# Leader or Follower



## Guest (Jul 3, 2014)

how do you define yourself in a SHTF scenario regarding influence? will you avoid other people all together..happy hermit, will you follow a strong leader, or will you be that leader? does attempting to set up a community based on equality sound good to you? I personally would try to set up a community based on equality and hard work. problem is you will have a group of physically stronger trained individuals who would serve as security and warriors in most cases..how would you prevent them from taking control and turning it into a oligarchy. How would you punish crimes in a community? for example would you banish offenders from the group if they stole or assaulted someone without just cause.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Until a centralized government is back in place (that I agree with), I will happily stay out of any group. I will lead my family, and any close friends that seek my help, but that's it.


----------



## omegabrock (Jun 16, 2014)

i don't mind being the leader or following someone more knowledgeable than i am but i don't react well to people telling me to do things their way when i can't see the logic in their way. i am fine being on my own (with family) or a small select few i served with. i would, however, like to find a small circle of like minded people and if i was to find one, considering i am still extremely new to this lifestyle, i would most likely take a back seat...until i felt i had enough knowledge to lead


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

I have done well in both roles. I have been a loyal and dependable sailor, then a leader, then a patrolman and now a Police Supervisor. I would be happy to work for a leader, but he or she had better be a strong one or it's coup'detat time. I can't work for a zombie though..........That's a definite no go...........no zombies.


----------



## budgetprepp-n (Apr 7, 2013)

I want to go with a community set up
How keep the warriors in check- Respect them and feed them well and let know it's all already part theirs.
we work and grow the food they protect it. We need each other. we all eat it 

Be a leader? I don't want to be a leader but I would like to be involved if possible. 

punishment for stealing? I can't see killing them. I guess banishment maybe with a tattoo that says "thief" somewhere
so we know even in years they can't get back in. 
smaller crimes? let the people decide these punishment one at a time in a town hall meeting 


slavery? I'm just saying,,,,,,better than death 
we would need to keep our moral compass pointed north and respect each other and praise God
But some nasty warriors at the same time. Don't underestimate a Christian warrior


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> Until a centralized government is back in place (that I agree with), I will happily stay out of any group. I will lead my family, and any close friends that seek my help, but that's it.


I've been a loner for the majority of my life, I don't see that changing.
I agree with Kauboy.


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2014)

an addition: for those of you who would not be a part of a community...would you consider an alliance of sorts? say a danger is present in the area. the community seeks out the loners on terms of military alliance. likewise if the loners need help and ask, the community would send aid. ^^ just wondering the mentality here..thanks to all for input


----------



## 2Tim215 (Jun 19, 2014)

The problem in a SHTF scenario is that the leader would more than likely be the strongest and most ruthless person - look at history. There would be no room for wisdom, compassion and mercy. Strong individuals would be seen as a threat and more than likely dealt with sooner than later. The most likely scenario would be small clans of like minded people or family groups at tribal war with one another over resources. Showing mercy to the starving would be a death sentence to the group and it would take a special kind of person to do that and make those kind of decisions without being changed or corrupted by them. And if you are now in a prepping group dedicated to sticking together with a possible leader or leaders in mind, you would be surprised how ultimate power would corrupt these individuals either through power lust or the stress of just surviving.



Kauboy said:


> Until a centralized government is back in place (that I agree with), I will happily stay out of any group. I will lead my family, and any close friends that seek my help, but that's it.


I agree with the above unless you are lucky enough to be in a prepared community with a forum of voted leaders that are all equal, but even this can be corrupted if the voters are stupid - as you already know :-D


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

None of the above.

Being a trader has served me well this far through my life. I cannot see why I should change my entire personality just because the world turns to shit. Mrs Inor can attest that I am not capable of following even the simplest instructions. Being a leader of anything but my immediate family holds no interest for me. I have no desire to be responsible for the well being of anybody outside of my family and I do not want to be held responsible for the stupid mistakes of others. I enjoy hanging out with intelligent people too much to be a hermit unless I end up surrounded by Democrats when the SHTF. So, I will just bop along happily trading my skills and supplies with other well-intentioned traders. And if a situation arises that requires a common defense, as Ted Kennedy would say: We'll drive off that bridge when we come to it.


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2014)

budgetprepp-n said:


> I want to go with a community set up
> How keep the warriors in check- Respect them and feed them well and let know it's all already part theirs.
> we work and grow the food they protect it. We need each other. we all eat it
> 
> ...


Problem is though if you treat the soldiers different than say farmers they will begin to feel superior..leading the way to oligarchy

edit: maybe have it like the israeli army where everyone must be a soldier...sort of spartan mentality


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2014)

Inor said:


> None of the above.
> 
> Being a trader has served me well this far through my life. I cannot see why I should change my entire personality just because the world turns to shit. Mrs Inor can attest that I am not capable of following even the simplest instructions. Being a leader of anything but my immediate family holds no interest for me. I have no desire to be responsible for the well being of anybody outside of my family and I do not want to be held responsible for the stupid mistakes of others. I enjoy hanging out with intelligent people too much to be a hermit unless I end up surrounded by Democrats when the SHTF. So, I will just bop along happily trading my skills and supplies with other well-intentioned traders. And if a situation arises that requires a common defense, as Ted Kennedy would say: We'll drive off that bridge when we come to it.


