To answer the original question - my impression is that we've come almost full circle from the way the organization operated in the 60s.
Consider: in the 40s-mid 70s basically you heard about the President of the Society and that the "Society says". Some old-timers still use that terminology, although it is frowned on. Very directive and there was a visible single person who was in the lead for the organization. Basically, his word was law. You still had some "in the blind" kind of direction going on in that branch office letters and even phone calls many times involved not having a name associated with it - only a desk or desk symbol. The authors were not allowed to sign their name much like the authors of literature and magazine articles are not published. It was just "The Society Says".
Then, this transitioned to a Governing Body and the Faithful and Discreet Slave, which diffused the powerbase. The President of the Society became less prominent and the power structure became more obfuscated. Finally the officers of the Society and the other corporations really just became figureheads that were signing off on corporate paperwork, checks, contracts, etc. So then everything was from "the slave" - totally diffused/obfuscated. Direction from "the slave" was more even-handed and balanced (but not completely - still lots of old school quirks - fiery attacks on new technology, etc).
Then in the 2001 and on timeframe, slowly you began to see a huge distinction made in the literature about "the anointed" and all the class distinctions between them and the "other sheep" - so many that it became pretty uncomfortable. Emphasis on the mediator for the "little flock" only - etc. Lots of mentions of the Governing Body and direction from the branch office. Guidelines because more sharp and dogmatic. Lots of double-talk such as "disfellowshipping does not remove blood ties" but "only necessary business with disfellowshipped relatives" and the definition of "necessary business" varyied widely from "it is up to you" to "don't even talk with them about someone else in the family dying" and lots of emphasis on applying the principle in 1 John about "not even eating with such a man" to family so that no association was possible. This direction is so extreme that I expect any time to see an adjustment that allows disfellowshipping of relatives who associate with disfellowshipped relatives. Like, I expect that any second now.
This change in tone got louder and louder and more sharp until finally we got the GB=FDS. Now, eight men have taken the place of the old "Society President." This is a huge, huge mistake in my opinion. Now the direction, especially to elders, is orders of magnitude more prescriptive and very very dogmatic. It is very easy to get removed now. Lots of disqualifiers and triggers for the body to review your qualifiations per policy (they don't have a choice, for instance, if you declare bankruptcy - this autmatically requires a review of your qualifications). Not much latitude locally about key issues. The only teaching part left in the congregation is the monthly "local needs" and now the branch offices have started to tag on to BOE letters instructions to cover part of the letter in local needs parts. This is going on to the point that the local bodies of elders might have to wait two or three months or more before they can schedule a local needs part for needs that they have locally.
Once again sorry for the long post but I'm personally really uncomfortable with the place we're in now. I'm happy that we're embracing technology and expanding the ways to do the ministry (I still think we need actual radio/TV/Internet broadcasting - not just the material on jw.org) but I'd like to see us abandon house to house ministry altogether. I don't think this is sustainable. We need to turn our attention (especially elders) to shepherding 100% of the time and helping people with their load - encouraging and refreshing them. I think people will continue to leave in great numbers unless there is a drastic swing back to center where the Governing Body, Branch Committees, Traveling Overseers, and the elders are Christlike in their reasoning and not the master's over their brother's faith. At the risk of really causing trouble I see a pattern developing similar to what was going on with the Jewish religious leaders in the first century and their hundreds of rules and tradition. Jesus made it clear how he viewed this over-the-top approach - it was wicked. The friends will eventually give out under this load unless either Jehovah's Witnesses proper or some other group for association offers an alternative that refreshes and relives the honest hearted ones and lets them focus on praying for and being influenced by God's holy spirit.
