The word rule usually refers to standards for activities. Life has rules whether you believe there is a God or not. Those who believe there is a God accept his rules. These rules differ by religion. Those who don’t believe there is a God accept their rules which differ by intellect and choice. In either case the human network has struggled with rules as life’s circumstances and society has evolved.
As the human network evolved into organized efforts to accomplish advancements self imposed rules were established by the organizational leaders. Human imposed rules were designed to keep order in activities for the accomplishment of specific organizational objectives.
Our society has rules and laws telling us exactly how to be a good follower of rulers. We as socially minded people who do what we are told so as to comply with governing bodies and leaders. We follow instead of leading, simply because that is what is instilled in us as individuals from birth, to innovate and challenge existing rules is to create unwelcome ripples in the “social” pond of governance.
Many organizational rules are used for the benefit of the few who actually decide how things run and who benefits most from prosperity. Do what your told environments serve only one purpose, to groom good rule following non free thinking individuals that see nothing wrong with the current system and accept it as the way it is. Society tells us to regard those who challenge the rules as “radicals who have no respect for authority”. Authority has been used to control people’s activities for the benefit of the organization and many times for the benefit of the few.
Rulers have tended to feel that if it’s not broken, don’t fix it. When things become broken rulers tend to believe they individually know how to fix it. Radicals tend to feel that innovation can only happen when we, as a collective, challenge existing systems, broken or not.
Rules Come from Behavior and Beliefs
If rules, spoken and unspoken, are believed and accepted by all or at least a majority of people it is defined as normal. An example of this would be communications. Have you noticed that society has become addicted to communications? At the risk of having an accident on the road a large percentage of people still read emails on their mobile device while driving. Employees are spending more time on Facebook during work than working. Both of these examples are against the “rules” yet people believe they have to be engaged 24/7 or they will miss something. A large percent of people will even interrupt sex to check incoming messages. Since everyone is consumed with communicating, breaking accepted rules has become the new normal, good and bad.
Social technology is fueling a change in behavior which is challenging accepted beliefs about how rulers rule people’s behavior and beliefs. Organizations, governments and institutions are creating “rules” about acceptable use of social technology based on their beliefs of how to rule. In response the human network is rejecting these beliefs because the subsequent rules infringe on individual freedom to communicate. The clash of behavior and beliefs is erupting into a discourse of rules and rights of people vs. organizations to rule people.
The underlying point is that what was considered normal rules or business as usual is being challenged by radical behavior and ideas fueled from 24/7 communications. Historically society has grooms its members into unknowing, most times silent servitude, to serve what is believed to be the best interest of society by those who set the rules, rulers.
Rules of Influence for Rulers
The marketplace of conversations represents rules of influence for rulers — “a collective behavior or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative.” What do rules of influence mean for rulers? Collective thought challenges existing rules of influence, instead of complying with the influence of rulers people would rather collaborate with the unspoken rules of influence.
The unspoken rules of influence are defined by giving people a voice in establishing rules vs. rulers telling people what rules they need to comply with. The very process of enabling people to engage in discourse about rules provides the means for formation of collective beliefs. People’s beliefs can be enlightened by a crowd of influence vs. the rule of a ruler.
If you study history you can see how rules of influence have been molded by media. Rulers have used media to influence the belief of the crowd. Today the rules of influence are being molded by media created, delivered and captured by the crowd. The crowd has rejected the ruler’s media and is using the media of the crowd to create their own rules of influence.
History shows that a wise man seeks the counsel of many and influences many with wisdom. People will follow the rules of influence more than they will follow rulers.