Are you open to alliance even though you would be your own nation so to speak?


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

nightshade said:


> Are you open to alliance even though you would be your own nation so to speak?


I am plenty open to trade with anybody that needs what I have to offer and has something I need in return. That forms the basis of a mutually beneficial relationship. If that grows over time and a trust and/or friendship is developed, sure.


----------



## SAR-1L (Mar 13, 2013)

So myself and a couple buddies one is active military the other is former military + PMC, are working to put together a 4 - 5 man fireteam.
But we look at it from the attitude of a Band of Brothers, equal, and looking out for the well being of each others family.

I feel that is probably the best set up you can have. 

If things went down and myself and the guys couldn't meet up then it comes to just me trying to find my way
these are the factors as they stand.

1. I am 6'4 and 250lbs, I am constantly asked if I am military or did I just get back from deployment. ( I am just a civilian. )
2. When I was in school, I wasn't social, I thought most the other kids were cruel little shits.
3. Over the years I have developed social charisma and ability to get people to like me. ( I feel real face to face social skills today are the fastest decaying/rarity there is atm, thanks to facebook and shit. )
4. Part of #1 I carry a presence/stature of authority both vocally and physically.
5. I can chew your ass and make you like it, offering a constructive criticism both firm but lighthearted.
6. I have many practical/tangible skills to offer both in handy work and in scenarios which require combat.

Do I want to be a leader, no. Could I be yes, due to work experience organizing teams and managing projects.
Do I want to follow, depends if I respect the man, but don't expect me to act against my conscious and morals.

I don't want to be a loner though, that is a fast way to lose, none of us have enough piss n vinegar alone to face
all the threats out there. But I would want my group to be fairly small, definitely under the radar. Cause I firmly
believe the best way to outlast a threat is to avoid it, and if you can't avoid then attack when opportunity smiles
in your favor. 

Half ass nothing, fight only the fights you can win.


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2014)

SAR-1L said:


> So myself and a couple buddies one is active military the other is former military + PMC, are working to put together a 4 - 5 man fireteam.
> But we look at it from the attitude of a Band of Brothers, equal, and looking out for the well being of each others family.
> 
> I feel that is probably the best set up you can have.
> ...


I wouldn't want to be a leader either, but if i saw weakness i would step up to protect myself and the family. My only worry is about quality and not quantity.


----------



## bigdogbuc (Mar 23, 2012)

Unfortunately, in a SHTF/WROL scenario, at least initially (first 12 months or so), a democracy is not going to work. Even if you have a team as SAR described, and it is equal, eventually, someone will emerge as a leader. Their input will carry far more weight, and others in the group will tend to follow. You make decisions together, and whether you have four or four hundred, you will have as many opinions. Out of those, one "idea" will emerge victorious. Or you will have chaos and be right back at square one. 

Even on this forum, we have general discussions about things that we "generally" agree upon, in an "overall sense", and I have then watched more "technical discussion" develop on a subject and watched the thread spiral out of control, to what would amount to an Internet version of a Bar Room Brawl. And not just because I introduced Monkey Porn into it. 

In a community, there has to be a leader. And as others have stated, it is probable that you will wind up with someone who is ruthless and cruel. If you're lucky, you wind up with someone who has natural leadership ability and a sense of compassion and empathy. At some point it will be challenged, and that person will have to either deal with it in a quick and orderly fashion, or submit. That's it. 

The other problem I see with today's society is "I'm gonna' git mine". Regardless the cost, personally or morally. You will have those who simply go along because it is in THEIR best interest, based on their values, or lack of for that matter, and not so much the community. 

Basically what it boils down to, in my humble opinion, is the world is full of two very dangerous kinds of people; Those that need to be in control, and those who have a need to be controlled. I think many of us sit somewhere in the middle. I know I do. I have been the worker bee, I have been the Queen Bee. I prefer looking out for me and mine. 

And with the number of frickin' kids I have, I already have a community. And I am their ruler! :grin:


----------



## budgetprepp-n (Apr 7, 2013)

I would think a lot would depend on the people. Not all people are the same when they come from different places in the
United States. The people down here will be just fine on there own the biggest threat will come from the outside world. 

Here in the Appalachian mountains the mountain people are not like the city people at all.
I think trade and alliances will happen fairly quickly between the small towns. 
I think you would need to live here to understand. 

The people (********, hillbilly's and mountain people) are the most kind and caring folks probably in the world.
But also the quickest to kill if the need arises. 
And yes all three are different. But all three are like a sleeping badger --caution do not poke with stick


----------



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

Real leaders realize they work for those they lead. My job as a leader is to make sure they have the tools, training, and time they need, then get out of their way and let them do their jobs.

I could follow if the leader was competent enough. Since most people are idiots, I usually end up leading. However, there will always be people with specialized skills in specific areas who will need to be tapped for info. Leaders know the strengths and weaknesses of their people and use them to best advantage.

As far as punishments... There probably should be some "written" rules for the group, but they would need to be minimal and common-sense based. For any serious infractions, rather than depend on written rules, I would like to see a consensus or 75% super majority based community meeting to decide the fate of the accused. This avoids the possibility of someone wiggling through legal loopholes.


