system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Leaving a position of power in protest is counterproductive.

_____

One of the questions I have been most interested in recently is whether change from inside a system or outside it is more effective in terms of achieving ones specific goals. For example, is having a popular movement outside a government or having an influence over some of the small number of people crafting policy more effective? To summarise: Top down change, or bottom up change?

I have recently come down on the side of top down, as it seems to me that it is far more efficient to influence a small number of people, and far more effective to have it on the people with the more direct control of change. In light of this, and the news of various people in the American Civil Service and advisory roles resigning in frustration and protest, I have been very much puzzled as to why.

If you have a position with any authority or connection to power, and you want to preserve that which you are charged with, or advance policy, surely it would be better to stay in that position, even if your influence is minimal, as not only is having a little power or influence better than having none once you have left, but, not knowing who could replace you, you risk the position being given to someone either incompetent or wrong headed. If you think that you're qualified for the task, and there is wrong being done within your power structure, then I feel you should stay as long as possible to try and use what power you have to stop it for as long as possible.

Sorry if this seems rambly. Feel free to challenge my initial question or my assumptions about top down influence vs bottom up influence.
gpt
Leaving a position of authority for the sake of principled example is only necessarily a loss if the principled person quits and then promptly disengages entirely from the issue. A person coming from a position of power can be assumed to have a certain amount of power, influence, accumen, etc. that is not exclusively associated with the position they held. That person then has the option to leverage their skills/visibility elsewhere to effect change. This could look like a switch from corporate leadership to government or government to NGO. The scale and mechanism of their ability to change things may change with the sector they occupy, but as long as they have power it can be exerted to affect change. Moreover, one can un-affiliate with a problematic organization while retaining a position of power, e.g. Elon Musk left the US Business Council, but retains a position of authority among US corporate leaders.