Organizational Model: Freedom Vs. Limitation

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Organizational Model: Freedom Vs. Limitation

Drealm
This post was updated on .
I think every organization leans toward being free or limiting. So I'd like to discuss where CoAlpha Brotherhood sits on this spectrum.

To start I'll list several organizational models and describe their level of freedom versus limitation. I'll proceed from more free to more limited. At the end I'll describe where I think CoAlpha Brotherhood currently is and what model I think suits CoAlpha Brotherhood best.

Level 1 (Very Free): Annual Fee Organizations --- Examples: Gym Membership, Country Club, Library, ect

The only requirement for this organization is an annual members fee. This organization is very free because it does not limit personal beliefs. This organization also does not require any activity.

PROS:
- Easy to build membership.
- Easy to keep membership.
- No time commitments required.
- No restrictions on beliefs.

CONS:
- Easy to lose membership.
- No benefit gained from other members.
- No long term purpose or goal.
- No collective purpose or goal.
- Longevity unstable due to being based solely on business.
- Potential conflicts among members with different ideas/beliefs.

REAL WORLD EXAMPLES:
- Netflix
- 24 Hour Fitness

Level 2 (Less Free): Idea Organizations --- Examples: Political Parties, Activist Groups, ect

These groups will only include members who's ideas match the organization's ideas. However it's important to stress that ideas aren't enforced. A person can be a member of this group, yet not actively follow in any of it's ideas. Sometimes these groups do request donations or time commitments, but mostly on a voluntary basis.

PROS:
- Less conflicts between members about ideas.
- Collective purpose and goal.
- Members offer basic teamwork.
- Longevity more stable due to being based on ideas.
- Longevity of members more dependable.
- Higher level of commitment from members.

CONS:
- Fewer members.
- Hard to build membership.
- Possible time commitments.
- Soft restrictions on ideas.
- Limited ability to execute goals.

REAL WORLD EXAMPLES:
- Republicans/Democrats
- Sierra Club
- NRA

Level 3 (Moderately Limiting): Action Organizations --- Examples: Military, Business, ect

These organizations require skills first and foremost. However these organizations also usually carry a group culture. The group's culture only exists to maintain cohesion. A member will be in good standing as long as they follow the group's culture while in the group's presence. The culture usually isn't personal and therefore is not practiced outside of the group. Members are paid wages to be members. While members may value the group's purpose or goal they will usually leave the group if no longer paid wages.

PROS:
- Members have the resources to execute a collective purpose and goal.
- Members offer advanced teamwork.
- Members only depend on other members.

CONS:
- Membership limited those with relevant skills.
- Group culture takes precedence over personal ideas while in presence of other members.
- Potential conflicts among members with different ideas/beliefs.
- Member longevity based on wages paid to members.

REAL WORLD EXAMPLES:
- Army, National Guard, Marines, Air force, Navy
- Apple
- Toyota

Level 4 (Very Limiting): Movement Organizations --- Examples: Terrorists, Religions, ect

These organizations are a combination of levels 2 and 3. These organizations have common ideas found in idea organizations and also a high level of teamwork found in action organizations. Level 4 organizations differ from level 2 organizations in that ideas among members are enforced. Level 4 organizations differ from level 3 organizations in that members do not receive wages or join with the intention to receive wages.

PROS:
- Members have the resources to execute a collective purpose and goal.
- Members offer very advanced teamwork.
- Members only depend on other members.
- No conflicts between members.
- Extremely dedicated members.

CONS:
- Severe restrictions on ideas.
- Some limitations on fraternization with non-members.
- Very dependent on other members.

REAL WORLD EXAMPLES:
- Catholic Church
- IRA
- Al Qaeda

Level 5 (Severely Limiting): Lifestyle Organizations --- Examples: Cults

Level 5 organizations are similar to level 4 organizations. However level 5's differ from level 4's in that level 4's allow members to fraternize with non-members. Level 5 organizations are the only organization that outlaws fraternization with non-members.

PROS:
- Members have massive resources to execute a collective purpose and goal.
- Most advanced level of teamwork.
- Members only depend on other members.
- No conflicts between members.
- Fanatical members.

CONS:
- Severe restrictions on ideas.
- Severe limitations on fraternization with non-members.
- Very dependent on other members.
- Potentials for abuse.
- Lack of individualism.
- Extreme homogeneity can lead to loss of creativity, which weakens the group long term.

