[Bob]

Often leading is as basic as being the one who will make decisions.
If the bulk of the decisions are good then you are a good leader.
One does not have to be schooled in the ways of war to be a good leader.
That is why we have generals.
A colony leader can simply be someone who understands human nature and is not afraid to make the hard decisions.

The first generation Zpaw survivors are going to be the worst to deal with.
They are all going to think they should have a say in how things are done.
There was a tv show called "the colony" that pissed me off every time it came on.
It was so unrealistic I damn near could not stand to watch it.
My youngest son would watch it and laugh telling me what morons they were.

[razorreilly]

LEADERSHIP TRAITS

1. BEARING. Bearing is general appearance, carriage, deportment and conduct. This is the ability to look, act, and speak like a leader. It is an essential element in a leader's effectiveness and should be cultivated by maintaining impeccable personal appearance, avoiding profane or vulgar language, keeping your word, holding your temper, speaking clearly and walking erect.

2. COURAGE. Courage is that which enables recognition and fear of danger or criticism, while still allowing calm and firm action. It exists in a moral, as well as physical sense. Moral courage means knowing what is right and standing up for it in the face of popular disfavor. When a leader is wrong, he accepts the blame.

3. DECISIVENESS. The leader should be able to make decisions promptly and to state them in a clear, forceful manner. The wise leader gets all the facts, weighs one against the other, then calmly and quickly arrives at the best decision. Decisiveness is largely a matter of practice and experience growing out of self-confidence and competence. The leader keeps in mind that many solid ideas originate at a subordinate level. Thus, opinions are solicited from subordinates when appropriate.

4. DEPENDABILITY. Dependability is the certainty of proper performance of duty. It is a quality that permits a senior to assign a task with the understanding that it will be accomplished with minimum supervision and maximum use of initiative. It includes the willing and voluntary support of the policies and orders of the chain of command, but does not mean blind obedience. Commanders should listen to suggestions from their subordinates, but once the final decision has been made, subordinates must give it their best effort in an attempt to achieve the highest standards of performance while subordinating personal interest to military requirements.

5. ENDURANCE. Endurance is akin to courage. It is the mental and physical stamina which is measured by the ability to withstand pain, fatigue, stress, and hardship. Since subordinates may view a lack of endurance in a combat situation as cowardice, the leader must display an acceptable, if not superior, level of endurance. Endurance and stamina should be developed by regular participation in strenuous physical and mental activities.

6. ENTHUSIASM. Enthusiasm is the display of sincere interest and zeal in the performance of duties. Displaying interest and optimism in performing a task greatly enhances the likelihood that the task will be successfully accomplished. Enthusiastic leaders are optimistic, cheerful, willing to accept the challenges of their profession, and determined to do the best job possible. Enthusiasm is contagious. Nothing will develop it more than the success of a unit or an individual.

7. INITIATIVE. Initiative, or taking action in the absence of orders, is required of leaders. Leaders who meet new and unexpected situations with prompt action instill respect and trust in their troops. Closely associated with initiative is resourcefulness - the ability to deal with a situation in the absence of normal resources or methods. To aid in the development of initiative, a leader must stay alert, recognize the task that needs to be done, and then accomplish it with caution, judgment, and discretion.

8. INTEGRITY. The uprightness and soundness of moral principles and the qualities of truthfulness and honesty comprise integrity. An upright leader places honesty, sense of duty, and sound moral principles above all else. Nothing less than complete honesty in all dealings with superiors, subordinates, and peers is acceptable.

9. JUDGMENT. Judgment is the ability to weigh facts and circumstances logically in order to make decisions. Anticipation of situations, avoidance of the "easy" decision, and the application of common sense are characteristic. Technical knowledge frequently plays an important role, as well. The leader who makes sound decisions either has personal knowledge essential to solving a particular problem or has the presence of mind to confer with experts.

10. JUSTICE. The just leader gives rewards and punishments according to the merits of the case in question. Impartiality is exercised in all judgment situations, and prejudice of any kind is avoided. Because each decision is a test of fairness which is observed by subordinates and superiors alike, the leader must be fair, consistent and prompt. Individual consideration should be given in each case.

11. KNOWLEDGE. Knowledge is the range of one's information, including professional knowledge. Leaders should develop a program of learning which will keep them abreast of current developments in their military specialty, command policies, and world affairs. A leader should also know and understand each one of his subordinates. Field manuals, training directives, magazines, and newspapers should be used in conjunction with serious discussions, research, and experience in broadening the leader's knowledge.

12. LOYALTY. Loyalty is the quality of faithfulness to country, the Corps, seniors, subordinates, and peers which should be reflected in every action. A leader's good reputation will be widespread when it is based upon actions taken to protect subordinates from abuse. Good leaders do not allow personal opinion to interfere with the mission, nor do they give the impression of disagreement with orders when relaying them to subordinates.

