(September 29, 2021 at 11:52 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:(September 28, 2021 at 4:00 pm)DLJ Wrote: Movie or real life.
Insert an -archy or an -ocracy instead of 'The Group' and see if it fits.
Examples: British monarchy, rogue institutions like the CIA or the Catholic Church or any Corporation (which is what I had in mind as I wrote the above) or even a professional sportsball club.
Also, if you've ever been involved in BCP (business continuity planning) or DR (disaster recovery) you'll have spotted the benefits (even criticality) of switching to a dictatorship model to ensure the survival of The Group over the individual.
Welcome to the dystopia.
I've been involved in BCP and I did not get that impression. We may have been doing it wrong, but the plan is to keep the business running and prevent anyone from losing their job if something bad happens like our buildings getting flooded. And since the plan was developed by consensus and consultation, it doesn't feel like a dictatorship model at all. By planning contingencies in advance we avoid having a single person (who might not even be alive if the disaster was really bad) be responsible for all the shot-calling in emergencies. We all know what we're supposed to do in various scenarios and we're well-trained enough to step up and adapt to unexpected contingencies. The group ensures maximum survival of the individuals in the group...there isn't a group without the individuals who make it up.
He may be referring to a situation in which survival of the group is threatened, a crisis of some sort. It may be beneficial in such situations to adopt leadership models that one wouldn't ordinarily adopt.