Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Leaders VS Idiots: how to spot them in 2 minutes (revolution power dynamics)

Love this raw footage.

It's a power dynamics pearl:

Leader: Get out of that chair (high power tasking, takes a risk, but because of his collaborative frames, "one of us" frames, and values to back up his orders, it worked well)
Protester: No, this is our chair (expected push back)
Leader: I agree with you brother (boom, early on the persuasion genius: starts by agreeing, set up collaborative frames, frames himself as "one of us", and gets close to him with the "brother") but it's not ours, it belongs to the vice president of the United States (contradicts him right after, but it's not about the words, it's about the frame within which he speaks)
Protester: (stands up from the chair, now the leader is officially a very high-status guy)
Leader: look, I love you guys (again: "I'm acting as a leader and telling you what to do, but as one of us), but we can't be disrespectful (justifies his order not as personal orders, but as part of the cause)
Protester: they can steal an election but we can't sit on his chair? (another fair and expected pushback, given the environment)
Leader: bla bla PR war bla bla ideal war, information war (now he moves deeper into values, maintains his righteous frame, provides some reasons, they're quite sensible reasons, people listen, he's more and more the leader)

Of course, everything must be read in context.
This wasn't exactly the smartest crowd of conspirators the world has ever seen -more like a bunch of kids, extremists, and idealists/naive folks-.

Yet, that leader, albeit he didn't dress the part, he acted smart, and he made all the difference.

His moderate position was a risk among a group of extremists -keep in mind those were the most extremists of the extremists who got in- , but he managed it like a champ.
Had there been a leader who shouted to people "trash everything" in his place and started doing the same, the crowd would have turned destructive.


The guy who was the most notorious face of the riots was very helpful to incite and fire up souls.
He is the crazy guy who puts his face and full conviction and acts most stupid, making all the other crimes seem "normal".

That's a very helpful role during uncertain revolutions.

That was his role.
A leadership role, too, but he wasn't providing any of the theoretical framework that would support the revolution and make people feel like everything they were doing was "fair" and "just".

And that makes the weakest -and most dangerous-, leadership role as soon as things calm down.

You can already see that even among the crows of extremists, few people if any were paying attention to him.

This was more like a walk into capital hill than a revolt, but had that been an actual revolution resulting in a coup d'etat, that guy would have been sidelined in a second.
He was so jester-style, that he might have lived, though, since he posed little threat to the actual thinking leadership.

But other less jester-style guys like him who have similar crowd-inciting roles in the revolt, they sometimes get killed by those who actually take power.
The people who take power don't want another revolt, so the first person they kill is the crazy revolutionary.

selffriend has reacted to this post.
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?