Why did OWS choose to be leaderless? Comparing it to Civil Rights movement

http://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2013/10/22/did-the-occupy-movement-reject-the-civil-rights-movement/


"Roughly speaking, the CRM deployed 'big organizations' in the pursuit of a clearly defined mission. The organizations were Black churches, political groups (e.g., the NAACP), and various labor and student groups. While there was no single leader, the CRM clearly has a leadership class that set the agenda and worked in a fairly top-down manner. It was also highly bureaucratic in that that they set a vast apparatus (the SCLC) to collect funds, conduct litigation, and distribute resources.
In contrast Occupy works on an explicitly decentralized plan. The movement strives to have a horizontal structure and leadership, in the traditional sense, is discouraged. There is no analog to the NAACP or CORE. It also has a very vague set of goals, at least in comparison to the CRM’s demands for voting rights and equality in housing and education."

I tried to deal with this regarding Anonymous' Project Chanology against Scientology in 2008.  They also did not allow "leader fagging."  One reason is that no one should receive more credit than any other person for the action, since it is a group action.  Another is that there is simply less need for designated leaders, since communication is so much simpler and cheaper now.  So I wouldn't say OWS rejected a method of organizing. I would say they utilized tools unavailable to the Civil Rights movement that made a leadership structure mute.