Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    I think your own examples indicate that it's not entirely an either/or
    situation.  That is, people aren't either leader or followers but some 
    of each.  I think that people tend to follow one of those traits as a 
    general rule but, given sufficient stimuli, will display  the opposite 
    trait.
    
    As to the "whys" of leader vs. follower personalities, I wouldn't
    care to hazard any major guesses at the moment (I plead "distant-mind"
    syndrome - that feeling one has upon (physically) returning from
    vacation), but at one point you've openned the door for an interesting
    nature vs. nurture discussion.  You said, "The leader is. . . doing 
    what comes naturally, leading."  Is that trait (or that of "follower")
    inborn or is it learned?
    
    Right now, I think I'd like to lead myself (or follow my nose) out
    into the sunshine for a little vacation reprise. . .
    
    Steve

    At first I did no agree however I find what you say is true.  I
    think the behavior is learned early on, passed by the dominant
    parent, re: if parent encourages leadership you lead, if parent
    dominates and discourages taking lead you follow.  Later in life
    after patterns are well established you may choose only with a lot
    of energy wasted on trying to lead, you lead and it becomes easier
    with practice.  To some though the risk is more costly than what
    seems to be the benefits and thus stay in their comfort zones.
    It is also true that some of us choose both and can lead or follow
    to this I think they lead a balanced life.
    
    jim

    I was brought up in a household where the females were taught to
    be leaders but *must ALWAYS* let the men think they were followers.
    
    Along those lines, we never *showed* a man we were smarter, more
    adept, funnier, more agile, or better at *anything* - that may damage
    their ego, Heaven forbid! It was ingrained in us so early that it
    became second nature.
    
    As self confidence developed in some of us, the time-consuming,
    stupid, game playing faded, and we were able to take on the leadership
    role when we wanted to accomplish or conquer certain tasks, and
    we could take on the followers role when our interest in leading
    was less keen. Having the choice and the freedom from mind games
    was a wonderful awakening.
    
    I think the perfect combination is to have some the leadership and
    some of the "follow-ship" (?) qualities in us, *and* we should be
    able to slip into each role easily and change as the event dictates.
    So much for my idea of perfection. If I ever find myself approaching
    such an ideal, I'll write back. Until then, I'll just follow my
    nose and lead myself out of this note!
    
    					Susan

       
 .0>   Followers may not even be aware of the fact that they are followers.

       The leader may not know that the follower is a follower.

       It comes as a real shock, when the follower tells you that they
       are through being dominated and you (the designated leader) say
       "I asked you 20 times, what restaurant you wanted to go to and you
       said you really didn't care.  How was I supposed to know you felt
       subordinate when I picked one?"

       Trying not to give orders to another adult, doesn't mean you're
       not giving orders to another adult.
       
           Richard

The problem for me is I tend to vacilate between taking on the role of
leader (dominating), and follower (submitting).

I'm trying to discover ways of working together without dominating,
or surrendering my autonomy to others.

I can sort of express the idea as follows:

Autonomous individuals working together toward a common purpose.
Each is a leader, taking initiative, responsible for the whole,
supporting the other, sharing power.

- Peter

>	... we came to the conclusion that the reason for this is
>	that you have two types of people, a leader and a follower.
>
>	Any thoughts?

Yes, quite a few thoughts, none of them mine... 

What you are saying is kinda true, but overly simplistic. You
discern only one type of human interaction (leader-follower). People
are not that simple. There are more. 

The thoughts come from 'Predictable Pairing' by Robert A. Ravich and
Barbara Wyden. Very enjoyable, illuminating reading. You don't have
to agree with it all, but on the whole, it's rather convincing. 

Dr. Ravich sees three major patterns of human interaction. There
are also four minor patterns, which incorporate two (in one case
all three) major patterns. Finally, he defines an eighth 'maverick'
pattern, that occurs in a very small number of relationships. 

Dr. Ravich has devised a simple game which he requires couples to
play. Their behaviour during the game is guaranteed to betray the
kind of pattern their relationship is based on. 

The three patterns are Dominant-submissive (another name for your
leader-follower), Cooperative and Competitive. I don't recall  the
four minor patterns or the exact nature of the chaotic one, but if
people are interested, I can look it up. 

-- Ron

I would say the dominant-submissive apsect is one of the
primary interactions in a relationship.
People are not all the same; in any interaction between two people,
one of them is going to be more dominant. This is more prominent
in a relationship. The submissive personality acts that way since
all the risk-taking is being done by the other person. They are
apprehensive of the uncertainity behind making a decision or voicing
an opinion and are afraid of facing the consequences of making the
wrong choice. I have seen this happen where the submissive personality
usually lacks self-confidence or is an ACOA or both. This is not
a generalization but a opinion from what I have seen.
    
If the dominant person realizes the nature of the relationship, then
one way to bring about equilibrium is to coax the other person to 
speak out a little more. Make them realize that its alright for them
to take up the helm and that both people will be there to face the
rough seas if neccesary!! If the submissive person does try to balance out
then they should get all the encouragement the dominant person can give
since thats what would count most. 

The ideal balance would be both people playing both roles depending
on the occasion and need.

Krishna                

    I feel that I am a leader and I'll tell you, I'm damn sick and tired
    of it.  It seems like I have to make every decision and after 22
    years I'd like to say "enough".  But, of course, I'm reluctant to
    chuck it.  Sometimes, I'd just like to make decisions for me.
    
    John