----------



## sparkyprep (Jul 5, 2013)

I will lead my family to survival, and prosperity. I have no interest in leading a larger group of people, although I would be good at it. My leadership skills propelled me to the top of my company, and, in my opinion, my industry. However, as a leader, I acknowledge the fact that I would not, and could not, have done as well without an outstanding team, made of outstanding individuals, following my lead.

In a SHTF scenario, with a larger group of people, you will have to make due with what you have in the people department. I have no intrest in "making due" when it comes to my continued survival.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

Less prepared folks would automatically have less status than prepared, more heavily armed people. Most preppers, as I have gathered from reading posts, are not that willing to give up control of their hard earned stores to the 800 lb gorilla in the room. A persons physical size has no affect to me, being big and fit is no measure of their competence. All things equal, I don't really want to be part of a "mini-government". Rules are likely made for the peasant, and exclude the Kings. Trying times force people to take desperate and out of character actions. my .02 The self-preservation thing kicks in.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

Maybe we need to define "larger group vs smaller group" Just to get us all on the same page. Can't be talking apples and oranges and make any sense. jmo.


----------



## redhawk (May 7, 2014)

Kauboy said:


> Until a centralized government is back in place (that I agree with), I will happily stay out of any group. I will lead my family, and any close friends that seek my help, but that's it.


I agree, but if it does come to being in "community" setting, I believe it would be best to have leaders for each sub-section ie: medical, security, gathering, hunting etc.


----------



## shotlady (Aug 30, 2012)

I can do both. if I know what im doing, leader. if you know what im doing better than I do or are the one giving orders, follower with the proper advance directives. I tend to exercise myself with right discernment and humility. I can do either role nicely.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

I learned a long time ago, you wanna make God laugh? Tell Him what your plans are.

I will be where he wants me and do what I need to do.


----------



## Mike45 (Dec 29, 2013)

I would do my best to stay the happy hermit. In situations like that, strong leaders will start to impose their own laws-or at least try to-and no thank you to that mess.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

As an E-4 and E-5 in the Army I have been a section leader. For the last decade I have been a warehouse manager.
In the Army, it was just part of the deal. As a civilian manager it was about making enough money to support myself and a wife unable to work for the last twenty years.
I have no interest in being a leader of anybody, anymore. I'm almost done with that. Almost.
I am not a good follower either.


----------



## SquirrelBait (Jun 6, 2014)

Lead, Follow, Alone, Or with a team. I just play my zone come what may...


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

While I have a lot of knowledge, I don't think I could handle leading a group unless they were totally clueless. I guess that means I better brush up on my leadership skills


----------



## Old SF Guy (Dec 15, 2013)

Well I was an E-5 or higher for 18 of my 20 years in. I have followed and I have lead. Leading is a whole lot harder. Why? the burden of responsibility. Can I lead? Yes. Will I lead? My family...yes....others? Well yes if they want to go in my direction and accept it. Otherwise they are free to follow their own path. Would I lead a larger group? To a point, but at a certain point in size a Government must be set up that meets the needs of the people and that would need to be elected. I would not seek an elected position. Bottom line I lead my family and those who wish to follow me by their own free choosing. Otherwise we just go our different ways.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

Like Old SF Guy, I was an NCO for 17 years of my 20 year career. I would prefer not to lead anyone outside of my family. A few Senior NCOs and I used to joke around about getting a job mowing the grass on the airfield so some 18 year old kid could worry about what we were doing all day. I prefer to be left alone, I am done leading people to which I am not family.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

nightshade said:


> how do you define yourself in a SHTF scenario regarding influence? will you avoid other people all together..happy hermit, will you follow a strong leader, or will you be that leader? does attempting to set up a community based on equality sound good to you? I personally would try to set up a community based on equality and hard work. problem is you will have a group of physically stronger trained individuals who would serve as security and warriors in most cases..how would you prevent them from taking control and turning it into a oligarchy. How would you punish crimes in a community? for example would you banish offenders from the group if they stole or assaulted someone without just cause.


Good question. I would advocate an (odd number total) Leadership Council made up of individuals with unique skills with a person elected as Leader with the final vote. While I believe that "All Men Were Created Equal", all men do not end up with Equal Skills, Knowledge, Character etc. I would have no problem sitting on the Leadership Council if asked but would probably not want to be the Leader.

The Security/Warriors need to have a Strong Leader that most certainly has a seat on the Leadership Council. Many of you are Warriors or have been Warriors and one thing my experience has shown, is that Good Warriors with Great Character become Great Men. Great Warriors with Bad Character often become dead or incarcerated.

Those accused of crimes will be tried by the people. I have no problem banishing certain people but also realize that some are better off dead than banished.

If we can please hold off TEOTWAWKI for about 10 years, I'll be too old and gray to matter then I would like to be the Wise Old Sage (Consultant) to the Group and talk in abstract parables mixing wisecracks with a wink every now and again.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

^^^ What he said ^^^


----------



## ordnance21xx (Jan 29, 2014)

Don't know until it happens. like to think I'm a leader but. I have land, with plenty of water on it. There is were I will be until. I am however, not a sheep.


