How would YOU rule?

Storge wrote: I really reacted to the imagery of loosing all my family and being stuck with a bunch of strangers. After some thought, I calmed down and started to think more about the other people with me ; we would all be devastated. I don't think laws, religion, or reason would help the group. I think group cry, hug, and talk sessions would be more appropriate. Compassion would be the foundation of the new world order.

Sorry for the first post, I tried editing the first one but I was denied access. Emotion just got the better of me, again.

Don't worry about it, its all hypothetical anyways...

Stoicism has its merits, as does the inability to establish strong ties to others...each time a family member of mine has died I carried on without shedding a tear or showing any other signs of emotional response...when need be I can be extremely cold and calculating...2 qualities needed in a strong leader during dire circumstances...just like compassion and understanding during other times...to be a leader is to be a tyrant and a diplomat in appropriate measure when called for...

You all bring up interesting points. Here are a few I can scrounge up as I think of them:

In a crisis/survival situation, people tend to be OBE - overcome by events. The situation in which they find themselves may take time to process. In some cases days or weeks. The first thing I'd do is assign simple tasks. Menial things like gathering sticks, food, shelter, etc. That does two things: Gives them something attainable to focus on, and promote a narrative that someone has their welfare in mind. Those two basic things can do a lot to stave off panic and garner support for a person or group. With some of the lower levels of Maslow's Hierarchy at least appearing to be moving in the right direction, it's time to assess what you've got to work with in terms of people. Strengths, weaknesses, motivations, needs, skills. There is no blanket rule to leadership beyond adaptability. Every group, every person presents a unique challenge and good leaders walk a tight rope toward their goals while reaching out to their supporters. I suppose I could try the tyrant method, but I've found that attaining buy-in from people is a much better way to accomplish what you want. Treat people like you want them to act. Ask for the best in them, and most will deliver. Create an environment where it is okay to learn and make mistakes, but not okay to accept anything but their best efforts. As a leader, I try to be completely honest about who I am and what my priorities are. Those who look to you will realize your falseness even before you do. They'll look to see how you handle your own failures - and fail you will. Own them publicly, do what you can to learn from them, and move on. Leaders can delegate authority, but never responsibility. In short, be the type of person you want to follow. If you can't, do everything you can to be. People will look past a LOT if they think your priorities are straight and you have their interests at heart.

So, assuming that I'm in a leadership position, I want that position, and people unanimously want me there (at least initially), I'd empower my followers. Provide a vision for them, and give them the means to take ownership of it. I view my position as a vehicle to serve common benefit. My intent is to gain support through strength of character and respect for my ability to make wise decisions.

Now let me step off my high horse, take off my rose-colored glasses, and talk some pragmatism. Ask for the best in people, but also be mindful of their worst. I use the positives when I can, and recognize and use the negatives when I must. Yes, it's a slippery slope and I have made my share of mistakes...but that is part of the mantle of leadership - walking the narrow, meandering path of leveraging the best and worst in people. Might does not necessarily make right, but there ARE worse stars to navigate by than common good.

Competence, respect, clear vision, and common priorities. Nail those down, and just about any form of governance, rule, leadership, can fly.

Very interesting topic.

First let me state that I have trained for scenarios such as this, and actually to a degree, lived in such situations.

There are a lot of things that I can digress on here but I will try to hit key points that come to mind for me.

The group needs certain things almost immediately:
-Assess the environment
-Establish the essentials for survival. What to eat, shelter, water etc…
-Give tasks to people, to help them find purpose and feel they are needed
-Ensure security of group from enemies/predators

As a leader there are several key things that are needed:
-Keep calm
-Know your group/people
-You are not the all-knowing person because you are the leader. Turn to the experts to get the best answers to the problems that arise
-Be human, and own it. If you make yourself out to be better/greater than your group you dehumanize yourself.
When time permits, around the camp fire at night, share your loss with the others as equals. Relate with the group. They will better come to you with their concerns/issues.
-Not everyone has faith, but you need to ensure that everyone is included. We all believe differently but hope is essential to survival.
-Have a loose plan that can adapt as things become know/change
-Use people’s strengths in areas needed, cover people’s weak areas with those that are strong in the particular area.

