign jobs, pass down punishment and dole out rewards. This is quick and efficient. Obviously, this guy needs to be completely altruistic. Dictatorships are a very clean and effective form of government when you have a good one who puts his people first. The historical problem is they always pass the reign down to their offspring who tend to be self-centered disasters.
Later, hopefully a brief time, I think you move to a representative type system or at least have a council.
Later, hopefully a brief time, I think you move to a representative type system or at least have a council.
Similar threads