MOLON LABE


----------



## Pir8fan (Nov 16, 2012)

nightshade said:


> how do you define yourself in a SHTF scenario regarding influence? will you avoid other people all together..happy hermit, will you follow a strong leader, or will you be that leader? does attempting to set up a community based on equality sound good to you? I personally would try to set up a community based on equality and hard work. problem is you will have a group of physically stronger trained individuals who would serve as security and warriors in most cases..how would you prevent them from taking control and turning it into a oligarchy. How would you punish crimes in a community? for example would you banish offenders from the group if they stole or assaulted someone without just cause.


One things certain. I won't follow anyone. I would want a leadership role in a group that operates with a committee leadership structure whether that committee is appointed by the group or elected by the group.


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

So far I don't see anyone wanting be the Obama after the SHTF. It's nice to see that WE don't have delusions of grandeur.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

There is a basic problem with any one person "leading" a group. Farmers and ranchers have a common mindset that separates them from most. They are willing to work hard for what they get (not what they want - what they get). City dwellers want to put in their time so they can get what they want and warriors (not military but the kind of people who have always found a way to fight for what they want) - or at least those that I have known always use force to reach their goals. There is little common ground between these three ideologies and less reason for them to work as a unit to get things done. The "leader" would have to have the respect of each group - he or she would have to be a warrior or the fighting force would not respect his leadership. If the fighting force wanted more than what they were getting it would be easy for them to force their desires on the other people. The ranchers and farmers would know that they were feeding everyone which is the most important job in the community. Would the warriors help in the fields? Would city folk be willing to work the 14 and 16 hour days required to keep food production where it is supposed to be? 

A community would have to be run like a family - not like a town. That will limit the size of groups initially except for the groups run by warriors. Those groups would be controlled through force and fear. Even with the best of military leaders respect would fall to the background as enemies were dealt with. We have seen this happen in every small and large country in the world, A little power grows a desire for more power. Therefore if you wanted something that would work for a community larger than an extended family you would need strict definitions of power and defined rights. There would need to be no "standing army" that could force their will on others. Everyone in the group would have to be ready and capable of protecting themselves and the group. There would have to be a document that each individual could point to and say "that is my right and responsibility" and when someone over-reaches they can say - NO! and get it corrected immediately even if it is the guy in charge. 

I wouldn't want to lead a community and I would be wary of being a part of a community. I would be open to trading but under certain conditions as I would find it difficult to trust a large community. I can get to know an individual - and thereby learn to trust that individual, but a community? not so sure.

No man is an island unto himself - or so it is said - but any group would have to prove to me that my rights and freedoms were as important to the group and its leadership as they are to me.


----------



## Old SF Guy (Dec 15, 2013)

You know Paul got me thinking...What is the rationale behind leadership...Why do people take it on...what is the motivation? For a real family it's love and honor....We love our families and we want them to honor it (our family) we teach it thru leadership. We show our elder children how to lead, love, and honor the younger children so that they too can become leaders. SO in a family it's sometimes hard love, but with a mind towards fostering the next leaders. In the military it's purely leadership to achieve objectives. We understand that some may not make it. This is where it differs from the family leadership. We understand that their may be a huge sacrifice so our leadership is more general and more about teaching larger groups. About achieving specific objectives that have nothing to do with individual safety, but rather collective advancement. It's more in line with the large group or township mentality. Political leadership...although necessary in someways is the least important early on and the most important later. It is centric in nature. It's focus is entirely on collectivism. How many people can I get to agree with me. It often devolves into lies and distortions, but it brings our society into individual decisions to achieve a collective majority. Unfortunately along with that is often the lack of accountability for those decisions and that is where we go wrong repeatedly. Politicians have the sole objective of remaining relevant for the longest amount of time...so morally they are subjective. It is through political activities that we adjust those moral views. ..Tea party...Occupy...etc...he who is most active is most influential. So When I hear people talk of leaders...I am sometimes motivated to raise my hand to volunteer, then also encouraged to raise it in defense...then equally enraged to raise it in offense. So the whole leadership debate is very confusing for this old SF Guy.


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

nightshade said:


> ...How would you punish crimes in a community? for example would you banish offenders from the group if they stole or assaulted someone without just cause.


This clip from *Survivors* begins with group members voting on whether to banish or execute a young retarded guy whom they suspect of strangling a woman to death.
I won't give away the ending, it's only a shortish clip so watch it during a coffee break or something..






PS- SPOILER ALERT- on second thoughts I'd better reveal the end in case youtube pull the vid in the future (it's a habit of theirs)-
The group vote to execute him (gunshot at 3:50) but surprise surprise-- they later find he was innocent and another member (Tom Price) done the murder


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2014)

Lucky Jim said:


> This clip from *Survivors* begins with group members voting on whether to banish or execute a young retarded guy whom they suspect of strangling a woman to death.
> I won't give away the ending, it's only a shortish clip so watch it during a coffee break or something..
> 
> 
> ...


interesting all the women who weren't the leader voted banishment and all the men voted death. The leader should have pulled the trigger imo. It has a good message in it to be very thorough in the investigations and not be to rash in deciding the fate of the defendant.


