Leadership, Growing Your Org, and Stepping Down

Aktillum · July 2015

Hey folks. I wanted to write this post to share some of my personal thoughts on leadership and preparing your org for the future. These aren't necessarily "Memoirs from a Former CIJ Leader", nobody would want to read that (and it would be pretty boring honestly). Instead I just want to focus on some reflections I've had that I hope any future leaders of any org can draw from. Most of this will probably be applicable only to Houses, as city leadership is an entirely different ballgame.

I think the most important thing a House leader can do is focus on your novices above all. Novices whether they're true newbies or alts are the life of your House (duh). But true newbies play an important role. They're not just the future of your House, but Achaea as a whole. We all know that Achaea doesn't get many true newbies, and so we need to provide an environment that truly compels them to return. So what you need to do is drill the idea of interacting with novices into your House, really emphasize that true newbies need friends that keep them coming back to Achaea. The gameplay of Achaea is only half the reason people love Achaea - most of us truly love Achaea because we've established groups of friends here.

Your novice aides need to establish friendship with novices early on. I created a "reward" program in the CIJ where mentors get a little credit prize when their novices advance in rank. A small prize, like a total of 5 credits when their protege went from HR1 to HR5, but it worked. People spent a lot more time with their novices and took them shopping, bashing, invited them to drinks at the tavern. I also vastly simplified the CIJ requirements so novices didn't need to do essays or lengthy boring history stuff. Herbs, skills, a certain level, and I made sure they knew how to use Achaea's auto-curing. This might not work for every House but it certainly worked for the CIJ. We went from a completely dead House with 3 active members to about 15 - 20 people online during peak hours. There's a thread on statistics where the OP said that the CIJ was the #2 most active House for novices. This is how we got there. We provided an environment that allowed the novices to quickly establish rapport with senior members and feel a part of the family, from the moment they walked through our door.

The second most important thing is avoiding promotions based on personal friendships. This is a plague in Achaea, we all know that. Elections are decided by OOC friendships and bloodline ties. But as a leader, its your job to ensure that the people in positions of authority (especially HoN, your most important position) are truly qualified for the job because they truly care about the job, not because they're your friend. I once read a quote that said "A boss should never make friends with people below his station". I don't agree with that.
You do need to be able to view your friends in your org the same way you would view any other applicant for a position though, and judge them on their merits.

I promoted the quietest guy in our House to HoN, not because I knew him personally. I promoted him because when everyone else, my friends included, were asking me for the HoN person, that quiet guy was diligently working in the background, always available for novice interviews, and never once asked for recognition or promotion. Those are the people you want in your important positions. Think of positions like toys - people want them, and when they have them, they play with them for a while and then get bored. Its the people who feel a sense of duty and commitment, without really caring about promotion, that will work the hardest.

Stepping down from leadership is something a lot of people struggle with. We've seen crazy long reigns in Achaea, people holding leadership for 2 - 5 RL years. You can't accuse all of them of clinging to power, some were begged not to step down by House members. I only led the CIJ for 20 IG years, but 20 years was enough for me. It wasn't simply because boredom settled in after a while, but because I didn't want my leadership to make the House feel stale, and there's no reason to cling to power when you've trained the people under you to be completely capable of handling your job.

Here's the thing - stepping down from leadership is much like accepting you're going to die someday. See, people who are afraid of dying tend to have thoughts like, "will my family go on without me?", "will my friends miss me?", "what happens after death?". People in leadership have the exact same thoughts when considering stepping down. "Will my House go to shit without my leadership?", "will anyone care about me after I've stepped down?", "will the next leader be as effective as I was?". These thoughts, I promise you, are so vastly unimportant in the grand scheme of the universe. These thoughts come from a sort of egoism, the idea that you are the glue holding together the pieces of your org. You are afraid, subconsciously or consciously, that nobody in your org is good enough to fill your shoes. This is having a huge lack of faith in your underlings. If you were a good leader, then whoever steps up after you will have learned a lot from your good leadership examples. Your House will not go to shit. The world will continue on, with or without you. Relax, and accept that you did a good job, and by passing on the torch, you are allowing fresh new life to be breathed into your org.

