Dominance and how it may be established

[walfin]

I don't like to do such things. I am an INTP. Not an ESTJ.

Without going into specifics (which would almost certainly bore all of you), I'm currently in a situation where I have to establish dominance and enforce certain things, which pains me to no end since I would rather have things just run like clockwork. I much prefer an atmosphere of cooperation to one of fear.

This is not a new problem. This kind of shit (i.e. people not obeying me) has happened to me many, many times, and I don't know what I've learnt each time. I just feel helpless and they all climb over my head until one day I just have to burst. And then everybody is even less motivated and all start to work to rule. It is probably a result of my upbringing (since my opinions were, without fail, heedlessly disregarded by my parents) as well as my being INTP. I know I should rise out of it but I just feel trapped.

I don't care about being respected. I only care about being listened to so things can get done.

INTPs in leadership positions - what do you do to establish dominance? What do you do to ensure long term compliance from your subordinates?

 

[Artifice Orisit]

Tilt your head forward, hold eye contact and speak with the assumption that your words are going to be listened to and acted upon; I'm not sure if do this will have any real effect regarding dominance, but it will present as a very wilful person. Most people are quite willing to submit to a wilful person, not because they’ve been dominated as such, usually it because most people are quite happy to hand personal responsibility over to an apparently competent leader.

Actual intimidation is only required when dealing with people who resort to violence to enforce their will, personally I wouldn't recommend it; I’m large enough to effectively intimidate most people, however if someone were to confront me it would be quickly discovered that I'm actually quite a passive person. Now getting into an intense confrontation with someone who is accustomed to using force is a great way to get oneself into an unwanted fight and/or be dominated.

 

[Razare]

I don't care about being respected. I only care about being listened to so things can get done.

This is your problem. I have found that when working and put in a managerial role, I can become very ISTJ-like. This means working my butt off, but also directing orders at people and expecting them to do it.

When you do this, you are presuming people show up to work to earn money in compensation for their time. This is not in fact the only reason people show up to work. At least half the population requires positive socialization in their work environment, or they will become utterly miserable, causing them to disregard the value of their pay.

I am almost always miserable at work, so my primary focus is accomplishing the tasks at hand. I don't want to socialize at all, and usually am frustrated by people who do.

The thing is, to be a competent leader in a work environment, you have to be a leader for all types of people. You have to socialize with the people who need it and make them feel good, while keeping it business focused with determined workers.

You have to earn co-workers respect to be a good leader. Leadership is not about accomplishing the tasks at hand, it's about leading.

Once people like you as a person and recognize your status in the organization, you will not have any problems with them complying with your directives.

 

[Snail]

I usually deal with this problem by choosing not to put myself in positions where I must have authority over others, but in some situations, like when I babysit, I need to be in control. I obtain this control by keeping the children interested, entertained, and emotionally involved in any tasks I require of them, and by offering a lot of positive reinforcement for compliance. A little encouragement can change everything, and making a game of something that would ordinarily be tedious and unimaginative can also be useful. My brother uses this technique when he is teaching math to high school students. I've never had to boss adults around, so that might be different.

 

[Beat Mango]

Take up as much space as possible - psychological space, that is.

 

[Beat Mango]

This is your problem. I have found that when working and put in a managerial role, I can become very ISTJ-like. This means working my butt off, but also directing orders at people and expecting them to do it.

When you do this, you are presuming people show up to work to earn money in compensation for their time. This is not in fact the only reason people show up to work. At least half the population requires positive socialization in their work environment, or they will become utterly miserable, causing them to disregard the value of their pay.

I am almost always miserable at work, so my primary focus is accomplishing the tasks at hand. I don't want to socialize at all, and usually am frustrated by people who do.

The thing is, to be a competent leader in a work environment, you have to be a leader for all types of people. You have to socialize with the people who need it and make them feel good, while keeping it business focused with determined workers.

You have to earn co-workers respect to be a good leader. Leadership is not about accomplishing the tasks at hand, it's about leading.

Once people like you as a person and recognize your status in the organization, you will not have any problems with them complying with your directives.

How do you negotiate your own dislike for socialising, with a large group of people's need for it? The Introvert/Extrovert stylistic preference seems to be an irreconcilable difference, I would like to overcome it but all I am doing now is faking it and that is stressful. Eg, my boss wants to go through all the work procedures/tasks in detail, and I get stressed having to sit there even though it all seems very obvious to me, or at the very least, could be said in far less time. Also I'm convinced my last boss didn't like me because I wasn't able to work with that extroverted style: talking or bantering to him when it was quiet, and keeping him up with what I was doing when it was busy.

 

[Da Blob]

It is a paradox, the subordinates have to authorize you to exercise authority over them. It is a common misconception that authority only flows in one direction. For a system to work effectively authority must be a cycle... i wrote this some time (actually this portion may just be an exerpt from Paradox of Group Dynamics) ago the complete article is in a thread named Confusion or Rocks and Other Hard Places something like that I hope this Helps...


