Start a Movement! Lead a Tribe! – But Only as a Last Resort

by Greg on March 2, 2011

Tribe There is lots of talk these days about starting movements and leading tribes. Manifestos and Calls to Action from one end of the internet to the other seem to suggest that everyone should become a leader. You might say that imploring others to start movements has become a movement in itself.

There is also lots talk about changing the world, presumably for the better. Often these two notions are presented hand-in-hand as if they are synonymous with each other…as if changing the world automatically necessitates starting a movement. Superficial examples are trotted out in such volume that a casual observer could be excused for concluding that the only defining characteristic of a successful movement is noble intentions.

Is it possible we have gotten a little ahead of ourselves? Is anyone else even the slightest bit skeptical of the notion that meaningful change comes from simply organizing large groups of raving fans?

Behind All the Rhetoric

Why does all this rhetoric feel so hollow? Because it is! The ‘start a movement’ advocates are using a subtle bait and switch that I doubt even they recognize themselves. Readers and audiences fail to recognize this tactic for one very simple reason – it panders to our vanity. We all want to believe that we can make a difference. The leaders of the ‘start a movement’ movement obviously want to believe themselves that they are making a difference. Unfortunately, they are selling one thing using evidence of somethng else entirely.

The Bait and Switch

A 2009 Ted Talk by Seth Godin exemplifies this perfectly. I am a big fan of Seth Godin but I fear that this talk dangerously conflates conflicting ideas. Seth implores us to follow four steps:

Tell a Story
Connect a Tribe
Lead a Movement
Create Change

Yet, this model is neither necessary nor sufficient to explain any of the anecdotes that Seth relays. Throughout the talk Seth assumes causality without actually demonstrating it. Tribes and Movements are assumed to create change…where one is present the other is implied. Unfortunately, none of the anecdotes convincingly demonstrate the connection.

Consider for example the very first story about Nathan Winograd, who promoted the idea that the SPCA should exist to rescue animals rather than euthanize them. Nathan did in fact follow all four steps above, but a critical piece of the story is missing. Nathan started the movement to garner political support for his proposal. Political support however is not the same as implementation. The tribe did not implement Nathan’s ideas, Nathan implemented Nathan’s ideas. The political support may have been necessary but it was hardly sufficient.

Other anecdotes follow a similar pattern. An innovative individual creates change, the tribe forms around that already created change. In other cases an individual first organizes a movement which then collectively takes action, however in these cases it is difficult to see what change is being created. Seth cites Al Gore leading the movement against climate change, but how much has this movement really accomplished?

The Missing Link

The critical link that is ignored in nearly all discussion of tribes and movements is the proposed solution. This omission is predictable because it deemphasizes the role of the tribe. A tribe with no productive solutions is just a mob. The “organize first, think later” formula is a recipe for extremism, not productive solutions. So what if you do have a solution to offer?

Let’s consider an example. Most people would agree that Google has changed the world for the better. Despite the occassional nitpick, the world is surely a better place than it would be without fast and efficient internet search. So where is the movement compelling everyone to adopt internet search? It should be obvious that this movement is unnecessary. When the benefits of a given solution are so obvious to self-interested individuals there is no need for a movement. If you have a solution to offer, then offer it!

When it is necessary to get the word out about true solutions, these activities are called sales, marketing and advertising. Suppose that tomorrow a start-up company comes out of stealth mode offering solar panels that are cost competitive with grid electricity. Should we organize a tribe to promote this incredible product? Of course, not. Once people are aware of such a product it is going to sell itself. People are going to buy it because it empowers them (excuse the pun).

How to Change the World the Right Way

Hundreds of years of accumulated political history have skewed our cultural understanding of what it means to create change. Political culture loves movements because the only way to get anything done in politics is to organize a mob of voters (or campaign contributers). If you admire politicians (or creepy cult leaders) then starting a movement or leading a tribe might be for you. If you are sane then I offer you two alternatives:

Empower – If you believe, as I do, that human nature is on net more good than evil, then empowering free individuals – enabling them to more effectively accomplish what they independently want to do - changes the world for the better. This could mean providing them with tools as Google does or providing them with information. Regardless, empowering is about making others better, not pushing your own agenda.
Connect – Bring people together so that they may empower each other. If you do not have an empowering solution to offer then bring together others who might contribute to a solution. However, this also is best achieved when not censored by your own agenda. Create collaborative groups not tribes and movements.