My final advice to any future leaders is: Read books or online essays on what makes effective leadership. Look for words of inspiration from successful company CEOs. Dabble in Buddhism and learn to appreciate that the only constant is change. Sit outside and watch leaves fall from tree branches and study and truly appreciate how each leaf falls in a beautiful unique way, for only a short time, before it suddenly stops. That perfectly summarizes our own life journey.

Silas · July 2015

I don't see why anybody would need to stay on as a leader for more than 30 years at a time. More than a full rl year of one guy's ideas pushing an org forward doesn't seem like a good idea for the leader or the org.

It's so nice to get a break from leadership so you can enjoy the game again without all those trifling e-responsibilities.

Blujixapug · July 2015

Aktillum said:

Your novice aides need to establish friendship with novices early on. I created a "reward" program in the CIJ where mentors get a little credit prize when their novices advance in rank. A small prize, like a total of 5 credits when their protege went from HR1 to HR5, but it worked.

This is really smart.

I know that I rapidly went from bright-eyed idealistic newbie-helper to burnt-out cynic, because it's so battering to help newbie after newbie and have most of them disappear. It's hard to try and forge a genuine connection with every new one, even if you don't feel like it today, or don't feel like it ever because you're an introvert, or they seem like an idiot and you'd rather not deal with them. To regularly have 10 minute intros spin out 40 minutes or 2 hours, taking up all the time you wanted to spend doing other stuff in the game.

Newbies are the future, but your core players are the now. You have to make the game fun for them, too. Credits are fun. And you contextualised the end goal of that mentor/protege relationship, with HR5 effectively being the point where the novice has become someone fully independent.

But yeah cij sux and your "fluffer" crap is retarded so yeah bye felicia

Tharvis · July 2015

@Silas main reason you'd see people clinging to a position for 3-4-5 RL years is because of the honours line you get from holding a position for 100 consecutive IG years

Mishgul · July 2015

it is a badge of shame.

Sarathai · July 2015

Tharvis said:

@Silas main reason you'd see people clinging to a position for 3-4-5 RL years is because of the honours line you get from holding a position for 100 consecutive IG years

Could always just make it something that the patron/matron has to actually do manually if it is actually thought of as deserved. Just clinging to power until you get it shouldn't count.

Tharvis · July 2015

@Sarathai that'd be the best way of doing it, yes, in my opinion a hardcoded honours line like that shouldn't exist, it just creates situations like we saw in one of the former eleusis houses when a HL literally clang desperately to a position, despite not really doing anything in said position anymore, saying that people could contest her after the 100year mark honours line had been given.

I am full aware this person had IRL issues that prevented her from actually being active, but that is a point you step down at. Not a point where you beg people to let you stay and have them wallow in stagnancy just so you can have your honours line - regardless of whatever IRL circumstances you may be going through, letting an entire organisation sit in stagnancy or nearing stagnancy because of it is never an excuse

Silas · July 2015

I think it is done manually.

Jukilian · July 2015

Yes. Done manually.

Faur · July 2015

Silas said:

I don't see why anybody would need to stay on as a leader for more than 30 years at a time. More than a full rl year of one guy's ideas pushing an org forward doesn't seem like a good idea for the leader or the org.

It's so nice to get a break from leadership so you can enjoy the game again without all those trifling e-responsibilities.

I wish I could remember when I WASN'T the WarChieftain for the Dwarves...

Dochitha · July 2015

@Aktillum Good points, you shared much more than power and stepping down.

I left Achaea for like 5-6 RL years before returning. In the mean time I setup my own business and have a brilliant team serving our customers. The entire time I face problems and challenges and solved them reading books and attending seminars, learning from do-ers.

