The Types of Leaders Who Create Radical Change | Hacker News Reader

The Types of Leaders Who Create Radical Change

hbswk.hbs.edu

64 pointssds11123 comments

> Why did Occupy Wall Street subside in a matter of months, for instance, while the American Civil Rights Movement thrived, resulting in the passage of multiple laws?

This is probably the dumbest comparison we'll see out of HBR. It should be pretty clear that unavoidable discrimination and violence generation after generation is going to anger people and foster action way more than losing money.

And if you wanted to find examples in Occupy Wall Street, I'm sure there were people "agitating", "innovating", and "orchestrating". These are so squishy of terms as to be almost pointless.

Not to mention that the American Civil Rights Movement had relatively clear goals and a pretty singular focus: Ending explicit state-approved discrimination against black people.

The goals and focus of OWS weren't very clear (to me at least): Was it about ending corporate influence in politics? Was it about seeking consequences for what happened in 2008? Was it about wealth inequality? It kinda seemed to be about all of the above. How can you really rally anyone if it's not really clear what they're getting together for, other than some vague sense of being wronged?

Also, whereas the civil rights movement had measurable goals (repealing Jim Crow laws, for instance), it's hard to imagine how you measure "success" when your goal is something vague like removing corporate influence in politics.

As I recall it, OWS explicitly did not have goals as a group, this was something the common meeting (I don't recall the name) in each "camp" was supposed to work out consensually. The few (if any?) manifests that did end being adopted by this process were somewhere in the esoteric to pointless range, and by this time, the process had self selected OWS down to the members that explicitly enjoyed the process.

Bottom line, you're not going to get anything done if you don't have any objectives, and it's a lot harder to align large groups of people around specific objectives than it seems.

> the American Civil Rights Movement had relatively clear goals and a pretty singular focus

I think that describes a mature movement which, which the benefit of hindsight, is given a narrative in history books. In addition, the histories and our memories must necessarily omit most of the detail - we see the forest, not the trees and underbrush, the bogs and ravines. Reality is much messier. It's like comparing a mature company or even industry to one in its early days, when there is chaos, shifting goals day to day, and massive uncertainty.

Just off the top of my head, the civil rights movement had many conflicting groups and goals; there were the hippies, communists who tried to co-opt the movement, black nationalists who had other goals, violent left-wing radicals, labor, and many more each with their own perspective and agenda.

I don't know that the Occupy movement started less organized than successful movements; my impression is that the question is whether the movement does get organized later. There was a great amateur video clip from the last election cycle where Hillary Clinton was talking to some Black Lives Matter people; they were talking past each other, which was too bad, but Clinton was trying to advise them - a real expert and veteran of political movements providing some personal advice. She was saying that if they want to achieve their goals, they will need organize, develop certain strategies, etc. (They didn't trust her, so I don't think they were interested in advice. But now I want to find the clip and see what she said.)

Also, let's not talk about the civil rights movement in past tense, or only in context of rights for black Americans; it was and still is about rights for women, Native Americans and for everyone else too.

> It's like comparing a mature company or even industry to one in its early days, when there is chaos, shifting goals day to day, and massive uncertainty.

Sort of. The civil rights movement had a pretty clear goal from the start: Ending segregation. Brown v. Board of Education is often seen as the official "start" of the civil rights movement.

I get your point that reality is often much messier than history would dictate, but "end segregation" is a fairly clear and relatively realistic goal compared to "end wealth inequality."

> Just off the top of my head, the civil rights movement had many conflicting groups and goals; there were the hippies, communists who tried to co-opt the movement, black nationalists who had other goals, violent left-wing radicals, labor, and many more each with their own perspective and agenda.

While that's true, by the time those groups rolled around in the early 60s the civil rights movement had been in full swing for several years (and in fact the black power movement really started because of criticism of the civil rights movement).

Also, if anything this just speaks to the unity and focus of the civil rights movement: Despite these distractions, they had a clear goal that detractors couldn't derail. OWS doesn't seem to have that same focus.

