1. In many world states, condominiums / apartment buildings have common building affairs run by a residents' association. While these typically have executive functions assigned to only a small number of people, it's very often that membership in that committee changes frequently, with a a decent fraction of the residents getting to serve on it occasionally, and this executive is never (well, in my experience) perceived as "leading" the residents. These are stable organizations which last for decades doing concrete practical work - with a budget, engagement of contractors and occasional employees, interaction with municipal or state authorities etc.
Second Example:
The CNT, Confedercion Nacional del Trabajo. This is a confederation of Anarchist Labor Union, whose hey-day was during the 1920s and 1930s, but unfortunately got decimated by Francist Fascism. It survived underground and today is active, though not remotely as large as those days. Its structure is a bit involved, but the main ideas relevant to your question is that regional or national bodies cannot make decisions for the local bodies, nor the national for the regional, and their capacities are secretarial and administrative (which of course still carries a lot of power); and even that rotates - regional secretariats assume the role of national secretariats in some kind of round-robin fashion. This in itself does not mean that there's no leadership, but the structure, together with the anti-Authoritarian ethos of Anarchism is a political philosophy and labor-unionism as what's actually practiced contribute to an anti-centralist spirit which (hopefully still today) permeates the organization. It's a "do it yourself together" kind of an attitude rather than "wise people trusted by many have laid out the path for us". Caveat: I only visited with one of the regional confederations once in 2006 and read about them so I can't "guarantee leaderlessness".
Thank you for the cites. I also appreciate that you note the distinction between decentralized (local) leadership and leaderless.
I personally favor ad-hoc & on-demand, transient, hiearchical structures, optionally with robust leadership, as the norm for future organizations. Information systems help in making such orders practically viable. I should add that I don't share your disdain for "wise people". It is true that the trust element, to say nothing of actual wisdom provided, are potential bug sources. But some problems do require the top-down approach, and the period preceding an emergent order (consensus) via bottom-up ("do it yourself") approach is non-optimal for certain contingencies.
In general, I think it pays to be flexible and practical when it comes to organizational structure. You mentioned the "ethos" of CNT, which is imho the fundamental driver of organizational health. No social architecture can save a society from its own nature or character defects.
First Example:
1. In many world states, condominiums / apartment buildings have common building affairs run by a residents' association. While these typically have executive functions assigned to only a small number of people, it's very often that membership in that committee changes frequently, with a a decent fraction of the residents getting to serve on it occasionally, and this executive is never (well, in my experience) perceived as "leading" the residents. These are stable organizations which last for decades doing concrete practical work - with a budget, engagement of contractors and occasional employees, interaction with municipal or state authorities etc.
Second Example:
The CNT, Confedercion Nacional del Trabajo. This is a confederation of Anarchist Labor Union, whose hey-day was during the 1920s and 1930s, but unfortunately got decimated by Francist Fascism. It survived underground and today is active, though not remotely as large as those days. Its structure is a bit involved, but the main ideas relevant to your question is that regional or national bodies cannot make decisions for the local bodies, nor the national for the regional, and their capacities are secretarial and administrative (which of course still carries a lot of power); and even that rotates - regional secretariats assume the role of national secretariats in some kind of round-robin fashion. This in itself does not mean that there's no leadership, but the structure, together with the anti-Authoritarian ethos of Anarchism is a political philosophy and labor-unionism as what's actually practiced contribute to an anti-centralist spirit which (hopefully still today) permeates the organization. It's a "do it yourself together" kind of an attitude rather than "wise people trusted by many have laid out the path for us". Caveat: I only visited with one of the regional confederations once in 2006 and read about them so I can't "guarantee leaderlessness".
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederaci%C3%B3n_Nacional_de...