Superior offers will require fewer contrivances to encourage adoption by others. Leading a movement may appeal to self-indulgent vanity but it restricts the available solution space. Empowering and connecting provides improved perspective. Tribes cloud perspective with social loyalties.

Are you empowering others or dictating to them?

Are you facilitating collaborative connections or creating tribes?

Where do you see group formation being used effectively? Inappropriately?

photo courtesy of Roger Blackwell

17 Comments | Start a Conversation...

http://twitter.com/sebpaquet Seb Paquet

I like your perspective. I think you’re actually identifying a subset of tribes one might call an “individual-empowering, creative tribe”. I think there’s probably a use for both kinds of tribes right now. I see parallels with Rushkoff’s choice to ‘program or be programmed’.

And of course (shameless plug) this meshes with my ruminations at http://emergentcities.sebpaquet.net

http://OnTheSpiral.com/ GregoryJRader

Could you expand on this distinction between different types of tribes? My thoughts here definitely mesh with yours on emergent cities in that emergent cities, as you describe them, are the model of a healthy group. ‘Emergent’ by definition implies that these groups are not led by a specific person towards a specific goal. They might come about as a result of being empowered by a new tool, technology, or meme, or they might emerge from connections to a specific person, but that person is not the leader directing the group’s activities.

With regard to Rushkoff’s dialectic, I want to rephrase it as “don’t program and don’t be programmed”. The choice between being a leader and being a follower presents a false dichotomy. Be a contributer, a collaborator…lead with your ideas and smartly follow (support) others’ ideas when appropriate. Leading a movement may look like a smart strategy in the short term but before you know it you will be facing ossification and denial (http://emergentcities.sebpaquet.net/how-social-movements-happen-part-i-zenith-oss).

http://twitter.com/sebpaquet Seb Paquet

Yeah, so we’re talking about groups where there is no definite specific goal and no cult of personality, but that exhibit some measure of cohesion and “groupness”. I’m tempted to call this a fellowship. I believe the cohesion comes from some kind of common inspiration or shared vision that can’t quite (and perhaps shouldn’t) be completely articulated.

Note that a group like that might (wittingly or unwittingly) engender a movement, should it gain a critical mass of uncritical ‘followers’.

http://OnTheSpiral.com/ GregoryJRader

Interesting point about articulating a shared vision. It would be absurd to suggest that a group should refuse to recognize a shared vision when it is obviously present, so I have to admit the need for some subtlety. I do think though that this sort of thing sounds very different when it is stated as a statement about a factual reality rather than a call to action.

Statement about reality: “We are a group of people interested in finding solutions to climate change.”
Call to action: “We are a group organized to fight against climate change.”

The former describes the group in reference to its individual members. The latter subsumes the identities of individual members into the purpose of the group.

You have probably already seen the assetmap blog’s recent post on curated membership communities. Definitely relevant here: http://blog.assetmap.com/2011/02/social-capital/beyond-groups-why-curated-membership-communities-are-todays-most-important-networks/

http://maparent.ca/ maparent

Don’t program or be programmed… was not familiar with this, and will think more, but it seems that a group should ideally be self-programming (Auto-nomous in Castoriadis’ sense), hence both programming and being programmed, after a fashion. No?

http://twitter.com/sebpaquet Seb Paquet

Yeah. Self-programming rules.
http://OnTheSpiral.com/ GregoryJRader

Marc, thanks for joining the conversation. I wasn’t familiar with Castoriadis…a quick reference to wikipedia looks promising.

I am on board with self programming, at least on the individual level. My concern with Rushkoff’s statement is the implied meaning “or be manipulated”. My comment should be interpreted as “don’t manipulate, don’t be manipulated”.

I want to be careful talking about the group as self-programmed because I want to refer to the group as an emergent outcome of the individual members’ auto-nomous behavior (see reply to Seb above). I will have to think about that a little more.

