Sign In »
Register Now!
Help
It's been frequently touched, so I figured it deserved it's own thread. I'd like to hear what others think before I go on a diatribe. But most of all, I would like it to be an honest discussion about the weaknesses and strenghts of the different kinds of leaderships and situations where each would shine (or suck), not just shooting down ideas.
Leadership: systems, styles and analysis.
Rate Topic:
#1
Posted 20 July 2008 - 12:35 AM
- Zombie Ensign
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 229
- Joined: 24-July 07
"Imagine"? "nothing to kill or die for"? Having nothing worth dying for, or killing for, is having nothing worth living for.
Back to top
#2
Former Member: Augustus Desius
Posted 20 July 2008 - 12:46 AM
Are we speaking of military, decentralized, or dynamic centralized leadership?
I would think that a centralized chain of command is the most effective, as it gives everyone a position and, so long as everyone does as thier commander say, it keep people in line and less willing to break under stressful assaults. Also, both good and bad, it detaches the lead commander from the stress of battle, allowing for clear minded set of instructions.
Cons to this would be that when central dies, so too does the entire military under its command. Also, a detached leader may not have accurate enough info to allow for good commands.
Did I miss the point of this thread? I should stop now if I did.
I would think that a centralized chain of command is the most effective, as it gives everyone a position and, so long as everyone does as thier commander say, it keep people in line and less willing to break under stressful assaults. Also, both good and bad, it detaches the lead commander from the stress of battle, allowing for clear minded set of instructions.
Cons to this would be that when central dies, so too does the entire military under its command. Also, a detached leader may not have accurate enough info to allow for good commands.
Did I miss the point of this thread? I should stop now if I did.
#3
Posted 20 July 2008 - 12:58 AM
- Zombie Ensign
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 229
- Joined: 24-July 07
Not at all. It's sort of what I thought and sort of not, but it's good actually.
In the beggining, If your group is really small, I think part of what John has said would hold true, for some time. The leader will probably be the person who can get things done, this means it will probably be the person with military/LE experience, a survivalist background or barring that someone with a borderline obsessive knowledge of all things zombie (the term, not the forums :p ) although not necesarily, if the person with background is the kind of guy you see going into periodic psychotic episodes and shellshock I wouldn't follow him to the kitchen, let alone around a city in the middle of armageddon. In other words it would be a very informal system with tacit agreements and quite a bit of playing it by ear.
As time goes by and the group expands beyond a certain point (where you're not talking about a few people but rather a few families, or quite a bit of people like over 30) something more refined must come up. And I believe the current system with separation of powers is a good idea, but on a much simplied scale of course. In other words having a leader who takes care of non combat decisions and another who leads raids, organizes defenses and such, neither of them being a senior over the other.
I think communications will regress, so it's important that the commander is close to the troops.
Democratic or meritocratic, there's still the aspect of style: soft, hard, or a middle point between both.
Hard would be trying to fix everything solely (or mostly) by intimidation, fear and punishments. In other words, treating people like tools.
Soft would be trying to do everything solely (or mostly) through persuation, machiavellian games, charisma, leadership by example and such.
In the beggining, If your group is really small, I think part of what John has said would hold true, for some time. The leader will probably be the person who can get things done, this means it will probably be the person with military/LE experience, a survivalist background or barring that someone with a borderline obsessive knowledge of all things zombie (the term, not the forums :p ) although not necesarily, if the person with background is the kind of guy you see going into periodic psychotic episodes and shellshock I wouldn't follow him to the kitchen, let alone around a city in the middle of armageddon. In other words it would be a very informal system with tacit agreements and quite a bit of playing it by ear.
As time goes by and the group expands beyond a certain point (where you're not talking about a few people but rather a few families, or quite a bit of people like over 30) something more refined must come up. And I believe the current system with separation of powers is a good idea, but on a much simplied scale of course. In other words having a leader who takes care of non combat decisions and another who leads raids, organizes defenses and such, neither of them being a senior over the other.
I think communications will regress, so it's important that the commander is close to the troops.
Democratic or meritocratic, there's still the aspect of style: soft, hard, or a middle point between both.
Hard would be trying to fix everything solely (or mostly) by intimidation, fear and punishments. In other words, treating people like tools.
Soft would be trying to do everything solely (or mostly) through persuation, machiavellian games, charisma, leadership by example and such.
