CallaFirestormBW
Posts: 3651
Joined: 6/29/2008
Status: offline
|
First, I want to say that I agree with the OP, and find the original topic to be -very- relevant, especially in cases like mine, where a larger household is both part of our history and part of our future. Specifically relating to larger authority-transfer structures, I think that the issue at hand in a hierarchical structure where one may not always have direct access to the top leadership is whether one believes that the middle leadership actually speaks for the position of the top leadership. As someone who has, at times, been active in a household of over 30 members across echelons, and even across physical distances, I can see a distinct benefit to the use of middle leadership to provide healthy contact and coverage for such a large grouping. Even in groupings a third that size or less, it is not always possible for, say, the Patriarch or Matriarch to be available to manage every crisis that comes up.
In our household, at its peak capacity, there was not always a Keeper around when there was a crisis, and there -certainly- wasn't always a member of the Council. However, diligent observation of those who provided that intermediary support, and regular opportunities to meet with each individual, regardless of hir station in our family, meant that problems were not left to fester.
The other aspect that is often neglected, yet which plays a crucial role in handling leadership in larger groups like poly households or institutions, is the delegation of authority. One crisis of action that may occur in larger households that use an intermediate management system, as ours did, is when the intermediate manager (whether a First Servant, Chatelaine, Head Butler, or Trainer) can see situations, but has no authority to act to resolve such situations. That leaves those who report to that intermediate manager feeling as if they have been thwarted, especially if they don't have access to the senior management (in our case, the Keepers). Our method of dealing with that problem was to provide the intermediate managers with the authority to do whatever they needed to in order to resolve conflicts and settle crises. They would then be required to express, in detail, what occurred and how they handled it. This gave us the opportunity to make recommendations for -future- crises, to improve outcomes (and provide training and leadership to our intermediate staff in the process), and to deal with any inappropriate response on their part that might require correction so that those beneath them did not suffer.
I think that it is only when the organization becomes so large that the top leaders lose touch with the bottom echelon completely, and believe that those 'little people' are the middle management's responsibility, not theirs -- and who also forget that, even if the immediate management of the lower echelons is delegated, they are -still- responsible for monitoring and guiding the middle leadership.
While these ideas are often geared to professional leadership issues, they also apply in household dynamics. In particular, though, where a household becomes larger than a few people and begins to require intermediate leadership in order to assure that someone is always there to deal with situations as they arise, it is true that it is crucial for the layering to not isolate the top leadership from the lowest members.
Dame Calla
< Message edited by CallaFirestormBW -- 6/14/2009 9:13:33 AM >
_____________________________
***
Said to me recently: "Look, I know you're the "voice of reason"... but dammit, I LIKE being unreasonable!!!!"
"Your mind is more interested in the challenge of becoming than the challenge of doing." Jon Benson, Bodybuilder/Trainer
|
RE: The importance of communication - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread