Jump to content

Hammertime

Sign in to follow this  
  • entries
    2
  • comments
    30
  • views
    3,538

Turnover

Sign in to follow this  
Ardus

311 views

Back when I was Lord of the Viridian Entente, I made a note of it to bring new faces into the upper-echelons of government. At the time of my ascension, the Entente had always been ruled by the same old guard from near its inception, which caused problems. More than anything, I blamed groupthink for the policies that led us to isolation and annihilation in the Green Civil War. Bilrow may have been responsible for pulling the trigger, but it wouldn't have been possible if not for countless missteps on our part. I also worried that the general membership would grow frustrated by immobility. Without a chance to rise through the ranks, promising talent might up and relocate to other alliances or found their own in order to sate their desire to have a turn at the top. These things were of immediate consideration when I took over during the Second Viridian Era: my Lordship was the result of a massive government exodus and positions needed filling. So rather than tap the Ministry of Awesome, a roster of Viridia's old leaders kept on hand for advice and pinch hitting, I reached down and brought up people who'd never been in high government. There were some growing pains, but the hungry youngsters more than proved themselves. It was my first decision as Lord and probably my best.

The subject of turnover pushed its way back to the front of my mind while watching the ODN elections. OsRavan had served as Secretary General of the Network for an incredible span of time and the general membership was growing restless about it. It didn't matter that he'd performed capably and led the ODN from pariah status to core member of C&G; the members didn't like the idea of one man staying on top for so long. The following election, at least from my outside perspective, appeared to be a referendum on that subject. The result of the election is ultimately inconsequential to my point, but rather I speak of it to show how democratic alliances can use their oft-criticized institutions as a channel to force turnover and keep the membership involved. Though the turnover leads to foreign policies of questionable stability, and democratic turnover can lead to very bad leaders (Vincent Xander, Ramirus, etc.) I think the internal benefits are ultimately a good thing.

Non-democratic alliances do not have such checks on term length. Leaders can stay on top as long as they want. Leaders can choose to regularly shuffle high governments or choose to keep things in place as long as possible. It falls entirely on them to try and read the general membership and make decisions accordingly. The problem is that I don't think many non-democratic leaders actually stop and think about term length. Most folks will just favor stability over change. And while stability has its advantages, on the whole I believe this to be a bad choice, both for non-democratic alliances and for CN in general.

CN is replete with stories of old leaders guiding their alliances into doom. Pacifica pre-Karma is perhaps the best example of this. The NPO, led by the same Emperor and Imperial Officers since forever, grew increasingly stagnant in diplomacy and internally. I've heard many people complain about the good ol' boy nature of Pacifica's governance and the overwhelming power of its Imperial Officers. The stagnation at the top promoted groupthink and, in the end, the NPO made horrible decisions until it was ruined in the Karma War. For other examples of failure encouraged by leadership stagnation, look at the already mentioned VE pre-GCW, GOONS pre-UjW (leadership stuck around too long, got bored, and pushed envelopes too far), or NpO pre-WotC (though Assington served a stint as Emperor).

Groupthink isn't the only problem that grows with stagnation in turnover. Bringing in new leaders from time to time can help an alliance shed past grudges and make new diplomatic moves. That's not a guaranteed benefit, as people are more than happy to argue that new leaders are just as responsible for the sins of old leaders, but in my experience I've found it to be nonetheless effective. Appointing new leaders at the very top also helps prevent an alliance from becoming a mere cult of personality. If you have the same figurehead for too long, it may undermine an alliance's ability to function without him or her. That was Egore's most notable concern back in the First Viridian Era, that the VE would just be his cult of personality and die off whenever he decided to call it quits (a concern that led to my rise to power in the alliance). Alliances should always have an identifiable face or it becomes inconsequential (lookin' at you MHA), but if the face never changes it may have dire internal consequences. I hate to think of what the impact would be if Archon ever formally stepped down, for example. I'm not sure GOD could continue to exist without Xiphosis at the helm. Nobody could fill the shoes.