13. TACT. Tact is the ability to deal with others in a manner that will maintain good relations and avoid offense. During conditions of stress, the use of tact becomes challenging when delivering criticism to a subordinate. The inexperienced leader sometimes feels that politeness in the service implies softness. On the contrary, a calm, courteous, and firm approach usually will bring a cooperative response without unnecessary unpleasantness. Consistently treating superiors, subordinates, and peers with respect and courtesy regardless of conditions or true feelings is a sign of maturity required of leaders.

14. UNSELFISHNESS. Unselfishness is the avoidance of providing for one's personal comfort and advancement at the expense of others.

The comfort, pleasure, and recreation of subordinates should be placed above those of the leader.

Looking out for the needs of subordinates is the essence of leadership.

However, keep in mind that accomplishment of the mission has priority. T

rue leaders give themselves lowest priority and share the dangers and hardships with their Marines and Sailors.

[Cmpunk]

I would rather be the leaders right hand man

[mattifikation]

I thoroughly enjoyed The Colony. It was interesting that even though they all knew they were merely participating in the show, they actually began designing weapons like flamethrowers and molotov cocktails to fight the "raiders" with. I mean... what did they think, that the T.V. network was actually going to send people in to try to kill them?

It was a telling example of how the human mind reacts to stressful situations, how fantasy and reality can quickly overlap within the brain, and how events in a person's life can drastically alter or destroy their perception of reality. The show allowed its viewers to watch a loose recreation of the Stanford Prison Experiment unfold right in front of them.

The most unrealistic part about it was the fact that the entire group was comprised of intelligent, scientific minds. Everyone had an engineering degree, was a medical professional, or had years of hands-on experience doing all kinds of technical work. There wasn't anybody in their group whose "previous life" was dedicated to clerical work, computer programming, selling cars, farming out their uterus to make welfare checks, or anything else - these are the kinds of things most people do, not advanced engineering, medical, and physics work. The cast was not an accurate cross section of society.

Also, nobody had guns. Not even the raiders. In LA. Get real!

[UNDEAD FRED]

Just a question Im throwing out here.

Who, in your opinion, was the best leader in all the zombie movies that you have seen? For me it was Michael, from Dawn of the Dead 2004.

[Bub]

UNDEAD FRED said:

Just a question Im throwing out here.

Who, in your opinion, was the best leader in all the zombie movies that you have seen? For me it was Michael, from Dawn of the Dead 2004.

i liked Rhodes, but he was a bit nutty and messed everything up.
but a military leader can be more effective as a doing leader and in a tight spot can lead

[Bob]

Matt

You are baiting me right?
The interpersonal dynamics were way off.

[Survivor243]

Get someone with good people skills, check
Everyone gets along with this person, check
The said person has a brain,..... Anyone?
Oh, Hell, just vote as a group and get along if you all want to live

[Bob]

Voting in a survival situation against the Zed is a quick trip to becoming a shambler.

[Zombreach]

The only way allowing each member to have a vote would work, is in a very small group--say, less than five. Even then, there will be people who will cause a problem.

If I trust the person in charge, I would be happy to allow someone else to make all the decisions. That way, when things go wrong, I wouldn't be blamed! :lol:

[Survivor243]

I second that motion, but if you don't have everyone throwing in their two cents worth, they are going to get unhappy and might not like you/the leader

[CAVU45]

Zombreach said:

If I trust the person in charge, I would be happy to allow someone else to make all the decisions. That way, when things go wrong, I wouldn't be blamed! :lol:

Putting trust in a single person to make all the decisions can be fatal. All that person has to do is make one mistake and it could easily get people killed in a survival scenario.

[XLR8MooP]

I'd have to say a Oligarchy would be the best. Like in the real world 1 person isn't in-charge of everything they simply overview the others.
I like the system of 1 person for each field, so in this case 1, overseer(the man), 1 military leader, 1 farming leader etc. This way the Overseer doesn't need to give all his attention to said field of work and can focus on other important things like moral etc.
The benefits of this system is you get the prospective views of every field at a single table making decision making easier as you can way the pros and cons and how it would effect everyone.

I would see myself as an Overseer, simply because I can make a decision that isn't biased in anyway from simply weighing the pros and cons. Aswell as long term survival I can think of many issues that would need to be addressed and would beable to keep a high moral(got a good knack at this sadly >_>).
The other benefit or a Oligarchy system is you have people that support you for things you might not have thought of.