The moment I come back to Achaea just a few months ago, I was totally amazed and astonished by how culture, houses, traditions are kept despite the fact that most houses changed leaderships, some houses are gone, new ones get created, even Shallam is gone and Targossas is latin to me. Then I realized House Structure, City Structure, the HHELP, CHELP files, and HRs, these all play their role systematically, along with the people in the orgs, makes everything amazing.

Since then I am mirroring good things in Achaea into my business.

To embrace "change" better and prepare for longetivity of a bigger purpose!

Zuko · July 2015

Just found this topic. Super inspiring!

I'll be sure to keep these points in mind moving forward with my House and City positions.

Tael · July 2015

I have never run an org as the actual head, but I've been playing the game for a long time, seen good and bad leaders, and have been Head of Novices about half a dozen times now in various places.

I think the number one problem with orgs in Achaea is an incredible fear of delegation. Leaders constantly bemoan their huge workload, but most of them zealously guard that workload. Certainly some of it is intentional - there have definitely been more egotistical leaders who want to maintain a really autocratic style of absolute control - but I've seen a lot of it that is clearly unintentional too.

At least four of those novice programs were set up in an insane way when I came into the HoN positions. The novice aides were allowed essentially zero leeway - after a huge amount of "training" required, they were allowed to conduct one or two early interviews that consisted entirely of pre-written, formulaic checklists. Anything past that required the HoN (or in two cases a guild/house secretary was also acceptable, adding to their workload too - in one case only the HoN or the house leader was allowed to conduct one interview) to administer anything beyond that. And the HoN was singularly responsible for 100% of the record-keeping.

That's madness.

First, it doesn't actually work. Those formulaic interviews where all you do is ask the novice to show you that they have x, y, and z don't actually help much. The lists themselves are helpful to novices to give them some direction, but the interview is a waste of time for both participants unless the aide goes way beyond the actual requirements and tries to make sure that the novice actually understands anything, rather than just having a dozen or so items in their rift and inventory. And even when the house help files for aides ask them to do that, they typically provide almost no direction as to what that looks like or how to do it.

And then the system only allows the HoN to deal with the associated record-keeping anyway.

When you delegate list-checking to people, you are not actually delegating them much of anything. It's just asynchronous micromanagement - you've just replaced your standing over the novice aide telling them what to do with a pre-written list that does the same thing (except it can't even have the flexibility of extreme micromanagement!). And checking off a list is boring for novice aides and for novices. Proper delegation involves delegating discretion. You have to delegate decisions, not merely delegate the work that follows from decisions.

I think the main source of this problem is fear. Leaders are afraid that other people will mess things up, so they feel like they "have to" do it themselves.

But you know what? Full house members who ask to become novice aides and who you can talk with and observe are actually perfectly capable of judging whether someone is capable enough to be HR3 or even HR5. They are, in fact, almost universally better able to judge that than is a list of very concrete, easily-checked requirements. This is not rocket science. You don't need to handcuff the aide with rigid checklists to make sure they aren't ever applying their own judgement. All you have to do is talk to aides, make sure they know what they're doing, give them some rough guidelines, and let them go do it. And aides can handle record-keeping themselves.

As soon as you do this, you make things more engaging for everyone. You end up with a less crazy workload. The aides end up exercising some discretion and creativity. The novices benefit from that creativity. Everyone has more fun.

And, this is perhaps the most fundamental point, if something goes wrong it doesn't matter very much. If an aide isn't working out, unaide them. If a novice interview goes poorly, go talk to the novice and the aide. The problems that can arise are not life-and-death problems and for the most part they are eminently fixable. No one is going to make a decision that costs the company millions of dollars. It pays tremendous dividends not to worry about creating structures to limit the discretion of "middle management" in order to prevent problems before they arise. You really, truly, do not need to create a novice program with the primary directive of limiting the ways in which novice aides can mess things up - just pay attention and clean up after them when they do.