Could you expand on what you think a self-programmed group would look like?

http://twitter.com/clayforsberg Clay Forsberg

I have to admit, I’ve had fallen prey to Seth Godin’s ad nauseum rants of tribes. “Band together, realize your dreams, change the world.” As you so accurately implied: We are a world of tribes in search of a cause, a direction. It seems in the past – the cause came first … defined and communicated by a charismatic leader. But not so now. If we can form a movement, a tribe, we will – no matter whether we have no idea what we’re moving.

Maybe it’s because there’s a lack of true leaders. There’s sure no shortage of causes and missions. Maybe your solution of developing platforms for organizing rather just organizing is the answer. We all know there’s a full on press for “crowdsourcing” and participation by the masses. Maybe a more more thoughtful approach will result in direction rather just random action for the action of action?

But we still need those to lead, those that can prioritize, those that can direct. Maybe we should develop something that finds these people?

http://OnTheSpiral.com/ GregoryJRader

Clay, no fault in being human…if I wasn’t similarly taken by Godin’s efforts to lead the tribe of tribe leaders then I wouldn’t think it worth writing about

Your comments bring to mind an analogy to start-up culture and particularly the increasingly popular maxim that “a start-up exists to find a business model”. Start-up culture has made it acceptable to admit uncertainty. The problem with Godin’s assertions is that he pretends we can make uncertainty magically disappear.

If we were to follow the example set by start up culture perhaps we would continue to facilitate easy group formation while adopting the notion that a groups can exist in search of an appropriate cause instead of encouraging people to adopt causes willy nilly.

This understanding is perhaps even more important to groups than start-ups – the start-up that refuses to pivot runs out of money and dies a quick death, while the group that easily adopts an inappropriate cause can persist in pointless rallies and demonstrations for a hell of a long time.

To your last point, the start-up has a CEO who is the “leader” and whose job it is to strategically direct the company, but a good start-up CEO is not wedded to the company’s first idea. He is not starting a movement…his influence is checked by the realities of the market.

What checks the influence of the tribe leader? How does a tribe know when to pivot? Without some mechanism to force critical self-evaluation we are basically talking about religion by another name.

Ok, that became a bit of a rant…am I making sense?

Ignosympathnoramus

Damn fine post and a wonderful discussion that follows. There seems to be no shortage of people and books promoting “leadership,” but few to none of them explore the more important topic of “which direction to lead,” as it is just assumed that 1) the status quo is necessarily bad (i.e. all change=progress), and 2) that we all know what “the good” is and how to go about producing it. I think it is quite a dangerous thing to suggest, as Godin appears to, that we should use people’s natural desire for community (Agape) to rope them into our personal (political?) aims. Haven’t we learned enough about the dangers of Tribal Moral Groups? Its like history books disappeared in the last 10 years or something..but, fuck it…at least we’ll feel like part of a family! Viva la revolution!

http://OnTheSpiral.com/ GregoryJRader

Hello Fine Sir,
One of these days I am going to convince you to reveal your secret identity.

Don’t have much to add to this comment…you managed to sum up my 1000 word post in one paragraph.

Your closing exclamation suggests that perhaps we should stop using “revolution” so casually. The status quo is of course not necessarily bad, but that does not mean it couldn’t be improved on. The conflict between the conservative and progressive exists most violently in those arenas where one must be chosen at the expense of the other (i.e. revolution).

The middle ground is experimentation – toying with progress but not fully implementing it until all the kinks are worked out. I feel a “Revolution vs Disruption” post brewing inside of me…

http://twitter.com/NurtureGirl Jean Russell

Is no one going to question the leap: if it is worthwhile and for sale people will find and buy it? No need for a movement/tribe building? Really? So all those social media efforts to find, connect, and build base for products is not necessary? Magical!

What I think you are after here…and I could be wrong…is something quite interesting. We leapt too quickly to calling things movements when they are really fan groups in many cases. And fan groups tend not to think for themselves.

