What is a healthy hierarchy in a training group?

[Ruairi Quinn]

Earlier this evening I began writing a post querying the tribe's stance on power-relations in the training group / dojo / kwoon / gym, but abandoned it as it became hopelessly confused. Here goes another attempt...

By 'power relations' I mean the various relationships between trainees and instructors that constitutes the pecking order or hierarchy of that setting.

What are the pros and cons of a western training group adopting an eastern model for their dojo / kwoon / gym ? (I will focus on a japanese model as this is what I am familliar with)

PROS of generic trad. martial arts school power relationships :-

- An autocratic instructor with ultimate control can be a benevolent dictator ensuring safe training and the disciplined martial development of those beneath him
- A strict hierarchy running from most senior down to most junior is not unlike a chain of command which ensures that all of the work (be it cleaning or collecting fees) will at least get done, even if the work is handed down the line to one poor soul.
- Some people actively enjoy the discipline and clearly-delineated way in which this kind of set-up works.

CONS pf generic trad. martial arts school power relationships :-

- An autocratic instructor with ultimate control posses powers not generally found in the west outside of institutional settings. He can be a tyrant / centre of a 'cult of personality' / abuser of the worst order.
- Strict junior / senior relationships may lead to abuses of power to a lesser degree, or certainly distortions of the normal relationships between grown adults.
- Along with this kind of system comes the emergence of politics within the training group to a degree that we might not otherwise see.
- These kinds of power structures enable the group to deal with dissent or critique from within, by 'pulling rank'. Truth can be established by the higher echelons and anyone further down the ladder who dissents 'does not get it'.

In contrast, at the other end of the spectrum, we have your typical "Backyard training group" composed of like-minded individuals, possibly without a clearly designated instructor or leader in the absract, but who may appoint 'session leaders' from time to time or even from drill to drill to ensure safety. Maybe the direction the group goes in is determined by a consensus, or perhaps particular individuals direct it for a time dependent upon their expertise in a given area. Overheads are non-existent, grading systems are non-existent, and hierarchies are less likely to take the form described above (your stereotypical trad. MA school).

These kinds of non-commercial groups still do exist, and as far as I can see tend to be far more common on the eclectic fringe of the martial arts community : combatatives people, 'reality self defence' people, some FMA and so on.

PROs of the 'casual' or consensus-based training group of equals
- Trainees have a 'No idols' mindset and necessarily take responsibility for their own progression from the get go. No one is holding their hand or holding them back.
- Each member learns independently and is dependent upon the group as a whole for feedback / competition / instruction rather than upon one solitary figure.
- Common interests hold the group together, and these are established on a consensus basis. This reflects in the makeup of their training, so they have an input into their direction and syllabus that might not exist otherwise.
- Respect is more likely to be earned rather than assumed based upon time spent training or on 'grade' held. What hierarchy does exist might be one based on performance rather than anything else.

CONs of the 'casual' or consensus-based training group of equals
- Maybe politics still exist, just of a different stripe. Will an alpha male and a whipping boy still emerge no matter what?
- A consensus-based approach to decision making may sound fine in theory, but in practice it could result in indecision and inaction, internal squabbling and the fragmentation of the group.

This hasn't turned out much clearer than my earlier post. I am aware that I am making generalisations and stereotyping and categorising with this post, but I hope people get a flavour of the kind of thing I am talking about.

What constitutes a healthy hierarchy in a training group?

Do we need a clearly-defined hierarchy at all?

My own current situation falls somewhere broadly between the two extremes I discuss above. On the one hand we are a traditional dojo offering koryu derived training, and all that goes with that. On the other hand, there is little bowing, first names are used all round, fair distribution of responsibility, and we at least aspire to always follow the notion that your worth is established every time your step out onto the mat.

Opinions?

(I am also aware that much of Coach Sonnon's writing relates to this topic, for example, the specific connotations of the word 'coach' versus another title, etc. But let's see what comes up, anyway...)

R.

[bob_stra]

I belive the prevailing feeling here is "we're all alone in this together". Responsibility for one's own training.

Still, I've often pondered what would be the best environment to foster this in a group setting.

In the end, I've decided that I prefer a 'western' ideal. I live in a western world and have western tastes. The extra layer of fawning and kowtowing that can happen in 'eastern' schools really, really rubs me the wrong way.

