1.  Bill Kinnon said:
   12:19 PM  

   Hmmm. Or they are so difficult to create that it becomes much easier to move into the dominant Western model of leadership. Check out Len Hjalmarson's post on Chaordic Leadership from today.

1.  grace said:
   12:37 PM  

   Or they don't work for the type of organization we envision or want. Not to say they wouldn't work for something more organic than the organizations to which we are accustomed.

1.  Scott said:
   1:07 PM  

   yup. but how un PC of you to say it...

1.  Makeesha said:
   1:46 PM  

   I'd be interested in further details. I think it's a HUGE BLANKET STATEMENT to make

1.  Paul said:
   2:54 PM  

   I believe the model of flattened leadership would be best understood as being Anarcho-syndicalism. Of course, the church as a expression of anarchy probably is not something we think about because its foreign. This is sad. Whenever the church has developed and established a hierarchy, it has always led to problems. This is because hierarchy becomes entrenched and retrenched and become a stilted bureaucracy.

1.  Anonymous said:
   3:53 PM  

   Personally I prefer the "Towering over the huddled masses" model of leadership.
   
   Tom Skerritt

1.  mike said:
   10:46 PM  

   tell us more... what are you thinking?

1.  Robbymac said:
   5:08 PM  

   I've never seen a group that is flattened. Usually, the person(s) most loudly proclaiming their "only God is our Leader" status, are in fact the real leaders.

Leave A Comment