This post has been edited by Faran Brigo: 20 July 2008 - 01:04 AM
"Imagine"? "nothing to kill or die for"? Having nothing worth dying for, or killing for, is having nothing worth living for.
#4
Former Member: Augustus Desius
Posted 20 July 2008 - 01:16 AM
Deciding leadership in early, small groups is both easy and hard, depending on the group. For example, a group that has an abundance of people scratching their way to the leadership position will often cause splitting of the troops, leading either to a complete separation or a small group that consists, essentially, of many smaller groups via favoritism. Neither of these are effective.
On the other side of the spectrum, a group of people without anyone wishing to lead will cause forced leadership or mob-mentality combat, also ineffective.
I like the idea of two lead commanders you mentioned. Having specialists is essential to survival (see: nature) and I think it will help leaders focus on their specialty, generally assisting the group.
Question: Will each lead commander have authority over the same group or does each commander have their own groups to work with?
EDIT: Leadership is a huge subject, perhaps we should break it down and discuss each subject individually, within this thread though as to not flood the US&D board with leadership threads.
EDIT2: Perhaps we should define what a leader is and decide what traits are most important. That would give us a base idea of what we're discussing and a defined unit to place in our scenerios (sp?).
On the other side of the spectrum, a group of people without anyone wishing to lead will cause forced leadership or mob-mentality combat, also ineffective.
I like the idea of two lead commanders you mentioned. Having specialists is essential to survival (see: nature) and I think it will help leaders focus on their specialty, generally assisting the group.
Question: Will each lead commander have authority over the same group or does each commander have their own groups to work with?
EDIT: Leadership is a huge subject, perhaps we should break it down and discuss each subject individually, within this thread though as to not flood the US&D board with leadership threads.
EDIT2: Perhaps we should define what a leader is and decide what traits are most important. That would give us a base idea of what we're discussing and a defined unit to place in our scenerios (sp?).
This post has been edited by Augustus Desius: 20 July 2008 - 01:31 AM
Reason for edit: orgle borgle does anyone read this?
#5
Posted 20 July 2008 - 01:37 AM
- Zombie Ensign
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 229
- Joined: 24-July 07
I agree with the division (of topics) but I think we should just let it flow for awhile, to get a feel of the aspects that should be adressed before categorizing.
Same group, but different situations. The peace leader calls the shots when there is no immediate danger. He determines what needs to be done when it doesn't involve combat directly (who gets assigned what tasks, what kind of defenses to build, where to hold up, where to go, that sort of thing) with input from the rest of the people in the group.
The combat leader directs offensive and defensive actions. As soon as the first zombie (or marauder) attacking is sighted, he assumes command, decides strategies and tactics and gives the corresponding order. Under attack, his orders are not questionable, however they might be reviewed after the danger has passed.
Both of them have joint command when it comes to areas where interests overlap, such as deciding raid sites and non-essential equipment procurement (I.E. what kind of tools for construction or important resources like power generators and such should be secured). An impasse would be broken by a general vote with two thirds majority. The right to vote however would only extend to members of the party with a reasonable amount of time there, who is competent at what they do.
Same group, but different situations. The peace leader calls the shots when there is no immediate danger. He determines what needs to be done when it doesn't involve combat directly (who gets assigned what tasks, what kind of defenses to build, where to hold up, where to go, that sort of thing) with input from the rest of the people in the group.
The combat leader directs offensive and defensive actions. As soon as the first zombie (or marauder) attacking is sighted, he assumes command, decides strategies and tactics and gives the corresponding order. Under attack, his orders are not questionable, however they might be reviewed after the danger has passed.
Both of them have joint command when it comes to areas where interests overlap, such as deciding raid sites and non-essential equipment procurement (I.E. what kind of tools for construction or important resources like power generators and such should be secured). An impasse would be broken by a general vote with two thirds majority. The right to vote however would only extend to members of the party with a reasonable amount of time there, who is competent at what they do.
"Imagine"? "nothing to kill or die for"? Having nothing worth dying for, or killing for, is having nothing worth living for.
#6
Former Member: Augustus Desius
Posted 20 July 2008 - 01:47 AM
I like it, the idea seems sound. The impasse situation I think has several flaws though. The voting idea is good, but there are some issues mainly concerning seniority and voting rights.
