Currently, guilds do not have much intrinsic value beyond the guild bank. Achievements and rewards go to individuals, and those individuals can get those achievements and rewards anywhere. Once that changes, players must level guild rep and put time and effort into their guild. Guilds become valued commodities that players must invest themselves in.
This begs the question -- should all the power be in one person's hands? One person who might get ticked off at his or her guild and /disband to teach everyone a lesson? One person who may take a leave of absence and put the guild in the hands of a trusted friend who turns into a dictator?
Does the power to remove a guild from existence truly belong in the hands of one person, or does that choice belong to the whole guild?
I feel that having one guild leader as the supreme authority in a guild is an outdated model. Some work well with it, and I'm not suggesting it be removed. I merely think that a guild should have more structural models to choose from, such as a council or a democracy or even a republic.
My most immediate concern is that I think the disband function should be changed to a vote that more than the guild leader must participate in.
I also think that a guild's members should have the ability to overthrow an unstable guild leader. A way, perhaps, to demote that person and put someone else in their place, to the purpose of keeping the guild intact as a structure while removing the power of someone who doesn't have the guild's interests at heart.
I feel strongly that one person should not have the ability to hold a well-progressed guild ransom to get his or her own way, and that an acceptable amount of power (acceptable being a debatable quantity) should be put into the hands of guild members for emergency situations to preserve their guild.
Even if it's just a new rule that a guild can ticket to have a guild leader replaced if they can prove that he or she has been acting to the guild's severe detriment.