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2014)

Slippy said:


> Good question. I would advocate an (odd number total) Leadership Council made up of individuals with unique skills with a person elected as Leader with the final vote. While I believe that "All Men Were Created Equal", all men do not end up with Equal Skills, Knowledge, Character etc. I would have no problem sitting on the Leadership Council if asked but would probably not want to be the Leader.
> 
> The Security/Warriors need to have a Strong Leader that most certainly has a seat on the Leadership Council. Many of you are Warriors or have been Warriors and one thing my experience has shown, is that Good Warriors with Great Character become Great Men. Great Warriors with Bad Character often become dead or incarcerated.
> 
> ...


Usually the ones who do not want leadership are the best suited to lead...there is always room for the half-mad but brilliant adviser


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2014)

PaulS said:


> There is a basic problem with any one person "leading" a group. Farmers and ranchers have a common mindset that separates them from most. They are willing to work hard for what they get (not what they want - what they get). City dwellers want to put in their time so they can get what they want and warriors (not military but the kind of people who have always found a way to fight for what they want) - or at least those that I have known always use force to reach their goals. There is little common ground between these three ideologies and less reason for them to work as a unit to get things done. The "leader" would have to have the respect of each group - he or she would have to be a warrior or the fighting force would not respect his leadership. If the fighting force wanted more than what they were getting it would be easy for them to force their desires on the other people. The ranchers and farmers would know that they were feeding everyone which is the most important job in the community. Would the warriors help in the fields? Would city folk be willing to work the 14 and 16 hour days required to keep food production where it is supposed to be?
> 
> A community would have to be run like a family - not like a town. That will limit the size of groups initially except for the groups run by warriors. Those groups would be controlled through force and fear. Even with the best of military leaders respect would fall to the background as enemies were dealt with. We have seen this happen in every small and large country in the world, A little power grows a desire for more power. Therefore if you wanted something that would work for a community larger than an extended family you would need strict definitions of power and defined rights. There would need to be no "standing army" that could force their will on others. Everyone in the group would have to be ready and capable of protecting themselves and the group. There would have to be a document that each individual could point to and say "that is my right and responsibility" and when someone over-reaches they can say - NO! and get it corrected immediately even if it is the guy in charge.
> 
> ...


I especially like that you pointed out the group should be as a family. It would be important to make known that all jobs are equally vital to the survival and possibly flourishing of the community. that is if the jobs are done with heart and valuable results. Farmers..warriors..builders all are building blocks in the foundations. I agree you would need a respected leader to maintain the notion that everyone plays a significant part. A good way to do it would be to train everyone in combat and have everyone participate in scouting and hunting at least once in a while..of course people are better at some things than others. However, I do believe sharing in the pain creates a brotherhood. the standing army is not necessary in my eyes either since everyone would be trained for hand to hand combat, recon, marksmanship, and tactics.


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2014)

Old SF Guy said:


> You know Paul got me thinking...What is the rationale behind leadership...Why do people take it on...what is the motivation? For a real family it's love and honor....We love our families and we want them to honor it (our family) we teach it thru leadership. We show our elder children how to lead, love, and honor the younger children so that they too can become leaders. SO in a family it's sometimes hard love, but with a mind towards fostering the next leaders. In the military it's purely leadership to achieve objectives. We understand that some may not make it. This is where it differs from the family leadership. We understand that their may be a huge sacrifice so our leadership is more general and more about teaching larger groups. About achieving specific objectives that have nothing to do with individual safety, but rather collective advancement. It's more in line with the large group or township mentality. Political leadership...although necessary in someways is the least important early on and the most important later. It is centric in nature. It's focus is entirely on collectivism. How many people can I get to agree with me. It often devolves into lies and distortions, but it brings our society into individual decisions to achieve a collective majority. Unfortunately along with that is often the lack of accountability for those decisions and that is where we go wrong repeatedly. Politicians have the sole objective of remaining relevant for the longest amount of time...so morally they are subjective. It is through political activities that we adjust those moral views. ..Tea party...Occupy...etc...he who is most active is most influential. So When I hear people talk of leaders...I am sometimes motivated to raise my hand to volunteer, then also encouraged to raise it in defense...then equally enraged to raise it in offense. So the whole leadership debate is very confusing for this old SF Guy.


So then merge the two leadership methods into one strong workable solution. Treat it like a family but also have a clear objective that maintains strict expectations. if you dont work you dont eat type of thing.


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

As this is a Leadership thread, this movie '*Panic in Year Zero*' is interesting because it shows how a regular decent mild-mannered middleaged guy (Ray Milland) automatically goes into 'leadership mode' and does some pretty harsh things to help him and his family survive after nuke missiles toast America. Even his wife is shocked by the new tough side of him that she's never seen before..


----------



## omegabrock (Jun 16, 2014)

i buddy of mine is trying to come up with a SHTF leadership structure. this is a rough draft of what we came up with. i figured this would be a good place to get scrutiny at the weak points. it's not very developed but it's a starting point. a little background, we have been looking for close friends and family (people we served with included) with different skill sets to set up a community. the original goal was to keep it small but then thinking about family members that would be coming with the select few we have been talking with, the numbers grew and we realized we would need some type of chain of command.


