Does leadership necessarily has to be dominant?
‘Hey you, come here’
would be the address of the dominant instead of ‘can you please come’? The very
style of calling manifests domination. But the style of addressing also speaks
of ingrained decision, needing implementation. A dominant person has high task
orientation in approach with emphasis on decision making, overcoming challenges
and achieving results preferably immediately. That exactly was visible in the
style of addressing. The style of calling implied that whatever work you have
been doing leave it and just come to me, which obviously is not the meaning
when someone chooses to say ‘can you please come’. Ability to shape the environment and taking
risks are the other two qualities of manifestation of self confidence and
decisiveness that dominant people possess. All these qualities no doubt are the
hallmark of a leader. But the question is, are they indispensable for leadership
since dominant persons also tend to be impatient, poor team players and unconcerned
about others and outcome (by-product of their actions). The manner of address as
mentioned above is again of ample evidence.
Leadership visibility
is made possible through a variety of skills that the leaders practice but are
not easily discernable. Identifying in a crowd enthusiastic and dispirited
people at a glance is a classic example. It helps them lead better as they
understand the emotions of both and appreciate their effects. Most such skills of
leadership are not the monopoly of dominant characters and are more
democratically distributed. But when it comes to enforcing an understood point
of view for implementation it is dominance that helps.
Often leadership
dilemma arises from the decision making options that affect the leader’s personality
traits. Aversion to hostile reactions, choosing to be liked than respected, inability
to react to crisis are aspects where personality wins and leadership loses if
the style is not dominant. But the weakness of dominant persons that of being
unconcerned about people by being heavily task oriented is visible in the
feelings of many hurt souls that their leadership style leaves.
Entrepreneurial skill
which reflects in daring business ventures, risk taking skills that speaks of
fearlessness and decision making skills that speaks of resoluteness are
essentially visible with dominant people. Since leaders emerge in all varieties
of characters, there is no gainsaying that they have to be necessarily
dominant. The consequential question is, are dominant leaders more successful
than others under the same situation?
The opposite of
dominant is also submissive. Submissive behaviour won't help lead but not being
dominant one can also be assertive. Assertive people are confident and firm
when they make demands and know that they have to demand. When a pace bowler
hurls the new ball with a high swing and speed, the best of batsmen leave it to
fly past just outside the off stump or above the bails. In addition he also
ensures that it does not touch the bat. "What a judgment!" comments
the expert. In other words the batsman knows his limits, limits of the
immovable stump and also the movable bat. Leaders even if they are not dominant
can display the quality of assertiveness in a similar manner. They would be
emphatic and insistent but know where to stop in order not to be seen as
aggressive.
Domination in the
long run breeds resistance. The dominant style forces people to forego a lot of
comforts especially mental and emotional. In the process of being dominant one
also walks tall like an elephant unaware as well as unmindful of the crushing
of emotions and egos of people giving rise to people responding with résistance
and negative emotions.
The weaknesses of
dominant leaders are their diminishing returns. They need to be less overriding
and more prevailing. In the long run they create hidden enemies out of the hurt
souls. So back to the question, "does leadership necessarily has to be
dominant"?
**************************************************************************
Comments