> I don't know that the Occupy movement started less organized than successful movements; my impression is that the question is whether the movement does get organized later

I sincerely disagree. You're greatly downplaying the organization of, well, organizations like the NAACP during the 50s and 60s. The Montgomery bus boycott happened very early on (in 1955) and:

1) Had a clear goal (end desegregation on buses)

2) Had an appreciable negative effect on the oppressors (lost bus revenue)

3) Was extremely well-participated in

4) Lasted quite awhile (> 1 year), reflecting the perseverance of the protestors

The Zuccotti park encampments had, in comparison, none of those things (no clear goal, no negative effects, low participation, and lasted two months).

> let's not talk about the civil rights movement in past tense

You're arguing semantics, in America the "Civil Rights Movement" is pretty well understood to refer to the movement that took place in the 50s and 60s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_...

Replace Supreme Court Judges election by election until you have a majority willing to overturn McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - that would be a clear goal that's pretty darn measurable.

That's a goal that could, quite literally, take multiple generations given how supreme court appointments work.

Very few movements have so much momentum that they can bide their time for 30 years.

'tother side has put in more than 40 years, putting us in this spot. I think we can start now.

Occupy Wall Street was cleared out with tear gas, that's why it didn't work. The world has changed since the 60's; the press is much more compliant now, MLK would probably not have succeeded in the present environment. That's the problem with fighting power, you can't just keep using the same tactics over and over and expect it to work. Eventually the system adapts. Marches and rallies are completely useless these days- point to one thing the women's march accomplished, even though it was the biggest protest in us history.

Tear gas was used repeatedly on civil rights protesters, including MLK. As for marches and rallies, you only need to look back about 10 years to gay rights activists for successful major changes.

I think you’re missing the picture here.

The question is why THAT generation? That’s the question the article is answering.

The comparison is quite valid.

Occupy Wall Street was a manufactured movement, supported by Adbusters and George Soros.

The Civil Rights Movement was a genuine movement.

> supported by (...) George Soros

This does not appear to be true, according to a followup story by Reuters [1]: George Soros isn’t a financial backer of the Wall Street protests, despite speculation by critics ..

(Also see Wikipedia's article on Soros [2].)

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-wallstreet-protests-fundi... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros

(Edit: replaced Wikipedia quote with direct quote from and link to Reuters.)

Yes, Reuters themselves were conflicted on this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/reuters-f...

I’ll admit that it’s hard to prove. Soros surely didn’t fund it directly from his checking account.

I do think there’s good consensus that OCW was externally funded, and not genuinely organic.

Conspiracy theorizing. Did it have anything to do with Pizzagate? I was involved in Occupy SF, and while it was somewhat dumb and pointless, it also had very broad support in certain circles. Lots of people who weren't actually on the ground in the camps brought lots of water and food and supplies every day. Do you think all those people later submitted expense reports to Soros?

I don’t doubt that Occupy SF had broad support from “certain circles” in SF. I also don’t doubt that a significant number of everyday people joined the cause and contributed resources.

Most change is generational. Went to my city council meeting last night because I wanted to make sure new housing was approved for. There were 300ish people there, probably an average of 60. Very few people under 40, maybe 10 most.

Changes happens when old people die, and new people take over who were shaped by different generational events.

It’s frustrating in some ways, but really pleasing in others because change will come, even if it looks like it never is going to happen. It’s a healthy tension between preservation and innovation. That being said, if you’re in agitator who succeeds, you’re most likely just in the right place at the right time...

Another viewpoint is that those people in 40s become more like the people in 60s when they themselves become get older.

Please edit title. Per HN rules it should be The Types of Leaders Who Create Radical Change.

Done, thanks.

Sounds a little bit like: Leadership, Innovation, Marketing.

Yeah, it's good to have all of those three.

It's rare because when someone has one they tend to coast on it rather than investing in the others.

To be sure, there are plenty of those who criticize incessantly without offering real alternatives where alternatives would be needed, and certainly one can theorize, but what I find worrying about this article is how it seems to be worshiping at the altar of leadership and change (and effectiveness in bringing it about; even the name of the module is "Power and Influence in Society"), without evidencing the slightest concern over moral considerations. Does X need to be changed? If so, to what end and in what ways such that we are behaving morally?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com