However, in reality, I think everything is dependant on the person / or persons in the group, whether that's in a western or eastern setting. One of the most relaxed, chilled out clubs I ever attended was a traditional Aikido school. One of the most uptight ones was as competitive BJJ place.

IOW, the power dynamics depend on what you personally allow to happen. "No one can make you feel like crap without your permission". Even in a club, you're still you.

Surely a group founded on mutual respect of individuals would be the healthiest one of all? IMHO, this best happens in a small, cohesive group that is open minded and not out to prove anything. Friends training together for mutual benefit. Kind of like a rugby team with a captain who answerable to the players?

Or did you mean "best" from a purely 'transmission of knowledge' angle? That's an instructional psychology issue - and pretty damn deep to boot. One needs to consider the different types of learner, the different types of instruction and how the environment (traditional / eclectic) might impeded these. Eg - In a club culture that frowns upon body contact, how would one use dynamic drills / sparring to provide skill training?

Bah. What we need is kung fu fighting androids :-) Or younger brothers.

(actually, some of the best, most fun grappling training I've had has been with younger cousins)

[Monkey]

Good subject.

I suspect that there is no right/wrong answer as it depends upon the nature of those involved.

I am involved in both types of group and they both have something to offer.

There is a degree to which some people want to be lead, to be told what to do and tohave the "way" set for them.

There are those that walk the same path as others for so long as it suits, leaving that path and rejoining when it feels right.

There are some advantages to having an expereienced coach, in that he can offer expereience and can more quickly identify areas where development is needed or focus be moved to.

Whichever method there has to be an agreed "agenda" for exploration, not fixed but providing the framework. This is as true for coaching as it is for a more democratic group. Set the goal, work out how to get there and move on. Do not become fixated with the path.

Both groups need direction the only question to me is whether this comes from the "head" or the collective.

Monkey

[Mike Baldwin]

The appreciation of the heirarchical nature of the presentation of material provided by Scott and Nikolay was one of the things foremost in mind when the following was penned [Doing the right thing on Olympic Clubbell Sport home-made Clubbell thread ] a few days ago.

Cheers

:D

[Scott Sonnon]

I have observed highly-destructive intentional communities and I have observed highly-constructive arranged hierarchies. I have observed both tyrannical group facilitators and liberating alpha leaders.

Go with your gut. Be sensitive to the group dynamic.

The beauty of predicting the future your tribe is that you have a hand in creating it.

[SFE]

The most enjoyment that I get out of my training is the sence of "family" I feel interacting with my sensei and fellows whether on the mat or at the pub. When I mention "family" I mean it in the sence that everyone is working to improve everyone else, physically but more importantly working to be a better person in general. My sensei is very much like the first man in a line of people pushing a heavy rock up a mountain, helping to guide us with his experience, not standing there just shouting to push harder. The "hierachy" is not determined by power but by personality.

I've experienced in both of the above mentioned senarios this sence of "family". I use that sence more than anything else in determining if that school is the right place for me. If there are people that think they are a better person than me because of the stripes on their belt, I think it's a good sign to walk out the door (learned that lesson the hard way :roll: ).

Hope to see everyone this weekend in B-ham!

[Shawnm]

Very interesting thread guys.

Having experienced both ends of the spectrum I tend to agree that there are pro's and con's on both sides. As Scott has said, "go with your gut."

My gut has led me to drop any and all of my "titles" and teach in a manner that "I" am comfortable with. I find that the people that train with me learn better in an environment of mutual respect that isn't imposed on them but rather is fostered by everyone's personal contribution and willingness to help one another. There is a kind of natural hierarchy in my classes but its subtle and comes from everyone's respect for one another's individual effort and knowledge.

As a coach my job as I see it is to create the training environment with my students, to act as a sounding board and to challenge everyone in the room to think and push themselves.

[Ruairi Quinn]

Thanks for the responses, guys.

I think it's interesting that as bob_stra and Coach Sonnon mention, groups falling into either of my broad categories can be 'healthy' or good learning environments.

Like bob_stra, I've seen tremendous differences in groups which should have begun operating from similar premises, and which positively buck your expectations of them when you see them in action. One aikido school where the norm was for students to be as passive-aggressive and awkwardly uncommunicative/uncooperative with one another as possible ... and another, ten minutes walk away, which felt like attending a church, it was so mellow (this is not to say the training was a pushover, either). Both pay lip-service to the same ideals and are part of the same organisation, and yet only one walks the talk.

