Can You Be

…“Leader-Less” and still effective"?

The Tea Party/Palin-Tea Party discussions have been interesting to me. It was also interesting to read the “alert” the Tea Party recently released regarding being “hi-jacked” by special interest,and especially the GOP.

My question for the Forum is "Can an organization, despite its “of-the-people” intentions, remain “leaderless” and still be effective?

My first impression is “no”…and that what happens is that you risk being “represented” by those whom are merely the most vocal (and all too often the most radical and divisive).

On the surface, that may sound good…but not if a groups true intentions get drowned out by those that just so happen to be the most vocal.

“What Say Ye’”?



I don’t believe there is such a thing as a “No leadership organization” There may not be a formal leader, but eventually someone always becomes the leader.


And I think that a) who that leader is and b) who they surround themselves with will tend to “make-you-or-break-you”.


I wanted to add one thought about the “Perot Movement” of the early-to-mid nineties.

“Reality” sort of hit them when they attempted to come up with a cohesive message and/or platform.

Yes…Perot sort of went off the “deep-end”…but the organization began to fall apart before then when they attempted to come up with some type of unified platform.