Tradition 2

[Jeff]

CGAA Traditions
Tradition 2: Authority and Leadership
Tradition 2: For our group purpose, there is but one ultimate authority--our group conscience as guided by power greater than ourselves. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern.
When first reading this tradition, it may sound a bit strange. Most organizations elect leaders to make decisions for the group--to exercise authority over what the group (and often individuals within the group) may or may not do. But this is not our way. When we choose leaders, they have a specific and well-defined purpose. They serve the group in a way that the group intends. They do not command, they do not require anything of anyone in the group. They can't punish anyone or kick anyone out. In short, they have no power--just the responsibility to serve.
We do have authority in our groups, though--it just isn't invested in specific people. We exercise authority through our group conscience process. We allow ourselves to be informed and led by the power that is leading us out of addiction. We decide things by working together with our purpose of common recovery in mind.
How does it actually work? What happens when there are disagreements? Do we let the majority rule? We think there is a better way. Rather than just expressing our opinions in the business meeting, we start by reaffirming our common purpose--to abstain from gaming and help others find freedom from the effects of gaming addiction. We seek unity over all else--no bitter controversy, no cult of personality, no selfish focus on our own needs or wants or viewpoints may take the place of the principles of recovery that guide us. We try to make sure that all of our ideas and proposals will be for the good of the group, based on our purpose. We use the spiritual principles we have learned in recovery: honesty, unselfishness, acceptance, service.
When we are solving a problem or making a change, we listen carefully to everyone, especially those in the minority. We work hard to come to consensus. This sometimes doesn't mean full agreement. It just means that we work to make sure that everyone's concerns are addressed and reflected in our decisions. If we vote and someone is against the motion, we often step back to make sure they have been fully heard. Sometimes, a single person can be the voice of conscience for us and will sway the entire group. Sometimes, if the decision is unclear, we decide to wait until there is more clarity--perhaps by asking others in the group to provide input. These are the traditions of our work together.
How do we choose leaders? Well, who is a leader in the CGAA fellowship? Our answer, given by this tradition, is simple: Those that we, according to our group conscience, can trust to serve. Our leaders do not govern us, they do not make decisions for us. Their work, their decisions, their action on our behalf emanates from our group conscience. We trust them to do the work that will help lead us out of addiction, the work of supporting everyone's recovery. And they are accountable to us. Our unity is paramount, and our principles come before any personality. We recover together.
A bit of History
When our fellowship first got together, we tried working with others who were not gaming addicts, but who were concerned about gaming addiction, usually because it had affected their friends and family members. We shared forums, meetings and a website. They are good people, and wanted the best for us. But after a while, we found that as we worked together, we had many disagreements. There were disagreements about how to do things, and most importantly about how to best support the recovery of our members. Sharing forums with people who had been hurt by their friends or family members' gaming addiction was problematic. They needed to be able to process how they had been hurt, but for the newly recovering gaming addicts, hearing/reading about this was often not helpful to us. Some wanted to become involved in public awareness or political action; but the recovering gaming addicts knew that focusing on our own recovery was the only way to support each other, and we needed to put all of our efforts there. In short, there was no unity.
In addition, the leaders of the group were chosen from the "top" down--that is, a small group controlled our meeting place. They chose the administrators, who chose the meeting leaders. This structure is very appropriate for many organizations; but we found it didn't work for us.. It put some of our members in charge of other members, in ways that did not support recovery.
When we embraced this tradition, we put these things behind us. We decided that our group would consist only of people who want to stop gaming. We found unity through our purpose. And we decided that no one would govern our groups. Our leaders would be trusted servants, and would always be responsible to the group conscience. We flattened the hierarchy: There is not one small group of people that governs us; we are all gaming addicts. When we did this, it was like a breath of fresh air. We found freedom from discord and disunity. When we come together now, we work together in harmony. We are no longer angry with others; together we support each member's path out of the disaster of addiction. We are guided by power and principles that are helping to restore us to sanity.