Will have a military rank structure, and a "civie" structure as well, 4 man/woman leadership, one officer/ enlisted 
We will all come together to discuss needs for the greater good, task delegate to accomplish the needs.
Yet, if decisive action must be made, military side can/will take precedence in any incident where time is of the most importance

edit: after reading some other responses, a good change would be to have an odd number for leadership to offset votes if needed


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Omegabrock, my very best to you and your buddy, I think you are doing a very important thing. We have been trying to accomplish some of the same things and it is much harder to get true commitment from some people. Good luck my friend.


----------



## C.L.Ripley (Jul 6, 2014)

With just my own immediate family yes, but the last thing I'd want to be in a SHTF scenario is the leader of a larger group. Long as you can provide food, water, shelter, protection etc. everything is fine, but watch how quick people turn on you soon as they start missing a few meals or worse. Most people need to be led, but just as they look to you for leadership, they also look to you when things don't go well. No thanks!


----------



## pheniox17 (Dec 12, 2013)

to the question, I'm no follower or leader

I am a farther and will have to make decisions that will give my family a fighting chance

to large group leadership structure I have thoughts, I don't want the responsibility of having some strangers life in my hands...

I am capable of leading, but as a choice I choose not to

to leadership structure I have given my thoughts on this a few times

a constitution written by the original group members, clear for the world to see

a council of "elders/elect" to act as a government, I prefer a second level of leadership between civilian and military (so 2 separate groups), and key definition between the 2

so on a flow chart, a council of elders is at top

and splits between civilian and military

then splits of to department heads/2ic

then the rest

the constitution has all the powers of vote clear, and the elder council is made of (as well as elected) and who becomes "head of state" and those powers are made clear, and you have a strong foundation of a working simple government... 

after that, full bimonthly meetings involving everyone to inform of any major issues/gives people the power to voice any minor issues that may relate to another department but I'm a bit hazy on this


----------



## MI.oldguy (Apr 18, 2013)

I was a leader of sorts for 25+ years and, am quite sick of most people as my wife is.with any emerging new govt. post shtf these days there will be a bunch of know-it-alls who know nothing,are self centered,arrogant and,will have the "do unto me or die" mind set.they will also pass by the wayside due to attrition. we just do not want to deal with any of the likes of those.I hope that the wife and I are long dead before any of this crap may happen (yes, we realize it can happen anytime) take it as you may but, we are just gonna cover our six and and do the best we possibly can and the rest can do as they like unless they **** with us.if they do happen to mess with us,they will be the sorry suckers that screwed with the wrong people.


----------



## big paul (Jul 14, 2014)

I will be the happy hermit, I want nothing to do with people until the dust has settled and maybe not even then.


----------



## ApexPredator (Aug 17, 2013)

Well the pych tests are in I cant take a backseat set me loose on my own project or put me in charge. 
Honestly i think democracy is almost a failed concept we cant even get a republic to work well because of the common people. I think we will go right back to feudalism.
Some history for ya nations that had a standing army absorbed the ones that didnt simple fact you have huge advantage over someone that doesnt have one, so your not likely to get away from the concept now. 
I found this curious so, 
I dont know how you would balance the issue between warrior and farmers besides favoring the warriors and sharing that load between farmers how are you going to convince someone to risk their life and live in austere conditions away from family and friends and give them the same rewards as someone who sleeps in a bed every night and eats hot food simple reality your not I mean today in an established society our military gets early retirement recognition honor respect healthcare for life huge life insurance policies bonuses special consideration in all kinds of circumstances you cant say the MCDonalds burger flipper gets the same. A classless society is just a fantasy.
Kinda on a pessimistic streak today sorry guys


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Both you must follow in order to lead. SHTF today I will be in front of the formation. But it will not be long and that spot will be passed on.
Lot of good things have been said to many to cover them all. The farmer will be the soldier the soldier will be the farmer. If things get bad you will be doing a lot of double duties.
You maybe forced to lead like it or not. 
Not in every case but when leaders get to old they have to much to reflect on, to much history it can slow their ability to act intellect blocks the ability to start a fire when in people when needed. To young may act to quick out of emotion rather than intellect . A good leader uses both effectively. 
Leaderships wears on you. If you are doing your duty you see it all you give it your all. Over time it eats away at you. As 1SG I had less sleep than anyone in the company. Many times because duty required it other times the mind just would not allow it.
Maybe it is how we deal with it , but some times we take this SHTF thing lightly. It is not going to be fun, it is not going to be easy. You better be ready to step up if need be. Some of your leaders will fall early on. Without a planned progression of leadership and duties you are doomed to fail.
My replacement has already been picked and is ready at anytime .


----------



## BagLady (Feb 3, 2014)

Our leadership will be a partnership, just as our marriage is. We know and respect one anothers strengths and weaknesses. We also know everyone in our community, and know thier strengths and weaknesses. Mostly it will be as it has always been. If someone needs help, we'll be there for each other, otherwise, we will take care of our own.


