Many have, yes. ;) It's easy for people to underestimate it.
In the recent book _Real Utopia_, people pointed out how poorly we're socialized to deal with each other as equals. (I consider that an interesting challenge rather than demotivation -- I'm sure we're far less sexist and racist than we were not too long ago.)
"In my experience, interpersonal conflicts within egalitarian
collectives are vastly more prevalent and difficult to address
than most people think or hope. Apart from our complete lack of
business experience and knowledge when Mondragón first started up,
I would argue that the nature and long-term threat of
interpersonal conflicts was one of the things we most
under-estimated, were most surprised by, and were least prepared
to deal with. Why that is, and how different things might be
between our present difficulties under capitalism and a
long-established parecon, is not intuitively obvious. No doubt
there are forces which shape and constrain conflict resolution
under capitalism, including within our own alternative
institutions, which may be absent in a future participatory
economy. For starters, none of us has been raised, right now, to
deal with one another as equals. We need to acknowledge that there
are actually skills and training involved to deal with one another
openly, with respect, to cut through the baggage of our classist,
racist, sexist socialization, to transcend the harmful elements of
our own pride and egos, and so on. Acknowledging this is not the
same thing as resolving it."
"Participatory Economics in Theory & Practice," Paul Burrows
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/15987
"Any person who has participated in a non-hierarchical kind of
organization, even a small one, knows that, in the absence of
mechanisms that protect plurality and foster participation,
"horizontality" soon becomes a fertile soil for the survival of
the fittest. Any such person also knows how frustrating and
limited it is to have organizations in which each and everyone are
always forced to gather in assemblies to make decisions on every
single issue of a movement -from general political strategy to
fixing a leaking roof. The "tyranny of structurelessness", as Jo
Freeman used to say, exhausts our movements, subvert their
principles, and makes them absurdly inefficient.
"Contrary to the usual belief, autonomous and horizontal
organizations are more in need of institutions than hierarchical
ones; for these can always rely on the will of the leader to
resolve conflicts, assign tasks, etc. I would like to argue that we
need to develop institutions of a new type. By institutions I do
not mean a bureaucratic hierarchy, but simply a set of democratic
agreements on ways of functioning, that are formally established,
and are endowed with the necessary organizational infrastructure to
enforce them if needed."
"Autonomous Politics and its Problems," Ezequiel Adamovsky
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/3911
Tayssir