How would one go about deciding who has the right to vote? You spoke of those who have been in the organization long enough, will this be a set amount of time, or done by individual review of personel (can't spell it halp!) (like an exam you must pass before voting), or some other method? What if the authority is contested, or they fail to meet standards, are they forever banned from vote or can they reapply?
How would one go about deciding who has the right to vote? You spoke of those who have been in the organization long enough, will this be a set amount of time, or done by individual review of personel (can't spell it halp!) (like an exam you must pass before voting), or some other method? What if the authority is contested, or they fail to meet standards, are they forever banned from vote or can they reapply?
This post has been edited by Augustus Desius: 20 July 2008 - 01:49 AM
Reason for edit: errors forever!
#7
Posted 20 July 2008 - 01:59 AM
- Zombie Ensign
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 229
- Joined: 24-July 07
both. First condition would be spending at least 6 months in the group (obviously if he/she was not part of the original group), once that's met, the rest of the group would discuss the issue of whether or not to give the right to vote. This is so there's a good chance that people who get the right to vote are effective and trustworthy. It's just ideas though, it's all really open to adjustments depending on the circumstances.
"Imagine"? "nothing to kill or die for"? Having nothing worth dying for, or killing for, is having nothing worth living for.
#8
Former Member: Augustus Desius
Posted 20 July 2008 - 02:07 AM
Of course, none of this is solid, and numbers are simple to adjust as situations call for it. We haven't even discussed other forms of leadership so we have plenty of time for pro-con comparison.
But. . .
I'm out of ideas and questions for the moment, I'm gonna play Sins of a Solar Empire for a bit and come back to this soon.
But. . .
I'm out of ideas and questions for the moment, I'm gonna play Sins of a Solar Empire for a bit and come back to this soon.
#9
Posted 20 July 2008 - 02:13 AM
- Fresh Corpse
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 6
- Joined: 22-April 08
Faran Brigo said:
both. First condition would be spending at least 6 months in the group (obviously if he/she was not part of the original group), once that's met, the rest of the group would discuss the issue of whether or not to give the right to vote. This is so there's a good chance that people who get the right to vote are effective and trustworthy. It's just ideas though, it's all really open to adjustments depending on the circumstances.
A 6 month probation period may be a bit long. A lot of people may not survive long enough to have a say in a decision that got them killed. I'd say a month of living and working together every single day would be enough time to get a general handle on a person's personality and trustworthiness.
#10
Posted 20 July 2008 - 02:27 AM
- Zombie Ensign
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 229
- Joined: 24-July 07
A lenghty probation period discourages and makes infiltration harder. It also provides plenty of time for the whole group to get to really know the possible member, no one can put a flawless facade for 6 consecutive months. I'd want it to be even longer, but that would be too impractical.
"Imagine"? "nothing to kill or die for"? Having nothing worth dying for, or killing for, is having nothing worth living for.
#11
Former Member: Augustus Desius
Posted 20 July 2008 - 07:54 AM
So, here is how I see the structure as of now. The question marks are for things not discussed or not understood.
High leadership: 2 main Commanders; Combative and Peacetime
Combative:
When in charge: Under perceived aggressive threat.
Loss of authority: When all perceived threats are eliminated or evaded.
Duties: Instruct lower ranks for offensive or defensive operations, votes on voting rights.
Post: ? (do they travel with the troops or stay at a headquarters)
Wage: ? (do they make a living wage, or is the wage living conditions and security)
Peacetime:
When in charge: All non-combative scenarios.
Loss of Authority: When agressive threat appears.
Duties: Managing troop movement, Pre-establish defense, votes on voting rights.
Post: I assume he stays behind. Y/N?
Wage: Equal to Combative Commander.
I think that covers High-Command roles, but what of Low-Command (Lieutenants) and Non-Command (Privates) positions? I imagined that would depend on whether or not the Combative Commander (I will call CC from now on) stays with the troops. If they do, then Low-Commanders (LC) may be redundant, as the CC will give all commands as the situation arises, on-the-fly. If they don't I would have to assume that he would have LCs with the troops, to relay commands and come up with tactics on-the-fly and relay vital info to the CC.
Also, How do you think High-Commanders should elected? The option are many. I would assume they would be elected from the troops, but I was thinking they should be put through a battery of tests, ranging from combat tactics to technical knowledge. And then those who qualify should be candidates if they so choose. This wouldn't apply if a High-Commander died and must be replaced very quickly (such as in battle if he is fielded with the troops.) Instead either the Peacetime or a temporary commander will be chosen.