Finally, stagnation at the top is terrible for CN as a whole. For one, it results in the bifurcation of the game: there's the game leaders play and the game followers play. This is true no matter what, but giving new people a chance to enter the leader game blurs the line in a beneficial manner: the new leaders develop an appreciation for the leadership game and the followers gain new, knowledgeable players in the form of former leaders. Former leaders may be loathe to return to the follower game, but I've always found the challenge of figuring things out from a general member's perspective to be fun. Second, stagnation in non-democratic alliances encourages the plethora of microalliances we see today. Since people can't climb the ladder in the blue-chip alliances, they leave to go start their own. This is an unqualified bad. The stagnation at the top is reinforced as prospective replacements leave. Meanwhile the treaty web grows more complicated as new microleaders try to wrestle into the leadership game. They almost invariably fail and simply become proxy states of other alliances.

So if you're in charge of a non-democratic alliance, look at your present roster. Is it more or less the same as it was a year ago? If so, stop and actually discuss the merits and detriments of this fact. If you choose to stay the course, that's fine, but you may find shuffling things to be surprisingly tantalizing.

Sign in to follow this  


21 Comments


Recommended Comments

The risk you always take with new gov is that they will do poorly. I've seen a few times where someone is elected gov, and they either don't do their job, don't know what they're doing, or just can't get along with people, and that can be very destructive.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I agree there are people now who have been waiting in the wings (for years in some cases) for a chance at government but the spots are filled by people who have been in the inner circle since day 1.

This game needs a more new leadership to avoid stagnation. Get a some new people in with new ideas and new and exciting things will happen.

Share this comment


Link to comment

It deserves a more in-depth analysis, but I'll just mention the possibility of a correlation between static government lineups in major alliances and the existence of many mid to small alliances.

Share this comment


Link to comment

It's funny to read about VX in hindsight. Not that I disagree with you about his failure, of course, but at the time he was a very popular leader, at least until he $%&@ed up.

I think the mark of a successful alliance is that it can transfer the leadership well. Like you said, alliances like MHA that cycle through personality-less leaders are just as poor at this as alliances with a single leader at the helm into perpetuity. On the other hand, change for the sake of change is dangerous as well. There always needs to be a balance.

Share this comment


Link to comment

It's funny to read about VX in hindsight. Not that I disagree with you about his failure, of course, but at the time he was a very popular leader, at least until he $%&@ed up.I think the mark of a successful alliance is that it can transfer the leadership well. Like you said, alliances like MHA that cycle through personality-less leaders are just as poor at this as alliances with a single leader at the helm into perpetuity. On the other hand, change for the sake of change is dangerous as well. There always needs to be a balance.

The same things that made VX exceedingly popular are what doomed him. He was idealistic, charismatic, and outspoken. That was wonderful for firing up the GATO membership, but he couldn't keep his mouth shut when he needed to most. Then again, we forget how little time he was given to work with. The span between GW2 and GW3 was the blink of an eye compared to modern timeframes. Maybe he could have turned out better.

My perception of him is heavily tainted by his effort to spook VE out of GWIII after the /b/ assault. I can't remember what words I used, but they weren't kind.

Share this comment


Link to comment

It's funny to read about VX in hindsight. Not that I disagree with you about his failure, of course, but at the time he was a very popular leader, at least until he $%&@ed up.I think the mark of a successful alliance is that it can transfer the leadership well. Like you said, alliances like MHA that cycle through personality-less leaders are just as poor at this as alliances with a single leader at the helm into perpetuity. On the other hand, change for the sake of change is dangerous as well. There always needs to be a balance.

Agreed, and I think one of the things that facilitates the successful transfer of power is having some sort of common purpose or ethic which extends beyond "we're all friends and these are our friends!". An alliance that has nothing but the leader of the day guiding it will likely either be chaotic or sclerotic, either lurching about without direction according to the whims of whoever happens to have the reins, or paralyzed because absent something guiding them, the new leadership just sits around and hopes not to screw anything up too badly.

Share this comment


Link to comment

The same things that made VX exceedingly popular are what doomed him. He was idealistic, charismatic, and outspoken. That was wonderful for firing up the GATO membership, but he couldn't keep his mouth shut when he needed to most. Then again, we forget how little time he was given to work with. The span between GW2 and GW3 was the blink of an eye compared to modern timeframes. Maybe he could have turned out better.My perception of him is heavily tainted by his effort to spook VE out of GWIII after the /b/ assault. I can't remember what words I used, but they weren't kind.

I like you.