As HoN, your job is not to be the novice aide to everyone, it is to make sure the novice aides are doing their job more or less right. Your job is to make sure the program is working and to direct and edit it, not to be the program.

And I think that goes for every leadership position - that's what makes a good leader - you need to provide oversight and steering for an org, not try to be the org. If you manage to delegate well and avoid temptation to hold onto the reins at all times in all matters, then it's easy to leave an org better than how you found it when you step down because you leave it with people and systems in place that already work pretty well without your direct control.

Jarrod · July 2015

Tael said:
And, this is perhaps the most fundamental point, if something goes wrong it doesn't matter very much. If an aide isn't working out, unaide them. If a novice interview goes poorly, go talk to the novice and the aide.

I was a House Leader for...close to a RL year, maybe more, maybe less, I never really kept track. One of the problems that's annoying to deal with is that people take being unaided or demoted so damn personal sometimes. I've been told I ruined someone's time in a House for specifically removing them from a position, and it was treated like it was purely because they were them, regardless of the justification and deliberation that went into a decision. It sucks when you feel like you really ruined someone's game experience, and some people will take it that way even if there was no intent in the least.

Another thing regarding the delegation thing I ran into is that there are likely not enough confident, willing people to take over HL and HoN positions for every House. Even if there were, they certainly aren't spread enough for every House to have them. It can be taught, over time, but confidence to exact change isn't something that develops overnight if someone doesn't have it. I gave the novice program fully over to the HoN when I was HL in Shadowsnakes, and it took assurances over weeks before they were confident to start making changes without consulting me at every step. Eventually it got there, but it took time.

When I stepped down I got a lot of people asking me why I wanted to step down, why I wasn't staying, etc. This was after my time had started ramping down pretty heavily, and I knew that even if I was only gone for a short break (ended up being a month or two) I didn't want the House to stagnate because part of the leadership, especially the HL, wasn't around to help out or create things for the House.

I think I disagree that the HL should focus on the novices above all. That's the job for the HoN. HoN's job is to make the novice progression engaging and something that tests novices, but doesn't bore or discourage them. It's a tough job and not everyone is up to it, but it's what the HoN spot is for. The HL's job is to make the House, after people are through the novice program, engaging. People do it in a variety of ways, paths, programs, events, whatever they're good at working with to encourage activity and participation within the House. Different cities also have different ways of doing this that fit with the ascetic of the city. In SS I made a variety of programs that offered rewards for different areas of focus, and most of them worked out well. Interest fell off after a few months, but that's how things are, and then it's time to find ways to reinvigorate them.

Part of keeping people logging in to play is to be approachable and to be above any drama in the House. If people don't feel like they can approach you with a problem they have in the House because they're worried you're involved or don't care, they're going to leave or play less, because the environment is no longer fun for them to play in. I had a handful of times where people came to me and asked me if I could handle something or to inform me of something, and I did my best to address the situations as they arose. Sometimes it was talking to someone personally, sometimes it was posting to the House news to stomp something out before it could get out of hand.

Overall I think I was pretty effective. I know House Influence isn't the end-all of which Houses are doing the best in terms of people, but it's a good general scale of House activity. When I took over as Shadow Matrix the Shadowsnakes were bottom 3 House Influence (the 3 Serpent-only Houses were always bottom 3), there were 1 or 2 full members logging in each day, and things were low. When I stepped down the House had spent multiple IC years at the top of the House Influence listing, had lots of active members, and was generally doing very well. It took time, it wasn't quick, but eventually things worked out.

Vayne · July 2015

A lot of what you said, @Tael, resonates with my experience as a leader, especially as HL of the Serpentlords. Looking back, I can see myself taking too much of a workload because I was concerned if I delegated it to others that it would not get done or get done in a wrong manner. Towards the end of my tenure, I had the epiphany that this was not tenable and tried to rest on my officers' capabilities.

