The notorious toxicity of small group power dynamics and how World Lab strives to avoid them

Unfortunately, like cliques in high school, small groups and communities are notorious for easily becoming unfriendly environments.

Stories about homeowners associations over-policing communities and online forums like Stack Exchange or Reddit punishing people for asking reasonable questions all come from a similar root. 

By understanding that shared root and admitting that we are all susceptible to these problems, we're able to ensure our community remains cohesive. 

This article will address how a small group can remain productive in a world-place-like environment. 

Understanding the motivation

From a young age, all of us are wired to desire the easy life, the path of least resistance. At Agora Genesis we understand that reversing the desire for the easy life is the key to an impactful life. We embrace discipline and hardship that drives excellence for the sake of impact. 

However, it's the desire for the easy life that causes the aforementioned community issues. 

Society generally gives respect, deference, and a voice to those who work hard and accomplish great things. However, there are some who seek the fruits of excellence without the hardship of excellence. 

Work

• A community that upholds people who speak confidently is a community destined to fall.
• A community that upholds those who demonstrate results is a community destined to succeed.

The reason is the hardship that creates results delivers the humility necessary to wield the related influence.

By linking a person's influence to their tangible contribution we create a society focused on results.

Voice

By giving everyone a voice in decisions we can create a culture of general accountability for decisions made by those who the wield aforementioned influence, placing a second check on power. 

In the spaces in which Agora serves Boundless the rules of World Lab take precedence until Agora's graduation from Boundless. 

Types of power trips

There are several different power trips to understand and successfully counter. 

The feedback power trip

When a person gives feedback on any subject, it can become a power trip if they use the opportunity to gain attention rather than offering constructive insights for genuine improvement and collective success.

Understanding human nature reveals that feedback motivations can be multiple or shifting, sometimes starting good but souring or vice-versa. 

Generally attributes of good feedback are that it: 

• Does not assign malicious intent (unless provable). See Halons Razor.
• Offers well-thought-through solutions to the problems.
• If offered on the appropriate platform. 
• Is generally done with a good attitude.

Bad feedback often: 

• Assigns malicious intent.
• Is always put in the most visible place even if that's not the most helpful forum. 
• Is unyielding and repetitive, as the goal is to gain attention.
• Mentions issues without offering solutions. 
• Embraces a "just cause" to assign emotional appeal rather than factual reform

In a forum where you want to give everyone a voice, it's important to value feedback, whether good or bad, as even bad feedback can have nuggets of useful reform material. 

The overblown slight

When a person is censured because of their behavior, it's easy to internalize this as a potential "just cause" to gain respect. 

Slight = right powertrip.

Such people when given power can easily abuse that power as shortcut to gaining respect. 

Here at Agora we embrace the hardship of excellence for the love of excellence.

These dynamics can easily play out in online workplaces like ours unless we pre-empt them. 

In World LabBy giving everyone a voice in decisions and by talking things through with the community we can create a culture of general accountability and decision-making rooted in collective agency. 

Unlike in Agora, World Lab is a workplace, and workplaces cannot operate by the same principles as communities.

Whereas you can still give people a voice, a lot of deference has to be given to expertise.

It's essential that people mention that they are not an expert in a particular field before they speak up with feedback on that field, so as to not skew an argument based on the loudest but the most informed voice.

Instead of giving everyone ownership over all decisions, workplaces give people a voice within pre-defined areas of expertise while allowing outside voices to serve as a source of out-of-the-box ideas.  

Unfortunately, in a workplace, it's much easier to go on an accidental power trip by simply being too assertive in a space in which you don't realize the degree of expertise needed to speak up. 

The secrecy necessary to protect private data, deal with ongoing negotiations or litigation, inherently make the same level of openness difficult.

However, enfranchising people to speak up is critical.