[TheAngelKing47]

I believe this thread is best replied to with a quote from the great General George S. Patton... "Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way"

[cptnSHAD0W]

XLR8MooP said:

I'd have to say a Oligarchy would be the best. Like in the real world 1 person isn't in-charge of everything they simply overview the others.
I like the system of 1 person for each field, so in this case 1, overseer(the man), 1 military leader, 1 farming leader etc. This way the Overseer doesn't need to give all his attention to said field of work and can focus on other important things like moral etc.
The benefits of this system is you get the prospective views of every field at a single table making decision making easier as you can way the pros and cons and how it would effect everyone.

I would see myself as an Overseer, simply because I can make a decision that isn't biased in anyway from simply weighing the pros and cons. Aswell as long term survival I can think of many issues that would need to be addressed and would beable to keep a high moral(got a good knack at this sadly >_>).
The other benefit or a Oligarchy system is you have people that support you for things you might not have thought of.

I agree, an Oligarchy would be the best way to go especially for the reasons XLR8 mentioned. Different fields run by different people would make things run smoother until a better plan could be adopted when the time comes.

[TheAngelKing47]

The problem is, history hath shewn, people don't tend to adopt better plans and your group could likely end up living under an oligarchy. So in this instance you must trust the people who institute a leadership to govern themselves.

I certainly don't think having a group of people most knowledgeable in their respective fields governing things, answering to a single figure head. The leader has to be level headed, and able to listen to reason, which is a difficult person to come by in today's world. People are going to be especially touchy considering a mistake isn't "oh no I have a new tax to pay" it's "oh $#%@! I'm being eaten alive!"

Now the real question is, what would you have advisers for? Pretending for a moment I'm in a leadership position, which I would be I would most likely be in charge of something like security. But all that aside pretending for a moment I'm the leader...I would appoint the following... (note this isn't real thought out, it's a bit of a brainstorm)

Head of Security - along with the people who are the best shots combined with the most well armed. This would typically epic fail, but the people I know that are the most well armed are also the best shots, so assuming they're with me it could work. Security is in charge of establishing a perimeter, and maintaining camp as a safe zone.

Head of Direct Action - personnel likely needed to be borrowed from security, but the people responsible for direct action are the people that retrieve supplies, food, medicine or go out simply to kill zombies, they also are likely to be responsible for missions to recon the surrounding area

Doctor - an appointed doctor, with the next two or three people with the most medical skill as medical staff

Quartermaster - the person that runs and keeps track of supplies, also in charge of noting supplies we "need".

Cook - the person in charge of food services, while the quartermaster runs supplies the cook and quartermaster can work together to keep track of food

Child Care - someone calm, intelligent and level headed as possible to take care of the children, possibly work on teaching them survival skills depending on age, that way the kids don't end up running off into a hoard of undead.

Someone in charge of Morale - the group clown, not really, but whatever... not a group therapist that pretends to care what's wrong for money, but a person specifically in charge of making sure there's things going on to keep everyone's morale boosted, to try to ease tension so people don't go insane.

Head of Agriculture - this one is for long term survival, but we have to be able to grow food at some point

Head of Hunting - also for long term similar to agriculture I would want a person in charge of being able to capture or kill game if it's even an option and the animals aren't infected

That leaves nine advisers which might be too many, and I'm sure could be consolidated.

[mattifikation]

I think that any large, built-up colonies with a lot of people will be run by warlords, while smaller groups will exist in the wilderness that live tribal ways of life.

The warlord-run colonies will be large and divided in opinion, so they will be lead by the people who can force their opinion to matter the most. The people who control the guns will control the resources, and therefor have the power there.

The smaller groups will probably be forced by circumstance to depend the most on the people who have the most to offer, who will in effect become the chiefs.

If you look around the world at lawless areas today, you tend to see a lot of this.

[Bob]

King
.King
..King
...King
....King
.....King
......King
.......King
........King
.........King
..........King

[CAVU45]

mattifikation said:

I think that any large, built-up colonies with a lot of people will be run by warlords, while smaller groups will exist in the wilderness that live tribal ways of life.

The warlord-run colonies will be large and divided in opinion, so they will be lead by the people who can force their opinion to matter the most. The people who control the guns will control the resources, and therefor have the power there.

The smaller groups will probably be forced by circumstance to depend the most on the people who have the most to offer, who will in effect become the chiefs.

If you look around the world at lawless areas today, you tend to see a lot of this.

Thing about those lawless areas is that essentially they were always lawless and the people knew no other way. I think it would be different here because we know another, better way.

[TheAngelKing47]

CAVU45 said:

Thing about those lawless areas is that essentially they were always lawless and the people knew no other way. I think it would be different here because we know another, better way.

This is pretty much exactly what I was thinking... in the US we're fed up we're not getting as adequately represented as we like, and we elect our representatives. In a small group, people would demand they have some sort of say or at the very least they be heard.