This unfortunately was the beginning of the end because of some internal struggles, but things worked pretty well for a while. I got heat because my HoN was close to Vayne and was accused of favoritism despite e individual in question doing an excellent job. My combat head never did any combat, so I decided to remove them which ignited the powder keg of resentment.

The regime changed hands and things went down from there, but I took a chance and it did not pay off. I suppose my point is, it is hard to find people you trust and are capable sometimes, and leaders should be sure to be in open and constant communication with their officers to be on the same page and relate expectations and concerns. Team building is vital to an organizations success on every level.

Another thing is to keep things interactive, as said, checklists are abominably dull, and do not challenge members or tap into their creativity. Free form, with general oversight and guidance worked wonders in the Crown Insititute, which in many ways has become the prototype for the Krymenian Academy, and allows a lot off opportunity for character development in tandem with the house itself.

Likewise, I am a strong supported of @Tecton's push to eliminate essays from all requirements, simply because of the sheer stigma of the concept. Even if you like writing, essentially most requirements boil down to it anyway, essays just have this schoolhouse flashback inducing quality to them. The SL's finishing blow was the ridiculous amount of essays the new HoN pushed on novices who wanted to join a house supposedly composed of thieves, assassins, and spies.

I would also encourage leaders to ensure their members have the chance to "own" their org. Do not try to carry the org, guide it. Give ample opportunities for members to participate, to contribute, and especially to be recognized and rewarded. One thing I am big on is momentous rank up ceremonies. Your novice graduated to HR3? Conduct an awesome ceremonial rite to cement his place in the house.

Overall, administration and leadership are skills that do not come naturally. This is a good thread for people to get perspective.

Aodfionn · July 2015

Agree with @Jarrod that it's the HoN's job to focus on novices. Also agree with @Aktillum that HoN is by far the most important position in house leadership.

HL's job is to have a vision for the house's direction and to go about achieving that in a way that it creates an environment where people feel like they want to participate and can do so without getting shit on. An environment where it's okay for everyone to make a mistake here and there, because we can all trust that leadership isn't going to skewer us for being on the wrong end of a learning experience.

I would be an absolutely shit HL, in all likelihood, if I hadn't had the chance to sink and/or swim on my own with the Diaspora. I'm certainly far from perfect and the Harbingers aren't quite where I envision us being yet, but I shudder to think of what the current situation would look like if I'd not had the chance to test all of my crazy ideas out with a quasi-house in the first place.

Edit: Also, stepping down. Anyone who dealt with playing an Eleusian in the past decade can attest to how absolutely crippling this can be to an organization. If you're not having fun and find yourself not wanting to step down, just fucking resign. Someone who has enthusiasm and will to do the job for 5 IG years is going to be better than someone who is just trying to avoid getting fired for 15.

Tvistor · July 2015

I basically just agree with everything @Tael has ever said. My greatest Mhaldor-regret is not getting to play with him more. And Keresis dying. Damn it, IRE.

Sarieno · July 2015

My own two cents here...

If the passion's gone, quit doing it. If you're not having fun, the people under you probably aren't either.
If you're spending one day a week in realms to avoid losing your position due to dormancy, quit doing it.
If you're not contributing to your leadership, quit.

You owe it to the people beneath you, as a leader (esp. as an elected one) to give your best to the people who elected you.

And last, but not least, Achaea is just a game. I know leaders who put in way too much time and get burnt out, many of them over the years, in fact. Sometimes you have to let go, step away, let things burn a bit. You'll be more willing to come back if you're not torched.

