Leadership

[Nauzhror]

i want to pick up on this part just briefly here. every leader i have had in the past that has sat my account has always sabotaged my account.

everytime i have been away on business for a few days and set my leader as sitter he / she themselves as a leader has internalled my villages.

so for me personally nobody gets my sit although if my leader wanted information such as troops i would not hide them but i just wanted to point out that even some of the good players (yes i consider myself to be good ) will not allow account sits because of these problems especially when the leader of my tribe at this current time threatens to dismiss me for not giving her my sit yet she is a 2k Player that has no clue how to play lol.

i hope i was clear i am rather tired so there is prolly alot of typo's

If someone thinks that as a former admin I am going to sabotage their account and get myself banned I assure you, I do not want them in my tribe
If someone in my tribe is obviously cheating, I will dismiss them immediately and report them. I do not condone cheating of any sort. I do not associate with people who cheat, if I am in a tribe and other memebrs are obviously cheating the same is true, I am reporting them and either they are getting dismissed or I am leaving. Under no circumstances would I ever abuse an account sit.

 

[Ban Hammer]

i think that was misunderstood. i didn't mean you personally as a leader nauz i just meant it in a general manner. of course even with all my personal experience of account sits there are still people i would set but as to any general leader i wouldn't i guess sit differs depending on the leader but i was more stating it in the way that some people do have these problems with some people they have been lead by.

 

[Maggie Wallis]

I agree that were ever or what ever type of tribe is being lead, the process of recruitment should no differ... as Nauz says the requirements will differ... the average standard of players seems to drop from one world to the next, but that is a side point...

IMO when recruiting on the rim, it's much more about looking at potential, willingness to listen and to learn, then it is about the actual standard of an account... if the activity and determination is there, anyone can be taught how to build a top 20 account... though I'm not sure how you sit an application to a pre-made?... surely that is much more about reputation... recruitment also has to match leadership style, not all leaders have the same style of leading, but all can be effective with the right recruitment... and the reverse that not all top player will respond to all types of leadership style... which therefore comes back to the ability of the leader to be consistent in both their approach and their treatment of individual tribe members...

I too have been refused account sits on the basis that I will use the sit to abuse the account or to gleam information to enable the player to be rimmed... in my view, if you don't trust your future leader to sit your account, then why are you applying to that tribe?...

There will always be players that cheat, or abuse sits, or any other of the ways to play the game 'unfairly'... there are rules and a reporting system... the more players that use it to report others for cheating, the less likely cheaters will play the game... (though a better attitude from ingame mods wouldn't go a miss (yes a generalisation, not all are bad))...

I agree that loyalty is earn't, though it should be demanded and expected the leader should understand that they have to earn it... loyalty also has to be shown by a leader, yes the fat should be trimmed, but in most circumstances the fat should be given the opportunity to see if a diet works (ignoring the obvious behaviour that demands an instant trim without further discussion)...

Too often the average player will judge a tribe on it's points/rank alone... in my experience you get a lot less fat clogging up your inbox when leading a rim tribe of 3 players ranked 150th then you do once the tribe start climbing the rankings...

It would be interesting to see Nauz lead a tribe under a alias IGN where no one knew it was you... start wherever/whenever and build the tribe without your reputation making it a tribe to be a member off... I know you don't claim to be a great leader, it may well improve your leadership... every new player that joins the game willing to listen, learn, improve and enjoy the game deserves to be lead by someone will help them achieve that as I'm sure 99% of top players can remember the leaders that taught them and help them learn how to play and enjoy the game... I happily admit that if it wasn't for TFF rimming me on W3 then inviting me I wouldn't still be here (though some may say that would be an improvement)... and if it wasn't for Debs leading me for a short time on world 9, and axes rimming me I'd be an even worse player than I am... It wouldn't be fair unless I also mention the nameless that have given me the determination to play better in order to beat them...

 

[DeletedUser920]

This is an interesting thread - much more like discussions when I began five years ago.