----------



## RNprepper (Apr 5, 2014)

i think we would form an alliance with our close neighbors - 4 families. Each of us has strong skills in different areas, and I think each would contribute and be the leader of his/her skills. Our family's personal skills lie in food production, transportation (mules), welding/metal work, and medical/dental. How to control the warriors? Simple. Like any man - food, or the lack thereof. I will feed you well and make sure you have clean water to drink. Pull any crap and I will make sure you get contaminated water and a good case of dysentery. There are more ways than guns to bring someone down.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

nightshade said:


> how do you define yourself in a SHTF scenario regarding influence? will you avoid other people all together..happy hermit, will you follow a strong leader, or will you be that leader? does attempting to set up a community based on equality sound good to you? I personally would try to set up a community based on equality and hard work. problem is you will have a group of physically stronger trained individuals who would serve as security and warriors in most cases..how would you prevent them from taking control and turning it into a oligarchy. How would you punish crimes in a community? for example would you banish offenders from the group if they stole or assaulted someone without just cause.


I have the ability to both lead and follow. It depends upon the situation and the personnel present.

In my particular prep "community," I will take charge of my particular area of expertise but answer to the group leader.

General question, answer as specific as I care to give.


----------



## ApexPredator (Aug 17, 2013)

I agree that kind of leadership if you can call it that can work on a small scale I don't know if that's the question here. 
I think the poisoning thing would be an incredibly bad idea.


----------



## omegabrock (Jun 16, 2014)

ApexPredator said:


> our military gets early retirement recognition honor respect healthcare for life...special consideration in all kinds of circumstances...is just a fantasy.


fixed that for you.

our veterans get shit on. from the 'healthcare for life' to honor and respect to special considerations.


----------



## Innkeeper (Jun 18, 2014)

ApexPredator said:


> Well the pych tests are in I cant take a backseat set me loose on my own project or put me in charge.
> Honestly i think democracy is almost a failed concept we cant even get a republic to work well because of the common people. I think we will go right back to feudalism.
> Some history for ya nations that had a standing army absorbed the ones that didnt simple fact you have huge advantage over someone that doesnt have one, so your not likely to get away from the concept now.
> I found this curious so,
> ...


You are correct in the above, but those warriors are woefully underpaid I think for the amount they do, so the benefits come in to help make the difference for the years they did without all else.


----------



## big paul (Jul 14, 2014)

I don't think I'd want to be a follower or a leader, you know the old saying " if you want something doing properly, do it yourself".


----------



## LunaticFringeInc (Nov 20, 2012)

*



how do you define yourself in a SHTF scenario regarding influence? will you avoid other people all together..happy hermit, will you follow a strong leader, or will you be that leader?

Click to expand...

 *

I can lead or I can follow if there is competent and sound leadership in place. I might kind of lay low with a very small close knit group and feel things out as to if they are going to be short term or long term. If it's going to be any kind of lengthy or significant event, the group will meet up in full force and put the plan into effect full speed ahead.

Due to my experience in the military and my back ground while in, I definitely see myself more as a leader than a follower. I didn't just out rank some folks and get put in charge of some menial tasking. I have been in charge of developing and implementing a physical security plan and done so involving sensitive assets that required to be protected. I have been in combat and had to make critical command decisions and do so on the fly with a whole lot more than just someone getting hurt hanging in the balance. I have had to plan and direct some pretty major operations at several of the commands I have been at. Never a easy task mind you but I was fortunate enough to have worked and learned from some incredibly talented leaders as I came up through the ranks. I am good at coming up with a good sound plan, and convincing people it's the best plan and getting them to buy into the plan and feel like they have a say and some skin in the game. I think that sets me above the average joker out there.



> *does attempting to set up a community based on equality sound good to you? I personally would try to set up a community based on equality and hard work. Problem is you will have a group of physically stronger trained individuals who would serve as security and warriors in most cases..*


That's always a good route to go. But as a leader when you're setting up something like this you have to be able to look at the resources you have to work with and make decisions based on what's best. For example I have seen some tough combat hardened guys almost pass out when they have to deal with someone who's been shot or wounded and needed immediate medical attention. They completely spaz out making themselves near useless while others around them remain as cool as a cucumber and handle the business at hand, saving people. For all their toughness they couldn't handle much more than a minor cut. Not everyone is gonna be an administrative wizard or a mechanical genius. Some security watch standers are gonna be more on the ball and alert than others and not be easily duped or get so relaxed they miss something they should have caught. You gotta look at your people and access where they can make you the most "money" and where you can best exploit their talents making them a success and as well as an asset to the group as whole. I have said it before and I will say it again..."Team work is the fuel that allows ordinary people to achieve extordinary results".



> *how would you prevent them from taking control and turning it into a oligarchy.*


That's a tough one and something that should definitely be a concern. Anytime you get the two biggest kids on the block together, sooner or later one of them is going to challenge or undermine the other. This happens with men and it also happens with women as well!!! Then its game on and a power struggle will ensue.

Most of my career was spent in the military where we have a strict code of rules, ranking and military courtesy. I would think that you would need the same in a community is a major or long tern SHTF situation. You need good leadership in place.

Being a good leader is not merely being in charge of an evolution.

A Micro-Manager makes all the decisions and does all of the co-ordination. Most people don't respond well to this management style. Additionally, if you chop off the snakes head, what's happens to the rest of the snake? It dies, right?