I also think you too quickly dismiss impact. Climate change impact… count how many organizations are doing or even trying to do sustainability versus pre-climate change times… Count how many people are more self-aware about their footprint. Has the movement changed policy? Not enough, not yet. Is the finish line right here now? No. But suggesting that these movements don’t have impact is naive, especially for an economist. Get out your measuring stick. Measure human satisfaction for belonging. Measure trajectory of “problem” movement is addressing when they formed against current trajectory. Is there movement? In the desired direction?

And be warned, impact of movements is usually really slow at first but once it builds up, a movement like the ones behind Ghandi, Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr, etc, tend to cascade impact ever forward into the future. Do not dismiss what is small now and think it is weak. Some movements will gain traction and scale and impact. (Others will become compost). However, these, in my mind, are quite distinct from the “Buy your Ipad and change the world movement” or the “Tag yourself x and be part of the xy social revolution” which is all a load of crap.

http://OnTheSpiral.com/ GregoryJRader

Yes! Give me more magic! As much as possible…

More seriously though…I am equally concerned with “successful tribes” as I am with the shallow and unsuccessful ones. Yes, movements build slowly and then potentially cascade. But that is as much a bug as it is a feature. It allows for destructive movements to gain momentum just as easily as the productive ones. Moreover, the momentum itself is a bug as much as it is a feature. Yes, a growing movement may orient a large number of people towards a specific goal, but that alignment comes at the expense of individual thinking.

Consider one currently prominent example – The Tea Party

They are a group that, at the most superficial level, I share many beliefs with. I agree with many of the basic principles of their, more or less, libertarian platform. Yet I would never ever(!) consider associating myself with the Tea Party. Becoming a tribal movement has converted all their principles into trite talking points. Their “principles” are no longer guiding principles; they have instead become doctrinal statements of faith that go unquestioned.

With regard to you comment about climate change, I want to argue that it is the middle/moderates, the people who sympathize with the movement but don’t associate with it, who create the real change. The crux of my argument is:

“ The “organize first, think later” formula is a recipe for extremism, not productive solutions.”

Admittedly I don’t have good evidence to support that assertion. It is also an open question as to whether the measured support from non-extremists ever comes about without the extremists raising awareness in the first place. If research showed that basic environmental awareness came about only as a reaction to the intellectually dishonest extremist tribes, then that would be crippling to my argument here.

TSIndiana

I see your article as expanding on “walk the walk” vs. “talk the talk”. I think there is some valid reasoning that you miss, well beyond human vanity. Formation as an organization is mostly for legal and financial purpose, but serves a varity of goals for facilitating growth.

But point well taken on empowering others.

One thing that proper up front organizing does is to facilitate control of the groups message. Not for the purpose as much dictating it but instead to keep it cogent and on target with achievable goals. They must be understandable and represent the groups wider interest and having a membership structure gives it standing.

If my council of elders in the tribe has approved a message, that message is representative of the larger tribe and protected by bylaws and even trademark as a collective membership mark. Marketing principles and financial concerns of any organization need addressed to progress beyond start up and idea, to enabeling others in an organized and lawful manor.

http://OnTheSpiral.com/ GregoryJRader

There certainly is some degree of bias from my own preferred perspective in this piece. True, organization does allow a group to deliver a more coherent message and to deliver that message more effectively. But as you say, it does so by *controlling* the message. Any subtlety in the individual messages of the individual members is subsumed (or at least downplayed).

From my perspective, that loss of subtlety, individual autonomy and self-expression is a tragedy. I feel stifled in those sorts of environments. From someone else’s perspective, that is simply how you get things done at scale. So yeah, there is a bit of self-interest in this piece. I am describing the world I want to live in, though admittedly that preference is not universal.

TSIndiana

A couple of persons involved in the recent port blockage expressed that there is a growing number of young that are becoming unruly, expecting violence. Many of us are under a belief that there are now “plants” of instigators that have the purpose of distracting the message and pushing the protests to violence. Some of these kids are primed like in London.

The control of members and the message is essential if disinformation operatives are not to take control. Without a level of organization, with cogent and focused goals (about 7), the Occupy movement will become fragmented and loose focus on the monetary system and corruption.