However, the particular item tracked above does not ask people to chose between a single leader and no leader, but between a single leader and a fluid approach to leadership – if you and I are part of a group that has several things to do, and I know more about doing X while you know more about doing Y, then it might be appropriate for you to take charge when we work on Y and for me to take charge when we work on X. Or if you have excellent people skills while I’m good at logistics, we might make a good set of co-coordinators. That’s what we mean by fluid leadership in that particular tracking item. And besides, the earth isn’t round – it’s squashed very slightly at the middle.
Did that question explain what is meant by "fluid leadership"? I had no idea what you meant by the term until you explained it, so I doubt if the people surveyed would understand what it means.
Also, I wonder if a better term could be used. "Rotating leadership" is only one form of fluidity, so that's not a good choice. "Flexible leadership" is better, until you think that it could mean there's one leader who is flexible. "Adaptable leadership"? Maybe it needs to be reframed altogether. I do see why a thinktank is needed -- a group of intelligent people who can discuss and work through ideas together (and bounce them off one another and thrash them out and all those other sports-related or fighting-related metaphors).
BTW, I would suggest that one problem that all too many left intellectuals suffer from is an addiction to polysyllabic words and convoluted, turgid syntax. I'm not innocent of it myself -- and reading your post, Morgan, neither are you. This is meant as a reminder of a place where both of us can improve and something both of us need to be aware of. I'm thinking in particular of the last two paragraphs of your post, from "I do not argue a causal link here" on. I know myself I retreat into formal, intellectual language when I'm feeling threatened; whether you do the same thing you've never told me.
However, there's an extremely important point you make in the next-to-last paragraph: "Adams presents evidence supporting the view that an increasing number of Americans find the 'strict father' family model to be comfortable – and perhaps even comforting." Yes, I believe that's true. And one thing progressives need to get across is that the nurturing parent model can be far more comfortable and comforting. The phrase "social safety net," for instance, is a good example of progressive framing. It implies that life is adventurous and potentially dangerous, but also exciting and enjoyable -- and that there's a safety net there to catch you if you fall, so it's okay to take a few risks when you want to.
One other thing we need to be aware of, though, is one appeal of the "strict father" model, at least to men: the fact that they will have the chance to become the strict father, the rulemaker, the authority figure, themselves. That's the big motivation for putting up with the punishment -- well, that and the hope of winning the approval of the authority figure.
no subject
Did that question explain what is meant by "fluid leadership"? I had no idea what you meant by the term until you explained it, so I doubt if the people surveyed would understand what it means.
Also, I wonder if a better term could be used. "Rotating leadership" is only one form of fluidity, so that's not a good choice. "Flexible leadership" is better, until you think that it could mean there's one leader who is flexible. "Adaptable leadership"? Maybe it needs to be reframed altogether. I do see why a thinktank is needed -- a group of intelligent people who can discuss and work through ideas together (and bounce them off one another and thrash them out and all those other sports-related or fighting-related metaphors).
BTW, I would suggest that one problem that all too many left intellectuals suffer from is an addiction to polysyllabic words and convoluted, turgid syntax. I'm not innocent of it myself -- and reading your post, Morgan, neither are you. This is meant as a reminder of a place where both of us can improve and something both of us need to be aware of. I'm thinking in particular of the last two paragraphs of your post, from "I do not argue a causal link here" on. I know myself I retreat into formal, intellectual language when I'm feeling threatened; whether you do the same thing you've never told me.
However, there's an extremely important point you make in the next-to-last paragraph: "Adams presents evidence supporting the view that an increasing number of Americans find the 'strict father' family model to be comfortable – and perhaps even comforting." Yes, I believe that's true. And one thing progressives need to get across is that the nurturing parent model can be far more comfortable and comforting. The phrase "social safety net," for instance, is a good example of progressive framing. It implies that life is adventurous and potentially dangerous, but also exciting and enjoyable -- and that there's a safety net there to catch you if you fall, so it's okay to take a few risks when you want to.
One other thing we need to be aware of, though, is one appeal of the "strict father" model, at least to men: the fact that they will have the chance to become the strict father, the rulemaker, the authority figure, themselves. That's the big motivation for putting up with the punishment -- well, that and the hope of winning the approval of the authority figure.