Thoughts debates or additions?
High leadership: 2 main Commanders; Combative and Peacetime
Combative:
When in charge: Under perceived aggressive threat.
Loss of authority: When all perceived threats are eliminated or evaded.
Duties: Instruct lower ranks for offensive or defensive operations, votes on voting rights.
Post: ? (do they travel with the troops or stay at a headquarters)
Wage: ? (do they make a living wage, or is the wage living conditions and security)
Peacetime:
When in charge: All non-combative scenarios.
Loss of Authority: When agressive threat appears.
Duties: Managing troop movement, Pre-establish defense, votes on voting rights.
Post: I assume he stays behind. Y/N?
Wage: Equal to Combative Commander.
I think that covers High-Command roles, but what of Low-Command (Lieutenants) and Non-Command (Privates) positions? I imagined that would depend on whether or not the Combative Commander (I will call CC from now on) stays with the troops. If they do, then Low-Commanders (LC) may be redundant, as the CC will give all commands as the situation arises, on-the-fly. If they don't I would have to assume that he would have LCs with the troops, to relay commands and come up with tactics on-the-fly and relay vital info to the CC.
Also, How do you think High-Commanders should elected? The option are many. I would assume they would be elected from the troops, but I was thinking they should be put through a battery of tests, ranging from combat tactics to technical knowledge. And then those who qualify should be candidates if they so choose. This wouldn't apply if a High-Commander died and must be replaced very quickly (such as in battle if he is fielded with the troops.) Instead either the Peacetime or a temporary commander will be chosen.
Thoughts debates or additions?
#12
Posted 20 July 2008 - 02:37 PM
- Zombie Ensign
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 229
- Joined: 24-July 07
Well, for the post I'm guessing at least until the group's too large to do that, they're all going to stick together all if not most of the time. The peacetime leader is one more gun when things go bad, and so are technicians and others, like the marine motto "Every Marine is a Rifleman First" same thing here.
As for wage, I'm guessing money will have no value, creature comforts will be scarce, and different food rations (for example) would be a bad idea for several reasons. I was thinking it would be more of a status thing.
As for wage, I'm guessing money will have no value, creature comforts will be scarce, and different food rations (for example) would be a bad idea for several reasons. I was thinking it would be more of a status thing.
"Imagine"? "nothing to kill or die for"? Having nothing worth dying for, or killing for, is having nothing worth living for.
#13
Posted 20 July 2008 - 05:57 PM
- Still Breathing
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 0
- Joined: 02-February 06
Leadership shouldnt enforce but should inform.
When you start enforcing you are building up a pyramid as it is in the modern world civilization. Which I think is flawed.
In an outbreak, I would never follow someone, I'd be better on my own or at least in a group where everyone contributes without sounding like the alpha male.
When you start enforcing you are building up a pyramid as it is in the modern world civilization. Which I think is flawed.
In an outbreak, I would never follow someone, I'd be better on my own or at least in a group where everyone contributes without sounding like the alpha male.
#14
Posted 20 July 2008 - 10:50 PM
- Still Breathing
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 0
- Joined: 11-June 08
Well yeah, a group with a fixed leadership or one where following commands is all you do is ridiculous. Nobody would follow you.
An Alpha Male (or female) is always nice because they can inspire courage or morale when there is none. I agree that everyone should do their own part equally to their best ability. If someone has something to say or suggest, no matter who they are, they should be respected and heard out. In a high-stress situation, I would think that if anyone in the group felt the need to double back to a safe-house, then it should be done. If one domino starts to fall, it won't be long til more people are panicking and then you're done for.
All groups should be small enough and close enough that every member should be important enough to listen to.
Example of a bad leadership (IMO):
Leader- "I'll tell you what to do and when to do it"
Watchman- "I'll just be up on the roof keeping an eye out"
Soldiers- "We shoot guns"
Piss boy- "I take the piss bucket on the roof and throw it off the edge"
In a good group (IMO), everyone should use their own talents to an advantage with the normal tasks (like keeping watch, cooking, or even throwing the piss off the roof) rotated through the members so everyone does an equal share.
An Alpha Male (or female) is always nice because they can inspire courage or morale when there is none. I agree that everyone should do their own part equally to their best ability. If someone has something to say or suggest, no matter who they are, they should be respected and heard out. In a high-stress situation, I would think that if anyone in the group felt the need to double back to a safe-house, then it should be done. If one domino starts to fall, it won't be long til more people are panicking and then you're done for.
