成人小说亚洲一区二区三区,亚洲国产精品一区二区三区,国产精品成人精品久久久,久久综合一区二区三区,精品无码av一区二区,国产一级a毛一级a看免费视频,欧洲uv免费在线区一二区,亚洲国产欧美中日韩成人综合视频,国产熟女一区二区三区五月婷小说,亚洲一区波多野结衣在线

佛羅里達(dá)州帕克蘭的學(xué)生登上了《財(cái)富》2018年全球50位最偉大領(lǐng)袖（World’s 50 Greatest Leaders）排行榜的榜首，#MeToo運(yùn)動(dòng)排在第三位。今天，社會(huì)運(yùn)動(dòng)同樣重要。個(gè)體團(tuán)結(jié)在一起可以推翻公司高管，破壞一個(gè)行業(yè)，左右選舉結(jié)果，并對(duì)政策計(jì)劃造成嚴(yán)重破壞。

隨著社交媒體和其他民主化技術(shù)的出現(xiàn)，有許多媒體在討論這種“新力量” — 去中心化的網(wǎng)絡(luò)如何碾壓更傳統(tǒng)的、自上而下的模式。但社會(huì)變革者們對(duì)這種新力量并不陌生。

雖然每一次運(yùn)動(dòng)都表現(xiàn)為集體領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的形式，但并非所有運(yùn)動(dòng)都是生而平等的。有些運(yùn)動(dòng)團(tuán)結(jié)在一個(gè)共同的愿景之下取得了成功。但有些運(yùn)動(dòng)未能獲得動(dòng)力，最終失控或者只是曇花一現(xiàn)。

一項(xiàng)運(yùn)動(dòng)能否成功，取決于其領(lǐng)導(dǎo)方式。任何一組熱情澎湃的人都可以在華盛頓組織一次抗議或游行，但社會(huì)變革終究是一種領(lǐng)導(dǎo)行為。

社會(huì)運(yùn)動(dòng)的強(qiáng)弱，區(qū)別就在于勝利者都是“集體領(lǐng)導(dǎo)”。他們會(huì)讓出權(quán)力，而不是緊抓不放。他們?yōu)槿藗冎该鞣较?，而不是發(fā)號(hào)施令。運(yùn)動(dòng)的集體領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者不會(huì)為誰(shuí)才是組織游行的功臣或者誰(shuí)“擁有”捐贈(zèng)者的名單，或者誰(shuí)應(yīng)該上CNN或福克斯新聞?lì)l道露臉而爭(zhēng)論不休，他們會(huì)分享權(quán)力、權(quán)威和媒體的關(guān)注。在“為我們的生命游行”中，帕克蘭的郊區(qū)學(xué)生們把話筒遞給了城里的同學(xué)，因?yàn)楹笳呙刻煸趯W(xué)校和街道都會(huì)面臨了槍支暴力，就是集體領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的一種表現(xiàn)。

集體領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的運(yùn)動(dòng)在兩個(gè)極端之間取得了平衡：它們既不是沒(méi)有領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者，也不是由領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者主導(dǎo)的運(yùn)動(dòng)。

還記得占領(lǐng)華爾街運(yùn)動(dòng)嗎？那些99%的人的支持者都采取了“無(wú)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者”的扁平化治理結(jié)構(gòu)，并且提出了20多項(xiàng)不同的要求，結(jié)果運(yùn)動(dòng)很快便煙消云散。另外一種極端情況是，一些運(yùn)動(dòng)往往過(guò)于傾向于由領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者主導(dǎo)：上層試圖自上而下控制運(yùn)動(dòng)，結(jié)果扼制了運(yùn)動(dòng)的發(fā)展。

而集體領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的運(yùn)動(dòng)卻不會(huì)這樣做，他們會(huì)有意識(shí)地將權(quán)力交給基層，授權(quán)給地方的分會(huì)。他們將資金、媒體關(guān)注和培訓(xùn)工具分配給普通成員。他們鼓勵(lì)問(wèn)題的親歷者作為運(yùn)動(dòng)的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者，比如幸存者、遇難者家屬或者其他習(xí)慣于相關(guān)事業(yè)的人。當(dāng)代取得勝利的所有社會(huì)運(yùn)動(dòng)，如控?zé)熯\(yùn)動(dòng)、擴(kuò)大持槍權(quán)運(yùn)動(dòng)和LGBTQ群體婚姻平等運(yùn)動(dòng)等，之所以成功都是因?yàn)轭I(lǐng)導(dǎo)者采取了自下而上的方式。領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者更像是管弦樂(lè)隊(duì)的指揮，而不是軍隊(duì)的指揮官或公司CEO。

以美國(guó)全國(guó)步槍協(xié)會(huì)（National Rifle Association）為例：它所采取的是倒金字塔領(lǐng)導(dǎo)結(jié)構(gòu)，上方是協(xié)會(huì)成員，下方則是為他們提供支持的協(xié)會(huì)工作人員。雖然媒體關(guān)注的焦點(diǎn)是有鋼鐵般意志的全美步槍協(xié)會(huì)執(zhí)行副總裁兼CEO韋恩·拉皮埃爾，但該協(xié)會(huì)真正的權(quán)力來(lái)自于其數(shù)百萬(wàn)的成員和成百上千位現(xiàn)場(chǎng)組織者，他們隨時(shí)準(zhǔn)備維護(hù)或者擴(kuò)大持槍權(quán)，并用選票表達(dá)他們的主張。全美步槍協(xié)會(huì)不斷在全國(guó)以及各地方培養(yǎng)和擴(kuò)大支持者網(wǎng)絡(luò)，并利用這些網(wǎng)絡(luò)促進(jìn)持槍權(quán)的發(fā)展，除了個(gè)別州外，在各州選舉出對(duì)槍械友好的政治候選人。