Share this comment


Link to comment
So if you're in charge of a non-democratic alliance, look at your present roster. Is it more or less the same as it was a year ago? If so, stop and actually discuss the merits and detriments of this fact.

As a point of fact, I make this a regular point of discussion in our government. The threat of stagnation and inaction is ever present, as you correctly pointed out, and it's far too easy to slip up. I think we do a good job of it, though. The people in our government - high and low - are there for merit, not nepotism, which is key.

Share this comment


Link to comment

It deserves a more in-depth analysis, but I'll just mention the possibility of a correlation between static government lineups in major alliances and the existence of many mid to small alliances.

You're not the first to point it out, and it's probably right, although no one can say unless an actual study was done.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I'm an active member that's been working for years to break into the upper echelons of CN governance and I approve this message ^_^

Unless I really liked my superior, I'd probably move on to somewhere I could actually spread my wings a little more, in your shoes. That's just thinking back on being in lower gov, though.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I did really like my superior (except when it was FinnishCommie). More importantly, I stuck with a lower level job was because I was running a TE alliance, and doing pretty terribly at it :D

Share this comment


Link to comment

Insightful post Ardus, though I thought OsRaven took over the helm of ODN a few terms after Arsenal had already done a lot of cleanup work and gotten into C&G. Personally I prefer a autocratic system (ironic given the fact that I've spent the last year in a democratic alliance), its where I got most of my high gov experience. Having some kind of advisory council of up and coming members (Deputies and the like) and old guard (former Ministers, ect) where you actually actively seek their opinions and keep them in the loop helps the turnover issue a bit. Younger members get experience and learn from others so that they're capable when they take the responsibility of higher gov and its easier to transition standing high gov out of their roles as they still maintain a semblance of authority and remain in the loop, as such they're less likely to hold onto their gov position forever in a desire to maintain power and have access to info

Share this comment


Link to comment

Insightful post Ardus, though I thought OsRaven took over the helm of ODN a few terms after Arsenal had already done a lot of cleanup work and gotten into C&G.

All you orange team people look alike to me.

Share this comment


Link to comment
and led the ODN from pariah status to core member of C&G

Os has certainly done a bang up job as Sec-gen, however the efforts that led to ODN's progress from pariah began a long time before Os took the reins. Arguably it was the efforts of Arsenal, Joracy and others (incl. myself...not trying to sound arrogant or anything but I also put alot of work into laying that groundwork) that laid the groundwork for that. ODN's govt has always been a team effort no matter who was at the helm.

Os's efforts to build on that base have nevertheless been impressive, and if the only reason he got 'pushed' out is his length of tenure then it is pretty sad way to repay him for his efforts.

Share this comment


Link to comment
and led the ODN from pariah status to core member of C&G
Os has certainly done a bang up job as Sec-gen, however the efforts that led to ODN's progress from pariah began a long time before Os took the reins. Arguably it was the efforts of Arsenal, Joracy and others (incl. myself...not trying to sound arrogant or anything but I also put alot of work into laying that groundwork) that laid the groundwork for that. ODN's govt has always been a team effort no matter who was at the helm.Os's efforts to build on that base have nevertheless been impressive, and if the only reason he got 'pushed' out is his length of tenure then it is pretty sad way to repay him for his efforts.

I refer you to my previous post.

Share this comment


Link to comment
and led the ODN from pariah status to core member of C&G
Os has certainly done a bang up job as Sec-gen, however the efforts that led to ODN's progress from pariah began a long time before Os took the reins. Arguably it was the efforts of Arsenal, Joracy and others (incl. myself...not trying to sound arrogant or anything but I also put alot of work into laying that groundwork) that laid the groundwork for that. ODN's govt has always been a team effort no matter who was at the helm.Os's efforts to build on that base have nevertheless been impressive, and if the only reason he got 'pushed' out is his length of tenure then it is pretty sad way to repay him for his efforts.

Joracy had nothing to do with anything that had a positive effect on the ODN.

Share this comment


Link to comment

to bad you didn't consider this when you left VE for the last time and just kept shuffling old people into IA over and over. probably also part of the reason why it seems to turn over a lot now, since a lot of the people who were qualified to take over (a lot more then just me) moved on due to the lack of turnover to anyone but old people.

Share this comment


Link to comment
Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...