Thanks for explaining! You’re definitely pointing out a real phenomenon and “skill,” but I feel like it’s different somehow than the thing aella was gesturing at. Maybe the main difference is that the neutral leaders you talk about try to set up frames that their subjects find positively exciting, whereas frame controllers set up frames that are disempowering and make the person smaller? For instance, I don’t necessarily think it’s “frame control” when Lucius Malfoy rallies his fellow death eaters around hating Dumbledore. He’s just being a good leader. It becomes frame control when he gaslights his underlings and underhandedly blames them for everything that when wrong with his latest plan.
But we might just be interpreting the OP differently. I can see why you want to use “frame control” for both the good thing and the neutral thing. Maybe it would be appropriate to coin a different term for the thing aella means. Maybe something like “frame erosion” or “frame distortion” that emphasizes the potential adverse effect on victims when someone uses frame control (a more neutral behavioral strategy under this meaning) in an exploitative and uncaring way.
Or maybe another dimension here has to do with consent. If you sign up for an organization that makes you learn special greetings or mantras, you give consent to let yourself be shaped in some kind of cult-like direction. By contrast, in the examples aella talks about, the frame controller starts to get more and more influence over aspects of the person’s thinking that seem like they shouldn’t be under someone else’s influence.
On the merits of the type of leadership you describe: I’m skeptical. I worry that whatever stated mission an organization has cannot be easily compressed into slogans or rituals, and if people have to do these things in order for the organization to work, then maybe it’s lacking in authentically mission-driven individuals, and that spells trouble.
Of course, the counterpoint is “authentically mission-driven individuals are rare and it would be highly valuable if a single mission-driven leader can recruit a large number of otherwise non-contributing people toward the mission.”
And my reply to that is “yeah, it would be great if it worked, but it’s not going to if the mission you’re after doesn’t have easily attainable (and hard-to-Goodheart) metrics that you can use to keep outputs in check.”
Maybe the main difference is that the neutral leaders you talk about try to set up frames that their subjects find positively exciting, whereas frame controllers set up frames that are disempowering and make the person smaller?
Yeah this makes sense.
. I worry that whatever stated mission an organization has cannot be easily compressed into slogans or rituals, and if people have to do these things in order for the organization to work, then maybe it’s lacking in authentically mission-driven individuals, and that spells trouble.
I don’t think the point is to compress the mission into slogans or rituals, it’s to ensure a culture that screens for people authentically excited about the vision, and to continually steer the organization back towards it.
Of course, the counterpoint is “authentically mission-driven individuals are rare and it would be highly valuable if a single mission-driven leader can recruit a large number of otherwise non-contributing people toward the mission.”
And my reply to that is “yeah, it would be great if it worked, but it’s not going to if the mission you’re after doesn’t have easily attainable (and hard-to-Goodheart) metrics that you can use to keep outputs in check.”
FI think the merits of a DDO that’s run like this is that it:
Allows mission driven leaders to recruit people to the organization.
Alllows them to recruit people who are authentically mission driven—participating in these sorts of practices is an incredibly good way to find people who are ACTUALLY on board with the values and authentically excited about the mission
But more importantly, it creates a culture that can develop more Kegan 5 leaders who can drive the organization.
This is why they’re called deliberately developmental organizations, they help bring recruits UP to the level of the leader (perhaps this is the big difference, whereas negative cults try to push the underlings DOWN and prevent them from becoming powerful). So the real power of these organizations is “We can recruit people who think like us to help push the mission forward, and then teach them in the process teach them how to think for themselves and continually refine the mission).”
I don’t think the point is to compress the mission into slogans or rituals, it’s to ensure a culture that screens for people authentically excited about the vision, and to continually steer the organization back towards it.
Right, I was strawmanning with that phrasing, sorry.
I guess the whole point of the strategy you’re describing is that it scales well, and my criticism of it is that it’s scaling too quickly, so is at risk of losing nuance. This seems like a spectrum and I happen to be at the extreme end of “if your mission is more complicated than ‘make money’, you’re likely doomed unless you prioritize hiring people with a strong ability to stay on the path/mission.” (And for those latter people, activities like the ones you describe wouldn’t be necessary.)
Thanks for explaining! You’re definitely pointing out a real phenomenon and “skill,” but I feel like it’s different somehow than the thing aella was gesturing at. Maybe the main difference is that the neutral leaders you talk about try to set up frames that their subjects find positively exciting, whereas frame controllers set up frames that are disempowering and make the person smaller? For instance, I don’t necessarily think it’s “frame control” when Lucius Malfoy rallies his fellow death eaters around hating Dumbledore. He’s just being a good leader. It becomes frame control when he gaslights his underlings and underhandedly blames them for everything that when wrong with his latest plan.
But we might just be interpreting the OP differently. I can see why you want to use “frame control” for both the good thing and the neutral thing. Maybe it would be appropriate to coin a different term for the thing aella means. Maybe something like “frame erosion” or “frame distortion” that emphasizes the potential adverse effect on victims when someone uses frame control (a more neutral behavioral strategy under this meaning) in an exploitative and uncaring way.
Or maybe another dimension here has to do with consent. If you sign up for an organization that makes you learn special greetings or mantras, you give consent to let yourself be shaped in some kind of cult-like direction. By contrast, in the examples aella talks about, the frame controller starts to get more and more influence over aspects of the person’s thinking that seem like they shouldn’t be under someone else’s influence.
On the merits of the type of leadership you describe: I’m skeptical. I worry that whatever stated mission an organization has cannot be easily compressed into slogans or rituals, and if people have to do these things in order for the organization to work, then maybe it’s lacking in authentically mission-driven individuals, and that spells trouble.
Of course, the counterpoint is “authentically mission-driven individuals are rare and it would be highly valuable if a single mission-driven leader can recruit a large number of otherwise non-contributing people toward the mission.”
And my reply to that is “yeah, it would be great if it worked, but it’s not going to if the mission you’re after doesn’t have easily attainable (and hard-to-Goodheart) metrics that you can use to keep outputs in check.”
Yeah this makes sense.
I don’t think the point is to compress the mission into slogans or rituals, it’s to ensure a culture that screens for people authentically excited about the vision, and to continually steer the organization back towards it.
FI think the merits of a DDO that’s run like this is that it:
Allows mission driven leaders to recruit people to the organization.
Alllows them to recruit people who are authentically mission driven—participating in these sorts of practices is an incredibly good way to find people who are ACTUALLY on board with the values and authentically excited about the mission
But more importantly, it creates a culture that can develop more Kegan 5 leaders who can drive the organization.
This is why they’re called deliberately developmental organizations, they help bring recruits UP to the level of the leader (perhaps this is the big difference, whereas negative cults try to push the underlings DOWN and prevent them from becoming powerful). So the real power of these organizations is “We can recruit people who think like us to help push the mission forward, and then teach them in the process teach them how to think for themselves and continually refine the mission).”
Right, I was strawmanning with that phrasing, sorry.
I guess the whole point of the strategy you’re describing is that it scales well, and my criticism of it is that it’s scaling too quickly, so is at risk of losing nuance. This seems like a spectrum and I happen to be at the extreme end of “if your mission is more complicated than ‘make money’, you’re likely doomed unless you prioritize hiring people with a strong ability to stay on the path/mission.” (And for those latter people, activities like the ones you describe wouldn’t be necessary.)