PDA

View Full Version : Administration vs. Leadership



Ciderhelm
11-24-2007, 07:09 AM
Administration is minimizing risk. Leadership is making decisions that carry risk.

Too often, guild leaders spend their time appeasing members who genuinely don't belong because they want to minimize the risk to the guild as a whole.
They then start searching for answers as to what they are doing wrong or why they can't seem to push ahead in content.

Ceravantes
11-24-2007, 07:34 AM
Administration is minimizing risk. Leadership is making decisions that carry risk.

Too often, guild leaders spend their time appeasing members who genuinely don't belong because they want to minimize the risk to the guild as a whole.

Trying to move away from this sort of atmosphere is near impossible as well, your membership gets lulled into a false sense of security with their position in the guild, because leadership is to afraid of hurting feelings to do whats best for the guild.

I do think going one way or the other is to fail at running a guild, without a healthy mix of both there is either to much, or not enough pressure to perform well, leading to nothing but problems. The biggest problem I have found in leadership is doing the right thing when it feels wrong ( if this makes sense).

Ciderhelm
11-24-2007, 07:47 AM
I agree Centx. I actually went out to snag breakfast and was hoping to get back before people saw the thread to add that it's necessary to do both. You need the administration and you need to minimize risks.

I do know what you mean about doing the right thing when it feels wrong. Curious, what did you have in mind when you wrote it?

Ceravantes
11-24-2007, 08:45 AM
The guild I am in has roots on Tich, we were one of the bigger guilds before BC but had the same problems of people quitting, lack of attendance etc., Back then we had this hunter in the guild, she was a girl irl and that had alot to do with the reason she was kept around. She was easily the worst player I have ever seen, full dragonstalker with ossirians bow and would be beat by the tanks every single raid, when she went to pull it was not with a bow, it was a body pull.

Recently she came back to playing, our former guild leader invited her back and she immediately began to ask for raid spots, undergeared and a still a poor player and caused a good deal of trouble when she was denied.

She was removed shertly after, and I felt quite bad doing it as she was always very friendly. There are plenty of other examples, this is just the most recent.

muulan
12-04-2007, 09:19 AM
but its so hard to kick underperformers when they have history with the guild and are really nice people. Either way its a lose-lose situation for the leadership cause we end up looking like @ssholes (and feel bad about it ourselves).

Ceravantes
12-05-2007, 06:07 AM
but its so hard to kick underperformers when they have history with the guild and are really nice people. Either way its a lose-lose situation for the leadership cause we end up looking like @ssholes (and feel bad about it ourselves).

That is kind of the point, it is the right thing to do, it just doesn't feel that way.

Bluenose
12-13-2007, 03:23 PM
If people are underperformers though, they at least should get a chance to improve. The whole point of having class leaders if your guild is large enough is to make sure everyone is playing their class appropriately and at a reasonable skill level. If the player is undergeared (and it can be tough to get geared given how groups and randomness of drops work) an attempt should be made to get them geared. Providing of course that they are an agreeable guildie.

Personally I'd rather have agreeable people who maybe perform poorly and have the possiblity of improving, than some very skilled people who are very disagreeable. Gear can be obtained, people can learn, but someone who's an ass will always be an ass.

Ciderhelm
12-13-2007, 03:45 PM
Players should not necessarily be given a chance to improve depending on the circumstances they were recruited under.

If a player joins a guild that has a policy of high expectations, failing to enforce those expectations is more disrespectful to the dozens of current members in the guild than it is to the one you ask to leave.

Conversely, if you recruit people who have been meeting high expectations, letting long-time members who are poor performers keep locking down raid spots is just as disrespectful.

Giving people a chance to improve can work under the right circumstances, but one of the leaders in the guild needs to take the initiative to tell them they aren't performing well. Miscommunication tends to grow problems, and even if you as a leader can't see it on the surface, they are there between the members. Clear communication can resolve the issue quickly (either positively or negatively).

Obviously there is a fine line between when to let people go and when to keep them if they are poor performers. The most important goal is keeping your guild functionally able to raid. But too often people forget that recruitment is a tool for progression, not simply a means of replacement.

Bluenose
12-15-2007, 10:59 AM
I guess then it depends on how the guild is run then, I don't necessarily equate raid spots with guild memebership. Hence members are allowed to improve within the guild, that doesn't necessarily mean that low performers get raid spots.

Ceravantes
12-15-2007, 03:11 PM
I tend to disagree that people should be given room to improve. The scripted encounters we are completing can require high performance from every member of the raid, so should I force 24 other people to wipe over and over because 1 person can not perform.

