Getting Rid of Leaders

I believe that the concept of a leader —a person who leads or commands a group of people— should be something of the past. Instead, I want to see collectives emerge which don’t need a leader.

In various disciplines, applied to different kinds of collectives, this phenomenon has been described. In philosophy, what emerges from the interaction of human minds has been called the noosphere. Collective decision making applied to democratic governance has more recently been called plurality. The concept of emergence of something new from the interaction of its parts is fundamental in complex systems science. And in biology, especially cognitive sciences, people have been referring to the collective intelligence of neurons which gives rise to the intelligence of a brain. These aren’t the only examples of collectives leading themselves. In fact, the more we look, the more it seems like they are everywhere.

Leadership, on the other hand, even when described as democratic, courageous, smart, revolutionary, strong etc., is an individualistic concept and not something we should aim for. The term leader —one who leads— describes “one” and not “a collective”.

The leader aims to represent the collective. The collective represents itself. The leader is an individual part of a collective. The collective is the relationships and interactions between individuals, and the individuals part of the collective.

Read it again: The collective is the relationships and interactions between individuals, and the individuals part of the collective. A leader leads a group of individuals. The collective “leads” the collective, meaning individuals and the relationships and interactions between individuals.

If we want a system that truly represents the collective with all its relationships, interactions and individuals, getting rid of leaders and embracing collectives lead by collectives is the way forward.