Verrucht · August 2015

I'll completely agree that people wanting to be leader for a hundred years for the honours line is not a positive thing. By focusing on an arbitrary goal instead of actual accomplishments, you can be very detrimental to your organisation. There are lots of examples of people who languished in positions of authority, accomplishing or doing nothing but holding onto the spot simply because of apathy of the organisation in regards to replacing them. I think at one point we even called it "leaderitis". But in hand with that also comes the people who want to be leader purely for the accomplishment of attaining it. We've all seen that leader that works hard and does enough to get put into positions of authority and then does absolutely nothing and eventually just goes dormant or irregularly logs in. Then when they're eventually replaced, they're around again. That's part of why I feel that when an organisation has good and responsive leadership it shouldn't be constrained to an arbitrary time limit on leadership.

However, when I'm out of ideas or someone else is chomping on the bit, or even a large amount of people wanting me gone... I'd step back without a problem. But I still have a bunch of ideas for growing and improving Cyrene, so here I am still. In fact soon Cyrene will soon have a very interesting shift, something that being here for a long time I feel I was better able to accomplish.

I remember once that Phaestus said that someone would have to be crazy to want to be a leader for more than 30 years. But then He said I didn't count. I still don't know what that means.

Kez · August 2015

I have to disagree about century-long leadership being a badge of shame. When it happens with a piss-poor leader, sure, but then that shame belongs to everyone who has the ability to contest and vote. If the leader's doing a good job, I can't figure out any reason for people to be frothing at the mouth over long terms except "When's my turn?!" and that kind of attitude is not necessarily good for the organisation. When I see a house or city playing hot potato with the leadership, I assume they lack unity and direction, and are maybe rife with political turmoil and power sniping.

The obvious solution is: if your organisation has shitty leadership just barely hanging in there and plying more years with sympathy, man up. But if your organisation has good leadership with a seeming stranglehold on the position that's making you jealous, take advantage of the opportunity to learn from them instead of griping that it should be somebody else's turn.

Tael · August 2015

There are a number of leaders who have definitely done well over very long reigns.

Amunet basically held the occultists together by sheer force of will for literal years. Though admittedly I don't think the delegation was necessarily great - which was one part of why the house basically fell apart after she went inactive. But still, she did great things for that house and I don't think her holding onto the title so long was in any way a negative thing.

There are definitely leaders who stay in the position just for the sake of having the title, but there are also some Guido von Rossum-style BDFLs and, despite my whining about delegation issues, a lot of them are clearly pretty good for their orgs.

Aodfionn · August 2015

For every amunet, there is at least one Ashadra.

Maybe its just me. But I am generally of a mind that its better to cycle through new blood fairly regularly, even if that sentiment winds up being the basis upon which I get shown the door as HL.

Then again, this could be simply a reaction to having cut my teeth under two leaders who served for 7 and 3 RL years, respectively.

Ahmet · August 2015

*cough*Bonko*cough*

Gawi · August 2015

I've never been one to want to be a leader. Not that I want to be a follower either, which probably makes no sense, but I hate being told what to do... With the Merchants I've always stepped up to help when needed. I've filled numerous roles when needed, I even ran for house leader once because it was sadly needed, even though I have never ever, in a million years wanted that burden on my shoulders, luckily I didn't win and it went to much more capable hands. I've always viewed leadership as something that was needed, not desired. I have always disliked the people who were the obvious 'I'm here because I want to tell you what to do, and you will bow down' type of people.

From my numerous characters over the years and my time in realms over... something like 12 years now, one of the strongest leaders I have met has been @Verrucht though I won't go into all the details of why, what makes that statement rather funny is how much crap talk I hear about him from his own citizens. They whine and cry and complain about him, but Cyrene is not a tyranny, they can vote him out if they wanted. Cyrene is one of the biggest and most prosperous cities and there will always be whiners and complainers, but Verrucht still hold leadership so they must be complacent enough.

I think it can be good to cycle through leadership, sometimes it can be hard to do. Sometimes it isn't always good to do. In some cases like say Hashan, where the population is low it might be difficult, but at the same time, it is something that I think they need. With the Merchants it has been really difficult. We don't get the novice numbers being outside of a city that we used to. I try to encourage anyone I think has promise, and we have had some really good promise lately @Delios and @Prysala not that they are novices.

