11/DEC/13

Winter!: Prepare for holiday gaming!


Forums top   gamerDNA.com Forums > Groups/Guilds/Clans > Leader Support


Post Reply
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 12-26-2006, 03:03 AM
Nine's Avatar
Nine Nine is offline
Famous Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 31
Nine has much to be proud of
Send a message via MSN to Nine
Single or group leadership?
I've led a guild with officers there to support me, but I made the calls (through listening to their advice and suggestions). I've also been a part of a shared leadership system between officers with equal power and no over-all leader.

Now when I ran my own guild I made mistakes but I also had a lot of loyalty. Decisions were made reletively easily compared to groups and was very happy with the outcome of the guild, it was definately home. Hand picked officers suggested by myself and/or other current officers made up the advisor's team that supported me, discussed decisions and lended their advice when asked. Ultimately the decisions were mine to make.

More recently I was part of a group of officers that would make decisions with equal power. It felt as if getting a decision made had to be compromised or take longer than necessary to get done due to tossing the idea's back and forth. Some eventually coming to a vote to get action taken. I felt a lot less comfortable in this format and I think it would be difficult for me to enter a system designed like this again.

So I've come to the conclusion that my ideal situation for a guild to be run is by a single person, with people there to assist. Another possability though I dont like as much is if it has to be a group, to atleast have a 'head' of that group to make the final decision, can even rotate over time if necessary to be served like terms.

How do you like your guilds run?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-26-2006, 02:41 PM
Ravage's Avatar
Ravage Ravage is offline
Devil's Advocate
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Just east of nowhere
Posts: 141
Ravage is community member of note
Send a message via AIM to Ravage
A timeless debate....

Anywho, my two cents are that guild leadership is more effective through a single decision making dictator (much like real life), but that a governing body usually works better to keep the players happy.

When I was a GM in WoW, I was the final say to a rather large board of officers, who generally handled everything, with me just rubber stamping it at the end. I did handle some things on my own, but the system worked so well that it didn't come up much. Our guildmates enjoyed the guild immensely, and had many of us not taken a "WoW break", our guild would have been one of the first on Medivh to clear MC.

When I tried again in City of Villains, there were no real "powers" a guild leader could enjoy, so effectively the guild was governed by a group of people who knew what was going on. For that game, in that time, the system worked fine, but the game was lacking, so we never had a long run.

In my current Wow guild, they make extreme use of Democracy. They are a dual-faction guild, and have three guildmasters, one Alliance, one Horde, and one that is "neutral". These GM's are elected by popular vote once every 6 months, I believe. The new GM's then appoint officers to the various positions as they see fit. It's an excellent way to let people "choose their destiny" so to speak, but after being in several guilds over several games, it's also the least efficient guild I've seen at actually getting things done.

In short, I think a single Iron fist dictator is best, though they should be backed up by a series of officers who support both that leader and the player base at the same time. Hopefully, the leader will be flexible enough to allow for changes of policy based on advice from their officers...and everyone can live in a happy fun world.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-26-2006, 02:46 PM
Nautar's Avatar
Nautar Nautar is offline
Exhalted Overlord
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cave Spring GA
Posts: 56
Nautar has much to be proud of
Send a message via AIM to Nautar
I maintain most of the responsibility in my guild, though I do encourage others to help each other with problems. I am lucky to have a couple of founding members to help, and things get done quickly even when I'm not logged on.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-28-2006, 12:58 AM
Nine's Avatar
Nine Nine is offline
Famous Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 31
Nine has much to be proud of
Send a message via MSN to Nine
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nautar View Post
I maintain most of the responsibility in my guild, though I do encourage others to help each other with problems. I am lucky to have a couple of founding members to help, and things get done quickly even when I'm not logged on.

Having the support is important, and I really like Ravage's post, pretty much backs up how I feel
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-28-2006, 07:59 PM
Bagheera's Avatar
Bagheera Bagheera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7
Bagheera has set foot on a distinguished road
It really depends on the game's mechanics. Most games simply do NOT support anything except a traditional 1-leader guild. (and some such as Ragnarok do not even allow that leadership to be transferred).

The most recent guild I've run, I ran even while I was offline for a time, and after I had quit playing the game. The reason why was simple... even when I WAS actively running the game, I entrusted the officers with all the abilities and powers of guild leadership, and I made it clear to each and every member that an officer was to be treated as the guildleader. If they had a problem with the guildleader (which changed several times) or officers, they had a problem with the guild, and were summarily booted if things couldnt be resolved on their end.