I'm very aware that my view of this is influenced by my political (with a small 'p') views and how I want the world to be, but I'll throw in my twopennorth anyway. Sometimes it is great to develop massive schemes for whole tribe ops, but I always felt that a lot of the time each participant is performing way below their actual capacity. I remain convinced that the most effective tribe is the one that can successfully devolve control to groups of 4-5 players who then work together. Not necessarily the same five all the time, but gets groups of players communicating and acting unselfishly as one. very often whole tribe ops have no more than this involved meaningfully at a time, so a group of 25 that has five different ops running concurrently should be able to wipe most tribes off the map. If those groups then combine when needed - either for support of to clear difficult targets then I believe you have a winner.

To do that you need to have trust though. I don't think I have ever had anyone abuse my account when I have asked or allowed them to sit (beyond sarky comments on my profile...), but then I have never been interested in a tribe that went against my principles.

I'm not a fan of the 'strong leader' school, but I do agree that people must be willing to make decisions and take responsibility for them, as bad decisions are often better than no decision. If you know each other over time you can become a lot more tolerant of foibles and learn to take the rough with the smooth.

What's key to leadership ? that really is hard to say. Sometimes it may mean hard decisions, but it is more about giving power to trustworthy people and trusting people to make decisions. I don't agree that a council is a crutch for a weak leader. I think it is essential to share out the roles so each task can be completed and the tribe can continue when one person is not available.

I have led a few tribes (.net as well as .uk), but mostly I'm a council member, if that affects how you read my post.

 

[Nauzhror]

I don't agree that a council is a crutch for a weak leader. I think it is essential to share out the roles so each task can be completed and the tribe can continue when one person is not available.

I have led a few tribes (.net as well as .uk), but mostly I'm a council member, if that affects how you read my post.

We tend to take a diofferent stance with our tribes.

There is one leader.

There may be more than one duke.

This does not mean they are a council, the leader is the leader, they make all decisions. The other duke(s) typically only act when something urgent comes up while the leader is offline. Not to mention if the duke account is co-played you will typically not have them be offline very often.

 

[Ban Hammer]

i think the only time i have ever had a council among the tribes i lead is if i do not have all the available time that a tribe requires to lead available.

having a council is basically like what Nauz said it's primarily just a back up and / or support to the current one leader but essentially if a duke has all the time to lead a tribe then a council is simply not needed and reason is because as Nauz simply stated the decisions ultimately end up being the leaders decision and a council is merely a influence.

but then from my experience good leaders don't need an influenced decisions because if they are in fact a good leader then they would already know the decision and would not waste their time with a council of people to influence and / or discuss it.

 

[Maggie Wallis]

Any person that believes they can make a better decision than anyone else all of the time is a fool...

Any person that believes that any decision they make isn't biased towards their own needs is a fool...

As Nuaz posted earlier, as duke, he won't ask for support as he doesn't want to be viewed as a duke that uses his tribe as a meatsheild... it can not be argued that at some stage, protecting a tribe member from being rimmed, isn't good for the tribe as a whole... a situation could therefore arise where his tribe supporting Nauz is the best decision for the tribe, but his personal concerns, as he stated, would come first, before what is best for the tribe...

(not a personal attack, simply an example of natural human behaviour that comes into every decision we all make....)

As a duke of, lets say, a 20 member tribe, I can't be online 24/7... I can't have a full knowledge of every members needs, requirements or situation... not using those you trust within your tribe to discuss, gain knowledge and help to make the best decision is foolish...

Yes, a duke has to be able to make the time critical decisions swiftly and without help... but those decisions that are not time critical, a good leader will ask and listen to those he trust (his council) and use what he learns to aid his decision making process...

There is a reason why a democracy has a Parliament, has individual representing different groups of people... Has a leader that has a cabinet of people concentrating on different areas... There is a reason why a Dictatorship is widely viewed as not the best form of leadership...

 

[DeletedUser5582]

Ok ok some entertaining points being raised here. Rob I do agree but am going to dispute this bit

There is a reason why a democracy has a Parliament, has individual representing different groups of people... Has a leader that has a cabinet of people concentrating on different areas... There is a reason why a Dictatorship is widely viewed as not the best form of leadership...

Apart from in a war. Getting away from TW all the best leaders were in effect dictators (even those like Churchill who had a National Govt to hide this)

However I totally agree with the bit about believing you are always right. Look at King Canute who had to sit in a chair and get wet to show that dictators not always right all of the time.