"One of the most critical developmental processes of a group is the creation of an authority system. Usually authority is thought of as something that flows down from above: a boss derives authority from those higher - up. The authority invested in a person can be understood as the outcome of an authorizing process. If we focus on the dynamics of authorizing rather than on the authority itself, it is clear that authority is something that is built or created. It flows from many places to many people.
Professors derive authority from the university, and students accept this as part of obtaining a degree; the judge in a courtroom derives authority from the relevant branch of government, and those who participate in the judicial process accept this because of the socially authorized sanctioned powers of the court.

In a group, members can authorize an individual to enact certain things on their behalf. The members' willingness to accept the activities undertaken by the authorized individual as an expression of the parts of themselves that they have given over actively creates authority in the group. The acceptance makes it possible for those with authority to be effective in representing group members' collective interests. The process of authorizing creates the conditions in which individual contributions can have an influence on the work of the group and the group can be influential in the larger system to which it belongs. In this regard, authority is closely linked to empowerment. One develops power as one empowers others.

Taking the power that is available and using it often creates a vacuum, because it is experienced as depriving others of a scarce commodity. As a result, power taking is resisted. Individuals often refuse to accept or exercise the power that is available to them in a group simply to avoid the accusation of having stolen it from someone else or having gained it at others' expense. Paradoxical authority starts with the link between authorizing others and authorizing oneself and explores the paradoxical nature of resistance to authority, one's own and that of other group members.

It is through a mutual authorization process that groups have the potential to be greater than the sum of their parts, and the management of resistance is a key to this process. Resistance or rebellion is also authority and acceptance involves resistance. The link between these two "opposite" phenomena is the heart of the paradoxical authority. Yet the very avoidance of taking and using the available power makes individuals in a group, and ultimately the group as a whole, feel powerless. The feelings of powerlessness create an even greater wish for power, making it even harder for anyone to seize it, because the feeling of deprivation is correspondingly larger, and the resistance grows. On the other hand, if one takes the available power and uses it to empower others, then total amount of group and individual power increases. "

 

[walfin]

It is a paradox, the subordinates have to authorize you to exercise authority over them.

Uhm. No. I can see what you mean, but I don't run a democracy.

The problem is I hate having to exercise authority and punish people. There are various things I can do to punish them but they'd either result in more headaches for me or I'd feel bad doing it. I naturally like to be polite even to my subordinates.

You have to earn co-workers respect to be a good leader. Leadership is not about accomplishing the tasks at hand, it's about leading.

Once people like you as a person and recognize your status in the organization, you will not have any problems with them complying with your directives.

Go on, I'm listening. Don't tell me to go read a book about leadership. I hope to hear an INTP perspective.

I used to like SOPs, but after some experience with instituting such things elsewhere, I think they'll end up counterproductive anyway.

 

[Razare]

How do you negotiate your own dislike for socialising, with a large group of people's need for it? The Introvert/Extrovert stylistic preference seems to be an irreconcilable difference, I would like to overcome it but all I am doing now is faking it and that is stressful. Eg, my boss wants to go through all the work procedures/tasks in detail, and I get stressed having to sit there even though it all seems very obvious to me, or at the very least, could be said in far less time. Also I'm convinced my last boss didn't like me because I wasn't able to work with that extroverted style: talking or bantering to him when it was quiet, and keeping him up with what I was doing when it was busy.

You pretty much force yourself to do it. It's best if you can actually learn to like your co-workers and socialize with them because you want to. Where I work, it's sort of a mixed bag where I like to socialize with some of them. Others, not so much.

Uhm. No. I can see what you mean, but I don't run a democracy.

The problem is I hate having to exercise authority and punish people. There are various things I can do to punish them but they'd either result in more headaches for me or I'd feel bad doing it. I naturally like to be polite even to my subordinates.


Go on, I'm listening. Don't tell me to go read a book about leadership. I hope to hear an INTP perspective.

I used to like SOPs, but after some experience with instituting such things elsewhere, I think they'll end up counterproductive anyway.

The INTP perspective is that you're not suited for leading and will have to force yourself to go through the motions of acting the leader. The only way I can see a non-social INTP being a naturally good leader is if you learn to like talking with all or most of your co-workers.

With conversation comes trust, which leads to respect, unless you just don't get along, then it leads to conflict. :P

What you have to do isn't theoretically difficult, it's just difficult to actually do because it'll mean working against your own nature. In other words, be social, likable, confident, and encouraging of others.

Disclaimer: Some people are total louts and will never perform well no matter what job you put them in. My advice is for workers who actually want to work, but will become disgruntled employees if you just bark orders at them.

 

[Devercia]

Uhm. No. I can see what you mean, but I don't run a democracy.

The statement is true even in the case of a despot. Blob's point is that authority is a social construct of the group, not the individual leaders.

Essentially, if you choose the despotic approach, you need to have satisfactory performance in your initial tasks. Once that happens the most compliant will support you simply for you incumbency. Once they have granted you authority beyond the initial stage, an authority structure will exist in the minds of even those that do not support you.

In my management experience, I simply let people take on roles they wanted. Thats not always an option, but I saw it my job to cultivate in my subordinates to an interest to invest in their own work(emotionally speaking). THere is always the slacker. I usually do what I can to get them to do something. If they persist, I remove them from whatever benifits I am allowed to dish out.

Its a bit hard to say anymore, as the validity of my style is very circumstancial.