Not really sure if I had a point to this... hmm, but those are my jumbled thoughts.

Leliel · August 2015

@Ahmet We DO NOT SPEAK OF HE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED.

Tharvis · August 2015

@Gawi it may be difficult with our lower population, but cycling through leadership still happens in hashan, some people just need a little boost to their confidence to step up.
But, for the Somatikos (not sure about the Academy), it'll be an Oligarchy with a set duration you can be an Oligarch and a set duration you can be an Ascendant (more houses need this little rule) I think we agreed on 20 achaean years Ascendant and 40 Oligarch. - which is still long, come to think of it. Might tweak those numbers later

Vansittart · August 2015

Kez said:

I have to disagree about century-long leadership being a badge of shame. When it happens with a piss-poor leader, sure, but then that shame belongs to everyone who has the ability to contest and vote. If the leader's doing a good job, I can't figure out any reason for people to be frothing at the mouth over long terms except "When's my turn?!" and that kind of attitude is not necessarily good for the organisation. When I see a house or city playing hot potato with the leadership, I assume they lack unity and direction, and are maybe rife with political turmoil and power sniping.

The obvious solution is: if your organisation has shitty leadership just barely hanging in there and plying more years with sympathy, man up. But if your organisation has good leadership with a seeming stranglehold on the position that's making you jealous, take advantage of the opportunity to learn from them instead of griping that it should be somebody else's turn.

I really disagree with this. If you've been in power for 40 or 50 in-game years, I think you owe it to your organization to step down. Even if it's just for a period of 20 or 30 years, and then you could try for it again. It's just inevitable that even if you keep changing things and listening to good ideas and being responsive, you will have, in some ways, become hidebound. You'll be blind to things you don't even recognize you're blind to. That's just human nature.

There's one other point - the longer you are in leadership positions, oftentimes the better you get at it. However, the one thing you get really, really good at is keeping your position. Maliciously or just because it's good management, you will be sitting on top of a complex web of patronage, personal relationships. You'll understand the leadership toolbox very well - how to head off problem people, how to stifle dissent, how to secure your position. You get very, very good at that (and I speak as someone who has had multiple leadership positions for decades at a time).

For a long term leader, it just isn't true to say that if they become bad at their job, you will be able to replace them with someone better. Because often the people who are bad at their job, are very very good at keeping their job.

In that situation, I think you have a moral responsibility to step down. As I say, it can be for an interim period - if you really are the best person for the job, if you really do still have the best ideas after all that time, you can win it back.

Gawi · August 2015

@Tharvis heh you say that you cycle through leadership that's funny. Yet look at the leadership of your city, then look at the leadership of your houses. Exactly the same! So either you had no other leadership in your city that would step up to lead your houses, or you trusted no one else.

Tharvis · August 2015

Gawi said:

@Tharvis heh you say that you cycle through leadership that's funny. Yet look at the leadership of your city, then look at the leadership of your houses. Exactly the same! So either you had no other leadership in your city that would step up to lead your houses, or you trusted no one else.

house designing talks were originally just seneschal + houseleaders, then it became regents + houseleaders. This evolved through to being founders to get everything set up in the first few weeks. I personally have no intention of keeping the position of houseleader after we're done, once someone comes along who's willing to take up the burden.

Kakotas · September 2015

Silas said:

I don't see why anybody would need to stay on as a leader for more than 30 years at a time. More than a full rl year of one guy's ideas pushing an org forward doesn't seem like a good idea for the leader or the org.

It's so nice to get a break from leadership so you can enjoy the game again without all those trifling e-responsibilities.

Some of us like those responsibilities. Not necessarily all the time but a rotational system of leadership wouldn't be a bad idea especially at the higher ranks. The only trouble is then you have to have more higher level leaders and there are very few that meet that requirement.

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories

In this Discussion

Leadership, Growing Your Org, and Stepping Down

Comments