I can think of no situations where a generally poor player should be given a chacne to improve in a raiding guild, don't misunderstand me here I said poor, there are plenty of average/good players out tehre that can/should be given a chance to succeed.

You need to weigh the feelings of one against the feelings of many, I would never be involved with a guild that was so scared of hurting feelings that they underperformed. I also tend to like my guild members to believe I am an asshole, that way they will never not take me seriously.

Bluenose
12-20-2007, 02:53 PM
Again I would say that, thre is no need to use up raid spots to allow someone to improve. For example many of the five mans can be excellent tests of skill, for that matter the same can be said of new recruits. Especially with the new PvP gear available to anyone who is willing to sit through endless battlegrounds, a full set of purples is by no means a good indication of a player's skill, and especially of their ability to function as part of a team.

This last bit, as a point of preference, is how members generally secure raid spots, how they function as members of a team - and truly how their "skill" measures up. Genreally I find this runs counter to other measures of skill many will hold up, such as thier rank on a damage meter or their ability to duel.

inhumanist
02-07-2008, 10:22 PM
An easy way to avoid the problem of having underperforming guildies is to bring them on a trial run before you allow them to join the guild. If they don't perform, don't invite them.

Caulle
02-08-2008, 05:34 AM
I love this thread.

There are essentially 2 leaders in my raid. Myself, and a warlock. I've known this guy a long time, and I also know he tends to just act without thinking.


Administration is minimizing risk. Leadership is making decisions that carry risk.

At one point in time, that would describe one or the other to a T. I was the one who would problem solve stuff out of raid (arguments, DKP issues, etc) and he was the one who essentially made all the decisions that made people groan. Over time I think that line between us has become pretty blurred and almost non-existant.

Either rate having to drop someone because of their poor skills, more so if they're a nice and well liked person, is never easy. And I'll admit, I havn't been the best about dealing with those situations over the years. I'm sure I've put them off on purpose because I didn't want to deal with them. But I've recognized when there's a problem, and I deal with it.

One of our warriors, who's been with us at least 2 years, has had poor performance lately. But to give him some credit, he's had a lot of RL stress piled on him from his father being incredibly sick, among other things. He's been extremely distracted in raids, and not necessarily messing up, but just overall under performing. Being the class leader, I had a talk with him, and worked with him for 2 weeks to get him to improve on his DPS a little. He took #1 on our first Archimonde kill.

I could have gone the route where I said nothing, and he underperformed to the point I'd be looking for a replacement. But he's not a bad player, he just needed a kick in the ass. And I was pleasantly surprised from the results.

Helmer
07-21-2008, 11:36 AM
what my guild has done is use various heroics or raids as a trial for raid spots. for instance were currently using heroic magisters terrace as a prerequisite to kara. or kara and za runs b4 25 man content.

bludwork
07-22-2008, 07:18 AM
Administration is minimizing risk. Leadership is making decisions that carry risk.


Being responsible will minimize a lot of the risk. Guild leader, raid leader, class leader you're responsible for something; recruiting, monitoring performance, reviewing wws or posting strats, checking armories for enchants and specs etc.

Krashtork
07-22-2008, 09:48 AM
Serious progression guilds cannot afford to have poor players within their ranks. Everything that person says or does outside of the guild will reflect on said guild. which given that they perform poorly, they will go outside the guild a lot. This can seriously effect recruitment.

The top guilds on the horde side on my server are full of extremely good players. No exceptions. People will see their tag and assume that they are solid players. I will PuG with any of them because their tag is an indication that they perform at very high levels.

In my past guild however, people would perform poorly and act like jerks outside the guild and people had a hard time taking our guild seriously and recruitment suffered. People would literally say, "well you're a good player, but I've had some pretty poor experiences with some of your other members, thanks but no thanks."

And as Ciderhelm said earlier, recruitment is not only a means of replacement but of progression.

minrog
07-23-2008, 04:57 AM
If this is OT I'm sorry, but I felt it was germane to the discussion.

What I find interesting here is the comparisons between "good versus poor" and "loyalty versus skill". Everyone has to determine those qualities themselves and the hard part is that in some respects you've got a qualitative argument "good versus poor" and you are trying to use a quantitative determination such as DPS ect ect.

I've found in my time that I would rather pick people with total loyalty and slower reaction times if I had to choose. I would have to encapsulate the idea that the loyalty has to include being able to follow rotations as they are given and the ability to "handle the gimmick for the encounter/avoid the flames/stop whining for buffs". But players such as this will never top the charts with slow reaction times and/or bad ping times. It is a quandry and I guess I am fortunate enough to not be running a world first contender progression guild. :P