49. Dominant leadership : perception and / or reality?

Dominant people are not pleasant to deal with. Dominant leaders are not successful in the long run. Dominant parents are not good educators. This means that there is not only the emotional valuation from the environment, there is also a fairly reliable observation that the results fall short. The human side in particular seems to pay the bill, even though dominance has sometimes produced something beautiful in terms of content.

But it is not always a clear story. Sometimes people are perceived as dominant because they have a strong focus on results, responsibility, quality, speed, urgency, etc. Of course, someone can maintain this focus in a dominant way, and then there is little doubt about the negative effects. But also in a respectful way, a focus on this goal orientation can be experienced as dominance. No matter how well the person concerned does his or her best to develop and maintain a good relationship, through willingness to listen, making contact, acceptance of the person, ... sometimes he/she simply does not succeed to come across as non-dominant. In that case, the problem is probably on the other side. The ' recipient ' or "addressee" is then a problem or limiting factor.

The problem of the recipient may be an internal struggle between personal emotional needs on the one hand, and the assignment or responsibility on the other. As long as there are emotions that require all attention because they are essential and have to do with the feeling of safety of the person concerned, in the broad sense, an ‘outside’ focus on "giving" is emotionally threatening.

This condition can arise from the context, or from a structural problem in the mind of the person concerned. When it comes to context, a respectful communication that leads to some agreements and confirmations is often sufficient to restore the 'emotional peace'. Boulding or restoring a good relation, develop trust or other interactive methods to personal well-being can bring the emotional wellbeing to an acceptable  minimum. Then a focus on tasks, results, plans, agreements, ... is possible again. The internal struggle has been won by ensuring security that calms down emotions and creates a relative calm.

A structural problem arises when the emotional world of the person involved is, for one reason or another, so strongly activated or developed that a 'contextual correction' is not sufficient. An out of control need for recognition, mistrust in people, for understandable reasons from the past, are examples of emotional scripts that can block people. But sometimes it is not even a question of certain scripts, but rather a high level of emotion that always controls one's own perception and position, regardless of context. From our knowledge of the effects of 'black pedagogy' (1) we know that emotional pressure stimulates the reflex brain in its development, and the development of the pre-frontal cortex (self control and focus) is inhibited. The balance between these two determines how goal-oriented someone is or can be; how quickly a situation is interpreted as emotional threatening, and how much room there is for 'common sense', ratio, logic, knowledge, assignment, objective, etc.

People who have had the misfortune that through the combination of their genetic basis and the effects of their education with a relatively weak ability to control and focus through life, reduce their life to finding emotional peace and safety. They will have a difficulty with every demand for results, assignment, responsibility or focus. Every question in that sense will quickly be translated as dominance; the inner struggle determines that.

This reality seems to be very important for every assignment that has to do with education and leadership, especially in situations that one may consider from the start as a major challenge. If action is taken in an emotionally charged context, even when done in groups, chances are that aggression, dominance and their variants will determine the style. Even when it comes to positive emotions (eg enthusiasm) the result is sometimes disappointing. Just think of theatrical leaders who take their team in tow for utopian projects. The speed and purposefulness that they develop is often a problem for many employees because they themselves experience too little attention for their emotional needs, whatever they are.

This mechanism has important consequences for the role and style of managers. It is not enough to be right, to set responsible priorities or to see the better solution to a problem. If the relational and emotional needs of employees are not met to the extent that they need them, they will drop out. The dynamics of the Transactional Analysis (1) will determine their behavior, resulting in a loss of productivity in the collaboration. This again leads to the conclusion: the relationship always comes first. The relational reality determines how much room there is for reason and objectives. Because the relational needs op people are very different, it will be not enough for managers to maintain a ‘rational average’ relational focus. Differentiation will be needed. Some people require extra attention. And if managers give extra attention, they run the risk of being suspected of favoritism. Especially in organizational cultures where many low-mature people (2) work, the demand for 'equal' treatment will be high. Just as children quickly make a comparison between what they get / are allowed to do and what their brothers or sisters get and are allowed to do, some people will quickly feel disadvantaged. The only tool that can withstand this is to work with clear principles that are not only used consistently, but are also communicated as a reference at all crucial moments. In this way, the awareness on the side of the employees - team members is reminded time and again of the way things could and should be done correctly. Differentiation is a necessity; but a clear set principles and the timely use of them are part of good leadership.

Hugo Der Kinderen

(1) Transactional Analysis was launched by E. Berne as a dynamic of human relationships. In a separate contribution I have given a more dynamic interpretation to this phenomenon, which for every form of cooperation between people, and leadership in particular, appears to be a very useful tool for working on improvement.   

(2) Maturity is perhaps the most important development dimension of people. I have described the mechanism of maturity development in a separate contribution .