There is an ever intensifying debate in the dog training community over dominance vs leadership. On one side are the dog trainers who condemn the term dominance as an excuse for violence against others and on the other side are the trainers who believe everything is based on social hierarchies. To get a dog trained it really doesn’t matter if you believe in dominance theory or not. Most of the time it’s easy to train a dog without ever referencing dominance. However for the purpose of learning about our own behavior and human social structure I feel that leadership and dominance are important traits and/or skills to discuss. We can pretend like traits don’t influence behavior, but is denial really being authentic?
I’m not saying there is a dominant trait, but there may be traits that predispose an individual to becoming dominant.
Striving for leadership – striving for dominance in dog training, business, and personal relationships
One objection the anti dominance group of dog trainer has with using the word dominance is that it promotes violence. It seems many people associate dominance with violence. Most trainers who don’t like the word dominance are of the opinion that the word leader is softer and promotes a gentler orientation, which may be true. However the word leader is itself steeped in violence. Over the last week I have been studying videos of human leaders to get some clues as to how gentle leadership really is.
Much that I read about leadership emphasizes the leader as agents of change. While the information I read about dominance emphasizes the control of resources. The problem I have is that the purpose of change is usually to control resources. It seems the term leadership is often used to describe a highly ritualized and complex form of control. While ritualized control can lead to states that act as positive reinforcement, in many cases of leadership, one group’s reinforcement is another group’s aversive. I think much of the time the term leadership is simply used as a euphemism for dominance.
The increasing complex nature of leadership may lead to a less emotionally aversive type of control than direct confrontation.
Eventually there may emerge a trait that finds this type of social interaction advantageous enough to become part of our human DNA. While not necessarily a form of social leadership a similar trait for controlling resources is probably already an emerging strategy in dogs. Dogs seem well adapted to controlling vast amounts of resources by simple being a rewarding companion.
It may be useful to begin thinking of leadership as the good use of reinforcement and education to shape a civil society. Much as Skinner talked about in his work. This would require a reevaluation of the roles institutions play in society, along with a commitment to change them.
While I like the idea of a peaceful well structured society without aversive control, that dream is very far off in the future. For the time being we must be satisfied with moving in a sustainable direction. We can begin this transition when training our dogs by practicing the use of more positive reinforcement techniques while minimizing the use of aversives. However when someone hires me to control the aversive behavior of their dog, I do what I think is best for the situation. My approach to dog training is influenced by the era in which I live.
For the sake of most dogs, I feel that most people should undertake learning to exclusively use intuitively unorthodox forms of control as a hobby or pastime. When people are less needy about learning nonintrusive forms of behavioral control they will be more relaxed and accepting of the outcome. This will allow people to be more experimental, and perhaps more important, it will allow people to reflect on the outcome.
Leadership Theories
What I have found from reading several article is that many, of those society classifies as authorities, believe there are different types of leadership. If this is true it’s probably best to become aware of what your preferred style is. These different theories are not necessarily exclusive of each other, but can overlap.
Here is a list of some common leadership theories:
Trait Theories of Leadership
Exchange and Group Theories of Leadership
Contingency Theory of Leadership
Path-Goal Leadership Theory
Charismatic Leadership Theories (I think of this as a type of Trait Theory)
Transformational Leadership Theory
Social Cognitive Approach to Leadership
This list is from http://knol.google.com/k/theories-of-leadership# and provides a concise rundown of the different leadership theories.
I believe if one studies the classic books of wisdom we’ll discover that each type of theory is mentioned at some point as important. Perhaps instead of thinking each individual theory is the answer we should think of each theory as a part of the leadership puzzle. When we look at one theory as the answer we only see a small part of the information needed. Understanding only one part of the leadership animal is much like the story about the six blind men and the elephant. The giant elephant that’s leadership is then thought to be only one of its parts. When we see the theories as a whole we can then see the whole picture.
Andrew Ledford
The Dog Saint