Direction vs. Dominance
“There is a difference between giving directions and giving direction.”
[Simon Sinek]
In my experience with Spiegelbild I’ve noticed that clients often confuse providing direction with being dominant. Their fear of being too heavy handed leads them to hold themselves back, and reverting to “over-collaboration” where a decision is deferred and intentions are not followed through with. However, a lack of direction can create a vacuum in which people feel abandoned or uncertain. What, however, is the difference between providing direction and becoming dominant, and what are the respective effects on people and relationships?
Welcome back to Spiegelbild!
Today, I’m inviting you to explore the difference between giving direction and exerting dominance, with assistance from lessons learned from the equine partners in my life.
Dominance in the context of leading people can be described as a command-and-control style of leadership; one in which directions are given and expected to be followed. Decisions are made by a dominant leader and are handed down or imposed on to the subordinate team members.
Giving direction, on the other hand, refers to a more collaborative leadership style; one in which different perspectives and ideas are invited, and decisions are developed in a collegial manner.
I’ll focus on two core elements that are foundational to any relationship - performance/achievement, and trust - and explain the impacts that being dominant and giving direction have on these elements. I’m drawing on experience from working with horses that can be directly transferred to human interactions and relationships.
It turns out that I’m not alone in my observations. For example, Mark Rashid coins the phrase “passive leadership” in his book “Horses Never Lie”. I really enjoyed reading this book and found that many of the stories and perspectives Mark shares are similar to my own experience. I will be referencing some of his insights.
In the world of horsemanship one can, in general, identify two schools of thought:
The “I say, you do” philosophy, with more or less consideration for the horse’s needs and perception. It believes that the horse must see the human as the alpha or dominant herd leader, and submit to them in all situations; and
The “let’s do this together” philosophy. It regards the relationship between human and horse as a partnership between two equal individuals, where the personality and opinion of the horse are taken into account. The horse is given the opportunity to have their input into what is being asked of them.
Although I have my own standpoint, I don’t want to get into a right or wrong discussion between these philosophies. In working with horses, it seems to come down to personal preference. People chose the philosophy that works best for them and their horses. What is interesting, however, is the impact these styles of leadership have on performance and its quality. This is where the relatability to human-human relationships comes into play.
Horses trained in the “I say, you do” philosophy generally do perform well at different levels. The quality of their performance, though, appears rather mechanical or technical, without much passion or emotional presence. “That isn’t to say that [the horses] don’t perform for their owner, because they do. In fact, on the surface they often seem to perform flawlessly. However, they aren’t always consistent in their performance and they aren’t very happy when they perform.” [1]
The more collaborative “let’s do this together” philosophy of training, on the other hand, seems to result in horses that are willing partners, quiet and responsive, and who consistently perform at the same quality level. People appear to be able to accomplish a goal without demeaning the horse or forcing ideas on it. In return, the horse wants to work with the human and do things for them.
I certainly can attest to these differences from my own experience. If I ask my horses “the right way” and allow them to figure things out together with me (like a training exercise or navigating a new environment) they are in it with me and give all their heart. If I’m too strong, or want to make them do something, I lose their engagement and their smarts. From the outside, the results might look quite similar, but the quality and engagement are significantly different.
The different philosophies of “I say, you do” vs. “let’s do this together” also directly impact the development of trust in a relationship.
Dominance creates followship out of fear of repercussions or negative consequences. For many people, becoming the alpha or dominant leader of their horse results in bringing up emotions such as anger or frustration when the horse doesn’t do something that is being asked of it. This in turn often translates into the arbitrary use of force, which leads to lost trust, both for the human and the horse. Trust is, however, the essential ingredient in any relationship. Once it is lost, it is very hard to earn again.
Giving direction, on the contrary, has a different effect on trust in a relationship. Mark Rashid describes in his book his search to find ways to gain the trust of his horse’s herd. This search led him to mimicking the behaviour of a certain “lead” horse. Surprisingly, the horse he chose to mimic was not the alpha, or dominant horse in the herd. It was a horse with a completely different temperament and role within the herd - a horse that leads by example, not force. This horse was extremely dependable and confident, and the vast majority of horses not only willingly followed, but actually sought it out. [2]
The important fact to notice here is that the horse in question is a confident “leader by example”. Providing direction and working collaboratively still has to achieve a desired outcome. It should not be confused with an endless deferral of decisions until a consensus is reached.
Building relationships with horses provides some interesting food for thought regarding the effects of dominance vs. direction. Both philosophies lead to results, but in distinctly different ways. While one “makes someone do something” and forces ideas upon them, the other puts someone in a position where a decision or choice is required, and then simply allows them to make that decision.
My experience in leadership - both of humans and horses - has shown me the benefits of giving direction, rather than being dominant. It is a style of leadership that puts people first and cares about them . They get a sense of the importance of the work ahead and thus invest themselves in it. Providing purpose and direction helps a team understand that the invested energy is well worth investing. I also find that this style of leadership favours long-lasting, trusting relationships over short-term gains. While there certainly is a spectrum of providing direction - from soft suggestions to firm, assertive direction, that does not mean that one has to become dominant. Relationships are, after all, the strands in the web of life.
I hope I’ve illustrated how these two leadership styles affect the behaviour and psyche of horses. Imagine now how they might influence people, whose personal and work lives are even more complexly intertwined with societal norms and expectations. Something to graze on…
If you are curious to learn more about what horses can teach us about building trusting relationships don’t hesitate to book a free 30 minute consultation through our website. We are here to support your personal and leadership development - one human-horse partnership at a time.
I hope you enjoyed this blog. If you did, please sign up with your email to get more interesting insights and perspectives from the equine relatives in our lives.
If you’d like to read more about some of the topics touched upon this blog, here are some sources:
M. Crossan, G. Seijts, J. Gandz. Developing Leadership Character. 2016
M. Rashid, Horses Never Lie. The Heart of Passive Leadership. 1993
[1] Rashid, M. p. 20-21
[2] Rashid, M. p. xiii