All groups should be small enough and close enough that every member should be important enough to listen to.
Example of a bad leadership (IMO):
Leader- "I'll tell you what to do and when to do it"
Watchman- "I'll just be up on the roof keeping an eye out"
Soldiers- "We shoot guns"
Piss boy- "I take the piss bucket on the roof and throw it off the edge"
In a good group (IMO), everyone should use their own talents to an advantage with the normal tasks (like keeping watch, cooking, or even throwing the piss off the roof) rotated through the members so everyone does an equal share.
C.H.A.O.S Founder
Coordinated Hazard Assault and Organized Strategies
Coordinated Hazard Assault and Organized Strategies
#15
Posted 21 July 2008 - 12:00 AM
- Fresh Corpse
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 6
- Joined: 22-April 08
Agreed with the above posts. I don't think it's a good idea to compartmentalizie daily tasks into groups that only do the cooking, only do the shooting, only do general housekeeping, etc... . Everyone should be trained to do every task they are physically capable of and take turns doing them. Like Dave Of The Dead said: even the best markman in the group is going to have to take his turn empting the piss-bucket.
What happens if a raiding party gets completely wiped out and only the cooks and carpenters are left without having received the proper training on weapons use?
What happens if a raiding party gets completely wiped out and only the cooks and carpenters are left without having received the proper training on weapons use?
This post has been edited by bandits1: 21 July 2008 - 04:17 AM
#16
Posted 21 July 2008 - 02:53 AM
- Still Breathing
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 0
- Joined: 18-January 05
My humble opinion, in a zombie outbreak situation, the best form of government in this situation is honestly, more or less a Fascist like system. In a life or death situation involving zombies I believe the person that becomes the leader, does so because he is the most capable and suited for the tasks at hand. While this is an autocracy, he would have his subordinates to handle other issues as necessary, chosen also based upon how well they qualify for the position. I believe also in an outbreak collectivism is best, focus on the good of the group as a whole.
#17
Former Member: Behemoth
Posted 21 July 2008 - 07:05 AM
Slayer said:
My humble opinion, in a zombie outbreak situation, the best form of government in this situation is honestly, more or less a Fascist like system. In a life or death situation involving zombies I believe the person that becomes the leader, does so because he is the most capable and suited for the tasks at hand. While this is an autocracy, he would have his subordinates to handle other issues as necessary, chosen also based upon how well they qualify for the position. I believe also in an outbreak collectivism is best, focus on the good of the group as a whole.
Your humble opinion is shared. I would however not use the word fascist, i would call it a benevolent dictatorship, a firm control must be maintained, yet not at the expence of logic & fairness. But when all is said & done any leader is only as good as those he/she leads, if you're leading a bunch of lawyers, congressmen & estate agents, well all i can say is beware the ides of march!
#18
Posted 21 July 2008 - 07:46 PM
- Still Breathing
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 0
- Joined: 02-February 06
bandits1 said:
Agreed with the above posts. I don't think it's a good idea to compartmentalizie daily tasks into groups that only do the cooking, only do the shooting, only do general housekeeping, etc... . Everyone should be trained to do every task they are physically capable of and take turns doing them. Like Dave Of The Dead said: even the best markman in the group is going to have to take his turn empting the piss-bucket.
What happens if a raiding party gets completely wiped out and only the cooks and carpenters are left without having received the proper training on weapons use?
What happens if a raiding party gets completely wiped out and only the cooks and carpenters are left without having received the proper training on weapons use?
That and what if there is no cooks to begin with?
"Soldya, you know I dont even have to tell you but you gonna have to fix yoself a meal"
#19
Former Member: Creature
Posted 21 July 2008 - 09:26 PM
Who in the right mind would send EVERYONE to do a raidin party? It makes the others who can't do much attack or defence pretty much undefended.
"Lets go back." *they all go back* "Aw shit. Our Guys are dead"
"Lets go back." *they all go back* "Aw shit. Our Guys are dead"
#20
Posted 21 July 2008 - 10:46 PM
- Zombie Ensign
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 229
- Joined: 24-July 07
If everyone's going, then what "others" are you talking about?
"Imagine"? "nothing to kill or die for"? Having nothing worth dying for, or killing for, is having nothing worth living for.