雖然持槍權(quán)運(yùn)動(dòng)采取了集體領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的方式，但控槍運(yùn)動(dòng)卻一直由領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者主導(dǎo)。不過(guò)這種情況也在發(fā)生變化。新出現(xiàn)的槍支改革機(jī)構(gòu)，如在2014年紐敦悲劇發(fā)生后成立的“每座城鎮(zhèn)都要維護(hù)槍支安全”（Everytown for Gun Safety）以及現(xiàn)在的#NeverAgain等，都在奮力追趕全美步槍協(xié)會(huì)。據(jù)“每座城鎮(zhèn)都要維護(hù)槍支安全”的網(wǎng)站顯示，其支持者在短短幾年內(nèi)迅速增加到超過(guò)400萬(wàn)，并在50個(gè)州建立了分會(huì)。該組織在積極阻止全美步槍協(xié)會(huì)的議程，包括推動(dòng)在校園內(nèi)禁槍，以及在國(guó)會(huì)反對(duì)待決的《隱蔽攜帶槍支互惠法案》等。

槍支改革最終變成了集體領(lǐng)導(dǎo)，這意味著它為自己博得了一個(gè)機(jī)會(huì)。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

注：本文作者Leslie Crutchfield是《變革如何發(fā)生：社會(huì)運(yùn)動(dòng)成敗的秘密》（How Change Happens: Why Some Social Movements Succeed While Others Don’t）一書(shū)的作者，并在喬治城大學(xué)全球社會(huì)企業(yè)倡議行動(dòng)任執(zhí)行主任。

譯者：劉進(jìn)龍/汪皓

The students of Parkland, Fla., top Fortune’s 2018 list of the World’s 50 Greatest Leaders, and the #MeToo movement clinches the third spot. Movements matter—today as much as ever. Individual crusaders when joined together can collectively topple corporate executives, undercut industries, upend elections, and wreak havoc on policy plans.

With the advent of social media and other democratizing technologies, much is written now about “new power”—how decentralized networks often triumph over more conventional, top-down models. But new power is old news to social change makers.

While every movement embodies collective leadership, not all campaigns are created equal. Some successfully coalesce around a common vision. Others fail to gain traction, spinning out of control or momentarily flaring bright, then fizzling.

Whether a movement succeeds is determined by how it is led. Any group of impassioned people can mount a protest or organize a march on Washington, but social change making at the end of the day is an act of leadership.

The difference between strong movements and weaker ones is that the winners are “l(fā)eaderfull.” They give power away, rather than hoard it. They provide common direction, rather than commands. Instead of squabbling over who gets credit for organizing the march, or who “owns” the donor lists, or who appears on CNN or Fox News, leaderfull movement figureheads share power, authority, and the limelight. The suburban students from Parkland displayed leaderfullness when they passed the microphone at the March for Our Lives to urban peers who face daily gun violence in schools and streets.

Leaderfull movements strike a balance between two extremes; they are neither leaderless nor too leader-led.

Remember Occupy Wall Street? Those champions of the 99% had a flat “l(fā)eaderless” governance structure and a list of more than 20 disparate demands—and soon faded. At the other extreme, some movements are too leader-led: The top dogs attempt to control the movement from above, suffocating it.

Leaderfull movements, on the other hand, purposely push power out to the grassroots, vesting authority in local chapters rather than controlling from the top. They disburse money, media attention, and training tools out to rank-and-file membership. They encourage people with the lived experience of the problem to lead—whether they’re survivors, victims’ families, or otherwise inured to the cause. All of the winning movements of modern times—such as tobacco control, gun rights expansion, and LGBTQ marriage equality—were successful because leaders embraced bottom-up approaches. Their top brass acted more like orchestra conductors than military commanders or corporate CEOs.

Take the National Rifle Association: Its leadership structure is an upside-down pyramid, with its members at the top and staff supporting them from underneath. While the media spotlights the NRA’s steel-willed EVP and CEO Wayne LaPierre, the real power of the NRA derives from its millions of members and hundreds of thousands of field organizers, always ready to defend or advance gun rights—and vote for them. The NRA nurtures and grows its networks of supporters at state and local levels, and has leveraged those networks to advance the gun rights cause and elect firearm-friendly political candidates in all but a handful of U.S. states.

While the gun rights movement has been leaderfull, gun control has historically been too leader-led. But that’s beginning to change. New gun reform groups like Everytown for Gun Safety, established in 2014 after the Newtown tragedy—and now #NeverAgain—are catching up to the NRA. In just a few years, Everytown’s supporters ballooned to more than 4 million (according to its website), and with chapters in all 50 states, it is aggressively working to block the NRA’s agenda—preventing guns in schools and on campuses, and fighting the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act pending in Congress.

Gun reform is finally becoming leaderfull, and that means it stands a fighting chance.

Leslie Crutchfield is the author of How Change Happens: Why Some Social Movements Succeed While Others Don‘t and executive director of Georgetown University’s Global Social Enterprise Initiative.