I've been thinking about the inherent tension between "emergent philosophy" (is that an oxymoron?) and the apparent need for decisive leadership in any movement that has succeeded in the past. If we emphasize the value of network and the equality of many diverse voices in the conversation to the point that hierarchical structures are seen as the enemy, it's difficult to imagine how out of that chaos and complexity something can emerge that will provide the kind of progress and transformation we're longing to see. And it's not just a question of lack of leadership but also of common vision which provides a sense of identity and calling (to keep things from falling apart). This is something I'm still processing and I'm not ready to give some definite answers from my own perspective - which makes this a wide open field for contributions and discussion!
Please add your own thoughts and also let me know about helpful stuff you've read elsewhere.
The diagram btw is by no means anything I came up with either, you'll find it on David M. Boje's page here. What I find particularly intriguing in that picture is the role of the heroic/quest element!