There are long term things that must also be considered.
-Will there ever be a rescue or return to civilization?
-Are we all that is left? Repopulation of the species must be considered (especially when it comes to punishment)
-Establish your laws/rules and the punishments for breaking those rules.
-Know that if you release too much control to the masses too quickly you can lose the group. As the “Leader” initially you have set up a dictatorship. Releasing authority to the masses, akin to a democracy too quickly can create a short sighted society that is doomed to fail. Caution is needed in this area. Look for strong advisors to assist in making big decisions.
-Always be firm, but fair.
-Never give preferential treatment. Treat all equally. Having particular skills does not warrant special considerations, including being the leader.

Overall, this can be a very interesting exercise, and I have used it with some of my military training with my leadership.
Be efficient, be fair, be accountable, be firm, be compassionate, and most importantly communicate. A group that does not communicate will quickly fall into confusion and dissension will be created.

There have been some very insightful and educated answers to this question and I've enjoyed reading them.

Mine would most realistically involve me doing whatever I had to do to make sure I had a bigger TV than everyone else. From there, it would be a crap shoot. :silly:

I would spy on everyone while they can't a job while they lose their homes while they can't get health care. I would apportion myself 95% of all the resources while everyone else has to share the remaining 5%. I would make everyone pay rent with no possibility of ownership for the rest of their lives. I would strip their rented land of resources and leave it barren while keeping my own pristine. I would dump all the waste in their land while prohibiting dumping on mine. I would make a house for my dog that is 10X bigger and better then their houses.

Oh and there must be lots of concrete and ornamental plants, yeah. Plus make everyone live in little hamster-cage-like homes with little tubes connecting them called hallways. Oh and there must be a little exercise room with a treadmill so I can watch them run in place through the cameras.

No, your not bitter at all..

Lorian wrote:

steamboat28 wrote: With an iron fist.

How did I know that this was going to come up?

Because, given a life-or-death decision, most people are either too panicked or too ignorant to choose the path that leads to their continued existence on their own. Sometimes it means looking at the big picture, and sometimes it means being selfish, and people in general have a hard time knowing when to be which.

Sure, it's great that you want to help that group over there because they came over with their hands out. Except, every morsel of food you give them is one you aren't eating. If they aren't willing to actively contribute to your survival, and you share your food with them, you're both just going to starve a little slower.

It seems harsh. Some would even call it "evil." But them's the breaks, folks. Harsh times necessitate swift, decisive action and harsh penalties.

steamboat28 wrote: It seems harsh. Some would even call it "evil." But them's the breaks, folks. Harsh times necessitate swift, decisive action and harsh penalties.

Yep, to a point. It's a slippery slope!! If we all went back to the basics at once, given the huge population now and stripping of surface resources, I think it would be a new dark age.

steamboat28 wrote:

Lorian wrote:

steamboat28 wrote: With an iron fist.

How did I know that this was going to come up?

Because, given a life-or-death decision, most people are either too panicked or too ignorant to choose the path that leads to their continued existence on their own. Sometimes it means looking at the big picture, and sometimes it means being selfish, and people in general have a hard time knowing when to be which.

Sure, it's great that you want to help that group over there because they came over with their hands out. Except, every morsel of food you give them is one you aren't eating. If they aren't willing to actively contribute to your survival, and you share your food with them, you're both just going to starve a little slower.

It seems harsh. Some would even call it "evil." But them's the breaks, folks. Harsh times necessitate swift, decisive action and harsh penalties.

Might work during the initial fall out and panic, but in the long run I can think of no better way to create rebellion and malcontents.