This may sound like a council/democracy sort of leadership, but I never disguised it as such. I made my decisions and implemented them without seeking or needing input from any of the officers (except for those online at the time), which allowed me to move MUCH faster then spending a week debating on whether we should promote such and such from "on probation" to "full member". I also allowed (expected) the officers to behave in the same manner, and supported their decisions, without needing to know what they were.

Sure, sometimes their decisions contradicted what I would have done, but its just a game, and we were generally always on the same page... and I'd rather have had something done about a problem and have it in the past... then have nothing done about it... and a 'democracy' stand and debate about it while it gets worse and worse.

I generally dont support multi-leader guilds, since if you get to the top, and two people disagree... it leads to the guild getting split down the middle if it cant be resolved...

With only one person at the top, there is no room for disagreement... and, ideally, I found myself dealing with nothing except resolving the possible conflict between two officers. (which never actually arose, to the best of my memory).

Also, a single leader system establishes a clear and singular "heart and soul" of the guild, while a multileader system establishes a murkier view at best... or a "the squeaky wheel gets the kick" system at worst, where the worst leader is the one that establishes the guild's reputation.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-02-2007, 10:41 PM
Charbroil's Avatar
Charbroil Charbroil is offline
The Pwn Ranger
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 241
Charbroil has much to be proud of
Send a message via AIM to Charbroil Send a message via MSN to Charbroil Send a message via Yahoo to Charbroil
Group leadership is good as long as it's tiered with one main leader who has the last word on any decisions... problems do arise with group however... the decision making process is slowed considerably... more voices means more debate...

Sharing responsibility is a plus... at any time a guildy can ask a question... seek advice... or discuss guild invites with any leader in a group

In Battle Tribe we have one main Leader/GM... 5 Co-leaders... and Class representative for each class...

I do think we managed to get a good group of leaders... all are fair and have the guilds best interests at heart. They are more concerned with learning content and progressing the ability levels of the guild then they are with loot, and it has worked out well for us... I can't say that it will work for every guild however... there is a lot that is dependent upon the character of the leaders...

with the right people... I'm all for a group leadership setting

anyway... that is my 2 cents...

__________________


Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-02-2007, 10:52 PM
Nine's Avatar
Nine Nine is offline
Famous Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 31
Nine has much to be proud of
Send a message via MSN to Nine
Let me ask this as well. If you were to have a group running a guild, would you rather the opinions and beliefs of the other co-leaders be in line with your own to be on the same page or would you rather it be full of diverse opinions that may bring up angles and ways to look at things that you normally wouldnt come up with yourself?

This is an open question not directed at anyone by the way.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-03-2007, 01:44 AM
Komako's Avatar
Komako Komako is offline
Patronymic Mime
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: OR
Posts: 50
Komako is community member of note
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nine View Post
[...would you rather the opinions and beliefs of the other co-leaders be in line with your own to be on the same page or would you rather it be full of diverse opinions...]
Diverse opinions would be fine to me, as long as whatever I said was the ultimate command in the end (if I was a guild leader). If somebody wants to argue a point after the decision has been made though, then they've crossed the line between diverse and insubordination.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-03-2007, 02:56 AM
Xinnro's Avatar
Xinnro Xinnro is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 43
Xinnro is an unknown quantity at this point
Send a message via AIM to Xinnro Send a message via MSN to Xinnro
Ho humm.

This is the way I usually break down my guild.


1 Leader (AKA me)

3 Cores (3 of my most trusted and respected followers)

3 Officers (3 more trusted and respected followers)


Technically as leader, I have last say in everything, but what i say can be overrided if all 3 cores disagree with my course of action (which rarely ever happens) The cores are more there to support the clan and run it in my absence.

The officers work with the cores to maintain guild stability but don't really have any say in the workings of the clan.

Though technically this is the way my clans are supposed to be run, I usually end up taking the input of everyone and trying to make a decision that caters to everyones needs. In doing so, everyone remains happy...which is really the point...
__________________

Xinnro

Leader of the Tide of Darkness Clan

Killer 100% Achiever 40% Explorer 33% Socializer 26%

Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-09-2007, 09:06 AM
Keolah's Avatar
Keolah Keolah is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Eugene, OR, USA
Posts: 6
Keolah has much to be proud of
I've tried delegating things, asked somebody else to organize raids and such, but in the end I've found that old adage to be far too true a lot of the time, "If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself." Sometimes I feel like I'm the only competent one around, and even if other people know what they're doing, they always seem to end up looking to me to tell them what to do for some reason, and if I try to leave something to somebody else it ends up being so badly mismanaged that I end up spending twice as long picking up the pieces than I would have had I done it myself in the first place. Frustrating how often I seem to end up leading things even when I don't really want to...
Reply With Quote
Post Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off