For me this is why a successful tribe has the non badge wearers who carry more weight than any nominal "baron". A good leader has to make the calls when needed. A Great leader has anticipated the needs and had a quiet chat with others to listen first and then makes the right call most of the time.

 

[Maggie Wallis]

Without going down a road that would completely derail this thread, there are far more examples of dictators that got it wrong, then their are of those that got it right...

I will accept that an argument could be made to state that Churchill was a dictator, though I highly doubt that anyone that would make that argument would also claim that Churchill did not listen to his peers, did not listen to his war council, did not respect their opinions or advice... clearly he was known to go against the advice given... but he was never egotistical enough to think he did not need to ask or listen, which above posters have claimed of their leadership style...

Many things can be predicted or anticipated... but not all, unless you have some kind of wizardly hat... though I guess, Doris Stokes may of predicted the book exposing her methods and timed her death accordingly... situations will always occur, after all, I'm pretty sure no one anticipated me to try the much unappreciated sword nuke start up method...

Knowing who to ask and when to ask, who to listen to and when to listen and when to use that to aid in their decision making process, is a skill a good leader should have and practice...

An ego can be a good thing and I may hide my ego under a bushel, when it escape, it can be fun times, it should be controlled, and not allowed to make decisions on it's own...

 

[Nauzhror]

There is a reason why a Dictatorship is widely viewed as not the best form of leadership...

On TW I'd argue it is widely viewed as the best form of leadership actually.

Note that while I am anti-council, that doesn't mean I am against asking members what they think in a situation. I am against telling them that their opinion matters as much as mine or that if they vote for something it will happen.

They can speak their piece, they just have no say in the final outcome. They might influence it, but I expect them to accept it whether they agree with it or not.

 

[DeletedUser]

You're leading a tribe not a nation.

It is more about being a team leader than being any form of political government.

 

[Maggie Wallis]

Good point... though leadership skills are transferable whether leading a toddlers walk around the duck pond or the United States of America....

A 2 year old falling into the pond is no less important to that leader than Russia pressing the big red button...

In response to Nauz, I would argue, possibly a question of degree... but in my book, a dictator does not ask or listen... they command and expect compliance controlled by a sticky consequences for those that do not follow, which in turn, ensures the rest do...

With a democracy, or even leadership via council, the leader should still make the final decision, and the tribe should still follow, even if they disagree... a democracy may choose the leader, and by definition, the democracy should then follows the leaders decisions that they all had a choice in choosing...

Though I'm sure, and correct me if I'm wrong, but at no point have I said that during the asking and listening process is any other opinion other than the leaders, less, more or as important as the leaders... as we have all said, the tribe is most important, therefore the opinion that has the best outcome for the tribe is most important... it is the leaders task to decide which opinion that is...

Which ever type of leadership employed, decisions should still be accepted and followed even when disagreed with... if not, the leader has to both questions their style and decision making skills, plus the loyalty of their followers....

 

[DeletedUser920]

Well clearly there are different opinions here. Historically the people who have failed to listen to advice have made the greatest and most catastrophic blunders. Even very autocratic leaders to be successful have had to trust people to provide them with usefull intelligence, which requires giving them autonomy.

In TW I have no experience of a successful tribe where the leadership has been a one-man-band. They just can't be everywhere at once 24/7 and 7 days per week. If they try to be then their decisions just get worse and worse. There is a time for whole tribe ops, but to develop communication in a tribe and have people ready to respond to circumstances in the middle of an op you need what is fashionably called 'devolved leadership' - people who see what needs to be done and get on with it. If players feel they need to just follow orders blindly or wait for instructions/permission then they cannot be fully effective and chances will be missed.

I suspect that we're not actually changing opinions here though :icon_wink:

 

[DeletedUser13240]

They just can't be everywhere at once 24/7 and 7 days per week. If they try to be then their decisions just get worse and worse. There is a time for whole tribe ops, but to develop communication in a tribe and have people ready to respond to circumstances in the middle of an op you need what is fashionably called 'devolved leadership'

This is why I normally have a trusted co-duke despite being online nearly all day everyday. Because he might be better at leading in some situations than myself.