Take me to your leader
June 10th, 2009
At the upcoming Desert Code Camp in Phoenix, AZ, there is to be a session titled Open forum with Community Leaders
But there’s also an invite-only after gathering.
I can understand wanting to keep the attendance restricted, to help boost the signal out of the noise. But I’m curious about the selection process. I was among a list of about eight people who got an E-mail invitation to the second session. Certainly there are more people in the Phoenix area whose input would be just or more valuable , and who are just as deserving as being on that CC list.
So, who are the “community leaders”? Why would you call them that? Who and what are they leading? Do we have community followers? Do the followers agree on who are the leaders?
I don’t see myself as leading anyone, and have no interest in doing so. I find the term “community leader” , um, misleading. Few people are doing any real leading. Me, I organize or instigate or simply help out. I may take the lead on this or that project, but I’m not leading any people, except maybe over to a free seat over in the back of a user group meeting.
What I try to do is give people a hand in leading themselves, if they are interested. From ruby-doc to rubyaz.org to the talks I’ve given and articles written, I’m much more interested in providing tools and resources than in telling anyone what to think or do.
Yes, I’m opinionated (like everyone else on the planet), but I seriously expect everyone to take everything I say with a good deal of skepticism. One reason for writing is for me to find out what I think, and hopefully get feedback to learn where I’m wrong.
Maybe I’m leading by example, but I don’t think that’s what is meant when labeling people as “community leaders”. It seems intended to declare a specific distinction among people, something of, for lack of a better term, a class distinction. Not to be all Marxist theoretical here, but the leader/follower distinction partitions people, and does not encourage useful gradations. It’s something like an orchestra; you are either the conductor or you’re not; you are either giving directions or taken them. Rarely does the first violinist swap places with the conductor; everyone has their assigned role and they stick with it.
I much prefer a jazz improve jam session approach. People are leaders for certain things at certain times. No one assumes that the leader at this moment will be be the leader later on. Each person not only believes they could lead, but is expected to do so by the others. Back when punk wasn’t total laughable bullshit, it was common for people to be the band one night, and in the audience the next. You were expected to participate; that was the whole point.
You are not on this Earth to be a spectator.
Certain distinctions are practical, and many of the people who get tagged “community leader” have some aspect worth noting. Often that aspect is having done something. Doing is important, and worth recognizing, but there are degrees of doing, whereas leading is pretty much an all or nothing behavior. Emphasizing a vague notion of “leading” isn’t useful. But people can do in varying degrees, with varying skills, and should be so encouraged.
Maybe a better term is “community doers.” Or just “doers.” It’s more objective, more open to participation, and presents a more valuable goal.
I’d rather see people doing than leading or following any day.
9 Responses to “Take me to your leader”
Sorry, comments are closed for this article.
June 10th, 2009 at 12:47 PM
I guess I struck a sore point with a few people regarding my Phoenix AZ Community Leaders Unite post with respect to the term “Community Leaders”. The term was not used to try a put people on different levels from one and another but more like you refer to them as “doers”.
You are correct in assuming the “private session” was just to filter out what could be perceived as noise but anyone is welcome.
June 10th, 2009 at 01:01 PM
Joseph, please know that I appreciate you stepping up to have such a session, and find it valuable to get people together to discuss what’s been happening and what can happen next. But, yeah, the idea of meeting where there are “leaders” on one side and an audience, presumably of “followers”, on the other suggests a bad partitioning.
One thing I don’t want to encourage is people thinking they can sit on their asses and have things magically happen. Especially if they want things to happen a certain way.
June 10th, 2009 at 04:36 PM
I don’t think you should jump to the “leaders and followers” meaning of the term. If you weren’t CC’d on that invite, I would have forwarded it to you myself, because I personally consider you a community leader.
No, you may not be leading a charge. You may not have fans or a devoted following. But you lead people in other ways. As you said, you “give people a hand in leading themselves” and that is, in my opinion, the best kind of leader there is.
I think the session is a great idea, and I also commend Joseph for organizing another meeting that isn’t invite-only.
June 10th, 2009 at 05:44 PM
Brian,
As I mentioned in my post, I was CC’d that E-mail invite, along with about 8 other people.
It was an interesting set, both for who was included, and who was not. I’m curious about how people come to decide who’s a leader, and why, and concerned that, whatever the intention of those using that term, it has the effect of partitioning people.
You had a tweet recently, retweeting @chrisbrogan, that nicely expressed this.
“The only difference between an audience and a community is which direction the chairs are pointing.”
I do believe that when you take a bunch of people and declare some to be the leaders, the rest tend be followers.
The blog post linked from that tweet has this line: “[S]ome people come to the community to set up their chairs like an audience.” Perhaps it’s because they do not feel any more is expected of them; after all, they’re not the leaders.
June 11th, 2009 at 05:51 AM
James,
The list of email recipients was created by me based on the community evangelists that I know of. If you recall, the same email said to forward it to other evangilest. I have only been really active in the community for the last year and a half and do not know every community doer.
June 11th, 2009 at 05:48 PM
“The list of email recipients was created by me based on the community evangelists that I know of. If you recall, the same email said to forward it to other evangilest.”
Yes, exactly true. I should have included that in my post. As it is, I think it gives the impression deliberately kept that list of recipient to just those eight, when you indeed asked us to go round up other people.
The point I was trying to make was not that anyone would limit the list to eight or so people, but instead wondering how would anyone in Phoenix decide what people, of whatever number, would be included on such a list.
And I did forward the mail to other people (despite my own misgivings on the endeavor).
June 12th, 2009 at 03:32 PM
It’s interesting reading your post and then the comments as a totally unbiased outsider. I can see both sides of the discussion and think it’s all semantics, plus the way people read into things.
June 12th, 2009 at 04:24 PM
“I can see both sides of the discussion and think it’s all semantics, plus the way people read into things.”
True. One question, then, is how are so-called “non-leaders” reading it? When the average valley geek hears about “community leaders”, what does he or she think? What does it encourage them to think or do? And are there better ways of referring to people who are primarily event coordinators or avid bloggers?
June 20th, 2009 at 08:37 AM
This is a very interesting discussion. I think the best method for appointing people to community roles is that used by Quakers [i.e. the Religious Society of Friends].
I am a Quaker. We are a completely democratic organisation. All apointments to different organisational roles within the community are authorised by the community acting collectively and by concensus.
People are only asked to fill roles for designated periods of time then the appointment can either be renewed or a new person is appointed. Suggestions for appointments are made by a Nominations Committee the members of which are appointed by the community. The suggestions[nominations] are presented to a community meeting known as a Meeting for Worship for Business, which is open to all members, where the nominations are either accepted or sent back for further consideration.