“>In 2006, two Stanford MBAs, Ori Brafman and Rod Beckstrom, wrote The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations. The book examines how recently there has been a trend to limit centralization in organizations and the change that this is bringing about. The title was developed because both creatures have similar shapes, but react differently to change. If a spider’s head is removed, it dies. If a starfish’s head is taken off, it grows another to replace it. Their basic premise is that more autonomous groups have a better chance at survival than do those which we’re more familiar with that have a traditional hierarchy.
They discuss a number of organizations that have employed the Starfish Principle. These groups include the internet, eBay, Napster, Wikipedia, Alcoholics Anonymous, and Apache Indians. Each of these share a set of common characteristics. In each, there are small units which can organize and grow independently of any central direction. This makes it difficult for opponents to defeat them, or exert control over them. They each have mechanisms and advocates who activate the group. Rather than a traditional hierarchy, they are formed around a circular philosophy of coordination. They each depend on a common ideology as a basis for remaining together.
Tea Party activists, as seen in a report in Politico, have used this book for its application to the group. When individuals, either GOP regulars or would-be leaders, try to place themselves in charge of the movement, the Tea Party has autonomously acted to reduce their impact. Among other Tea Party groups, FreedomWorks requires new employees to read the book to understand the direction of the movement.
Tea Party activists have tended to reject organizations such as the National Tea Party Federation, which attempted to impose itself as a steering committee for the movement. Also, when individuals presume that they are the de facto leaders, they find their power attempts rejected.
A problem that the Tea Party may encounter, according to Brafman are the issues of power and money. When you try to elect individuals, those individuals are likely to exert more power over the group than do grass-roots individuals. Likewise, if the Tea Party decides it needs money to expand, then those who contribute the most are apt to achieve power within the group. We see, in the two existent parties, that this holds true for each of them. Political elites try to centralize power, and those who provide campaign funds tend to find access to their positions, while the rest of us are left without a voice.
Probably the last book that has had such an impact upon politics and public policy is ‘The Tipping Point’, which developed the way in which organizations can readily affect external change.
July 31st, 2010 at 7:44 am
Sounds like cancer to me.
July 31st, 2010 at 8:14 am
That’s actually not a bad analogy. If you think of the internet, that’s pretty much the way it works. Why shouldn’t it prove effective within the political sphere as well?
July 31st, 2010 at 8:26 am
Mark Williams is the perfect example of how this works. He did not speak for a whole, as the Tea Party is not a whole, but rather a gathering of individuals under the same belief
July 31st, 2010 at 3:55 pm
Al Qaeda uses much the same structure to survive. No matter how hard any one person / cell / group is hit there are others scattered to the 4 winds that are completely unaffected.
The trouble with decentralized groups, though, is that it is difficult to respond to threats/provocations like the recent racism allegations with a united front.
Nobody “speaks” for us so the press can stick a microphone into anyone’s gob and call them a TEA Party representative – whether they really are “members” or just some redneck they scraped up outside a bar.
July 31st, 2010 at 6:35 pm
yeah, but I’m going to worry more about the groups that answer to the theology instead of and ideology. The ideology is almost always political, which weve seen on both sides can be very flexible.
Thats hasnt been true with Islam for centuries because the denominations are so few never mind the fact that practice of anything but Islam is punishable by death and its unheard of to have the massive denominations like we have with Christianity. One word from one a Sunni or Shia will be followed by millions in a heartbeat no matter how spread out across the planet they are.
The same goes for radical Islam.
Whereas with an ideology like that of the Tea Party Mark Williams was told that he in fact did not represent the sentiments of the majority.
Individualism being a cornerstone of the Tea Partys ideology has a lot to do with that.
Ahmajinedad/The Ayatolla says theres no gays in Iran and everyone agrees.
Mark Williams said Muslims were monkeys and eveyone told him to take a hike.
August 1st, 2010 at 9:51 am
Good article, Arriba!