~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

During the days of the Continental Congress, in answer to the question "what is the best form of government", Ben Franklin is supposed to have responded, "a monarch - if it's a good one". I think that illustrates the issue of governance of a BDSM group. If one has a good leader with the trust of others (and the time to devote to this subject) then that person can act as, if not a monarch, then a CEO/Chairman, etc. Yet reality has a nasty habit of intruding.

Many groups are started by one person, or a couple, or perhaps a small group of people who either break-off from a larger group or are staking out new territory. I have often said that things that occur in the BDSM world almost always have a vanilla world parallel - in group management, this isn't as different from the business world as you might think.

The author of many business books, Tom Peters, has used the expression "a maniac with a mission" to describe how many start-up companies begin. In the early days of a group, I think it is helpful to have someone to say, "OK, the bus leaves in 5 minutes - which option do we choose"? You will often read a newspaper article where the author criticizes a product or business model as "something that looks like it was designed by a committee" - which would not be used to describe, say, the work of Thomas Edison or Marie Curie. Sometimes, a group stays in this model due to a lack of volunteers willing to help. One recalls the little red hen asking, "Now, who will help me bake the bread"? "Not I" said the cow. "Not I" said. And so on. Or, as in the case of many well-known CEO's, it may stay in this mode due to a reluctance to let go of power as much as possible. In the power exchange society we exist in - that's not surprising.

Just as in the business world, though, I believe that a group that is not: a) a closed society, and b) wishes to grow - needs to expand beyond the sole proprietor model of governance if it hopes not only to survive but also endure. If you have seen the list of New England regional munches that Stephen of the Boston Dungeon Society has published over the years, the words "Cancelled", "Suspended Until Further Notice" and similar words have been seen next to a munch listing. Often, it indicates a group that broke down more often due to the "Grand Poobah" leaving (as a result of a personal dispute, divorce, relocation, etc.) and the lack of someone else willing to step in - rather than a general disagreement throughout the membership. I often wonder if, had a power-sharing arrangement been in place beforehand, whether that group's fate may have turned out differently.

When a small private business decides to switch from a sole proprietorship (or partnership) to a privately held corporation, many people assume that the primary reason is to avoid unlimited liability. However, purchasing insurance can solve that problem - it's actually the issues of transferability/survivability that are the driving force. To transfer power in the first two models, one needs to dissolve, say, the partnership and start over again. By contrast, corporate shares can simply be sold or passed on to heirs.

Now, few groups (in our world) have that sort of formality and documentation - I use the example above to illustrate that a group-style of management can survive a change of leadership much better. The recent changes in Rose & Thorn are a good example. The group beginning to form in Rutland is unusual in that they are starting out as a collective type of organization, and welcome the participation of others.

In the end, if you have a group that meets the needs of its members - it is assured of a future. How that group's management is organized does go a long way towards ensuring that those needs will be met.