Managers in a strict sense, think too much like bean counters from corporate. They try to achieve a end result, with the least amount of resources, in a timely fashion with efficiency being the overall riding concern. They are the "Big Baller-Shot Caller". Some people can respond well to this and some not so much. With this management style take out the HMFIC and you will likely end up with a mediocre organization in the after math and likely with internal power struggles ensuing, making them less resilient and effective although operational.

A leader on the other hand while ultimately responsible for achieving a goal or outcome, has the ability to combine both styles of management and achieve the end result by delegating authority, which allows others to step up. When others are allowed to feel as though they have a say and in fact they do have a limited role in what happens or how it happens they are inspired to perform at a much higher level than they otherwise would under the previously discussed management styles. As such they general will take ownership in the process and feel as though they have skin in the game. Few people want to fail and few people want the reputation of failing when it counts the most. They will likely give you 110% instead of just giving you 90%. This management style in effect also grooms people to assume the position of leadership so that in the event the Leader has fallen, there is a natural and obvious successor waiting in the wind to step up, take charge and carry on without missing a step.



> *How would you punish crimes in a community? for example would you banish offenders from the group if they stole or assaulted someone without just cause.*


This is a very tough one. But this is bridge every group must cross and cross in near unanimous if not complete agreement. Once upon a time the US had a constitution and regardless of what party you sided with, it was the law of the land and we followed it. We used to have a moral compass that was level and true, today many have little in the way of moral integrity. Look at all the infighting we have today as a result, look at the gridlock we have in government at the moment. Instead of doing what's right and what's best for the whole of the country we are now agenda driven and damn everything else.

I addressed this by sitting down with a core group of about 10 people who are going to be bringing 4-8 people with them to form our "Group". We sat down and discussed at length each and every aspect of what we were going to do and how we were going to get it done and how we were gonna keep the group operating like a well oiled machine. We wrote SOP's (Standard Operating Procedures') that out lines in amazing detail almost every task and every operation we will be engaged in and how we will go about getting it done. Some SOP's guide use in direction, so specifically outline how to perform a process or task specifically step by step. I might have been the primary author on several of them but everyone got their chops in on the deal by the time we arrived at a smooth and final copy, meaning we are all in complete and total agreement. There might have been a primary author actually writing it but it was a GROUP EFFORT! Now everyone knows what the standard is, what's expected and what's going to happen or likely to happen if not followed to the letter. All of the SOP's are in binders and all are accessible to everyone. It provides a "road map" if you will, so that if some of our top talent is lost, the next in line can look at the SOP's and pretty much carry on with minimal bumps in the road as if no one was lost and with no need to "reinvent the wheel" so to speak. We all know where we are going and we all know how we want to get there and the SOP's outlines everyone's responsibilities in order to accomplish that goal.

That's just my thoughts on the OP...


----------



## omegabrock (Jun 16, 2014)

Smitty901 said:


> SHTF today I will be in front of the formation. But it will not be long and that spot will be passed on...You maybe forced to lead like it or not...Not in every case but when leaders get to old they have to much to reflect on...Leaderships wears on you. If you are doing your duty you see it all you give it your all. Over time it eats away at you...Maybe it is how we deal with it , but some times we take this SHTF thing lightly. It is not going to be fun, it is not going to be easy. You better be ready to step up if need be. Some of your leaders will fall early on. Without a planned progression of leadership and duties you are doomed to fail.
> My replacement has already been picked and is ready at anytime .


this reminds me of my SFC on my first deployment back in '03 to start setting up before OIF/OEF "officially" kicked off. he was a great leader but you could tell when we got orders to go to the sandbox it troubled him. there were times he didnt know how to verbalize what he had in his head. there were times his entire focus was priming us (E-4 at the time) to be the leaders. he would get so frustrated with us lol. i can still hear him "you need to get your shit together because we are going to the shit, knee high in shit, and i won't tolerate your shit". you could really tell he wanted everybody from the slip sleeves to the E-6's to step their games up in case, like you said, some of the leaders fell early.


----------



## big paul (Jul 14, 2014)

LunaticFringeInc said:


> We sat down and discussed at length each and every aspect of what we were going to do and how we were going to get it done and how we were gonna keep the group operating like a well oiled machine. We wrote SOP's (Standard Operating Procedures') that out lines in amazing detail almost every task and every operation we will be engaged in and how we will go about getting it done..


that's the trouble with the world today, too much talking and not enough doing.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

When I was in "Corporate America" I used to say at the end of many meeting, 'When all is said and done, more will be said than done". The President of the Corporation and I knew each other well but I had no respect for him. He heard me say that once and called me up to his office. I told him that we have had this particular meeting about 5 times and nothing was getting done because one of his Exec VP's just wanted to hear himself talk and refused to get his hands dirty. He also played the blame game with his people too often. The Pres asked me, Slippy, when I lean forward most people lean backwards, except you". Why is that? I told him that just because I worked for him didn't mean I was afraid of him. I then told him that he was paying me to do a job, so let me do it. Just because you don't like the facts that I present, its not my fault." 

We parted ways shortly there after.


----------