REAL WORLD EXAMPLES:
- Jehovah Witnesses
- Mormons

Conclusion:

All 5 levels of organizations have their pros and cons. As a rule of thumb the more limiting an organization is the more effectively it can achieve it's purpose and goals. However there's a necessary drawback to limitation, members will need to sacrifice personal goals for groups goals.

CoAlpha Brotherhood as it stands now most closely resembles a level 2 organization with aspirations for becoming a level 4 organization.

I find it very tempting to argue for CoAlpha Brotherhood becoming a level 5 organization, but ultimately I think level 5 organization's betray CoAlpha Brotherhoods core mission. I view part of CoAlpha Brotherhood's mission as restoring the family unit and family lineage. Level 5 organizations necessarily seek to destroy families and replace families with members who operate as surrogate families.

Therefor I think level 4 organizations suit CoAlpha Brotherhood best. Level 4 organizations have a high level of teamwork but still allow for some amount of private beliefs and fraternization.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Organizational Model: Freedom Vs. Limitation

fschmidt
Administrator
Great post, Drealm.  I have been thinking a lot about these issues myself recently.  At present, CoAlpha Brotherhood is simply inactive, not even level 2.  The reason for this is exactly to your point, that a level 2 organization is basically useless, so why bother.  Better to just leave CoAlpha as an inactive group gathering members until we can figure out how to make it more like a level 4 group.

One key question is how closely tied values are to ideas.  You describe level 4 as having "severe restrictions on ideas", but my question is can't the restrictions be on actions as determined by values rather than be on ideas themselves?  Most civic law regulates actions, not ideas.  But most religions regulate ideas.  One fascinating exception is the Noahide movement.  This is based on religion but primarily regulates action.  I have been studying this recently to see if it may be useful to CoAlpha.  One of the 7 Noahide laws is the requirement to have and enforce laws.  I see this as absolutely key to having any meaningful group that is more than just talk.
Following the Old Testament, not evil modern culture
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Organizational Model: Freedom Vs. Limitation

Drealm
fschmidt wrote
Great post, Drealm.  I have been thinking a lot about these issues myself
recently.  At present, CoAlpha Brotherhood is simply inactive, not even
level 2.  The reason for this is exactly to your point, that a level 2
organization is basically useless, so why bother.  Better to just leave
CoAlpha as an inactive group gathering members until we can figure out how
to make it more like a level 4 group.

One key question is how closely tied values are to ideas.  You describe
level 4 as having "severe restrictions on ideas", but my question is can't
the restrictions be on actions as determined by values rather than be on
ideas themselves?
  Most civic law regulates actions, not ideas.  But most
religions regulate ideas.  One fascinating exception is the Noahide movement
.  This is based on religion but primarily regulates action.  I have been
studying this recently to see if it may be useful to CoAlpha.  One of the 7
Noahide laws is the requirement to have and enforce laws.  I see this as
absolutely key to having any meaningful group that is more than just talk.
I should of been clearer when I said level 4 groups have "severe restrictions on ideas". What I actually meant was level 4 groups severe restrictions on both ideas and actions.

You make a good distinction between actions and ideas. Members can follow the same actions while believing in different ideas. An example of this would be members from muslim, hindu, jewish and christian backgrounds whom all worship different faiths yet follow a common restriction on actions like adultery.

As long as a member's ideas don't translate into restrictive actions, members can be very free thinkers and even have opposing ideas. This would be the best of both worlds.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Organizational Model: Freedom Vs. Limitation

Drealm
A realization just occurred to me. There's only two types of laws:

1. Laws that restrict action.

Example: From Noahidism

"You shall not commit any of a series of sexual prohibitions, which include adultery, incest, anal intercourse between men and bestiality."

2. Laws that mandate action.

Example: From CoAlpha Code

"Members must get DNA paternity tests for their children that they support."

-----

1. Are more passive laws. You can abide by these laws by simply doing nothing.

2. Requires action. You'll be in violation of a law simply through doing nothing.

I think 1. laws are less intrusive as opposed to 2. laws, which are easier to become abusive.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Organizational Model: Freedom Vs. Limitation

fschmidt
Administrator
Yes, I mentioned this distinction yesterday here:

http://messiahtruth.yuku.com/reply/42858/t/Atheism-.html#reply-42858

Of Noah's laws, 6 are negative and 1 is positive.

But sometimes the distinction isn't so clear.  For example "don't dress provocatively" is the same as "dress modestly".  The point is that when "do not ..." includes the default case (naked in this case), then it becomes positive.

Laws that attempt to be universal should tend towards the more flexible negative laws.  But laws for a small forming group should include positive laws that force action and demonstrate commitment.
Following the Old Testament, not evil modern culture