Groups dynamics and the nature of whatever personality is dominant in the training group seems to me to take precedence over what framework is supposed to be in effect on paper.... I think this can explain why classes can 'run away from' a timid or inexperienced instructor if there is someone forceful or challenging in the there.

[Scott Sonnon]

Ruairi,
The only other comment I would add, is that as time progresses, members change, numbers swell and diminish, the nature of the group dynamic changes... and thus, so does the structure. However, I have also noticed that the more you are comfortable with yourself, the more that the structure spontaneously forms to meet the needs of the dynamic. Be yourself, listen to your intuition and periodically ask for group feedback.

The BJJ model - at least the one I was exposed to, worked very well and i think I know why.

It takes 10 years to get a black belt in real BJJ. This means there is a very gradual transition from , and constant shifting back and forth between, student and teacher. When My teacher was a brown belt, with 8 years experience, he was still a student, and there were blues with 4 years that were his students etc.... This was also the case at my Thai boxing school - where there are no belts -you get your "shorts" and then you just keep at it.

But Coach is correct - pay very close attention to your gut and if the vibe is funky get the hell out of there. Your way better off with body flow and Cbs, and KBs and heavy bag, then in some potentialy dangerous, autocratic power struggle 3x a week.

Out of the at least 15-20 "dojos" i have been in I had fun in 2. Maxercise doing BJJ and Body Arts (inPhilly) doing thai boxing. Other then that, 90% of my training has been 1 on1 due to lack of good training environment. That includes Kyokushin which i love, but doesn't exsist in Philly.

Bill

[DaveRandolph]

In the school where I'm one of 4 primary instructors and one of the highest ranking black belts. we have structure but its not rigid.
We dont demand respect we try to earn it.

Although we have protocols we arent strict about them. We have the hierarchy but unless someone acts ups (shows no respect) or has an attitude, we are pretty lax.

However at some of the other schools in my system that is not so. The "masters" insist on being called Master and will call you on it if you dont use the honorific. You must follow the rules or else.

We have fun at our school and treat everyone as equals regardless of belt color. We tell people to make it fun as their top priority, within reason of course. But we work hard and people whine & complain like anywhere else of course, but they stick with it and most really seem to enjoy my style of teaching.

I'm under pressure to test for 5th black which is Associate Master in our system, in June of 2005. Assuming I learn the requirements & pass, I wont refer to my self that way and will not ask my students to call me "Master"

This is the west & Master has some bad connotations. There was even a blurb a while back about the use of the terms Master & Slave as used in comuter terminology in that some people have decided that it is not politically correct and may offedn some one. But thats for another thread/forum

So I think that whether one's training follows Eastern or Western traditions matters. What matters is that you enjoy what you are being taught in an atmosphere conducinve to YOUR learning.

Dave

[Ruairi Quinn]

In the past I have really thought badly of instructors who treated those training with them simply as clients rather than as students in every sense of the word. My thinking was that this was symptiomatic of much of what is wrong with the martial arts community: too much commericialisation, emphasis on earning cash rather than producing results, the McDojo phenomenon... I have always wondered if instructors depending upon their trainees to pay their mortgage would really be prepared to be harsh or hard on their trainees should that be the order of the day, if it meant losing students and going under.

Vice versa, I have always disliked people in training who seem to feel that because they are paying a mat fee they have an unchallengable right to make whatever demands of their instructor they want.

In contrast, I was very much in the frame of mind that money had little to do with training, and that principally it was the instructor who was doing the student the favour by investing time and experience with them.

Currently my thinking has swung to some recognition of the fact that western notions of students as kind of like 'clients' are probably not all bad. I still have deep reservations about money and training being interconnected, but the upside to this approach is that it implies a relationship of mutual professional exchange (my token appreciation for your professional teaching aid) rather than following a model which involves some kind of tacit obeissance or submission before the learning process begins.

This relates to why I am fond of a value-free description of students as 'trainees', getting away from the idea of their being deshi or "disciples". Likewise, I think terms like 'instructor' or 'coach' are free of the connotations that a term like 'master' carry. While they still denote a special position or level of experience, they do not seem to imply a sense of superiority in the same way?

Words like 'sensei' are pretty interesting, too.... In their proper context, in japan, it is used all the time without the connotations of masterhood that it has in the west. If I walk into a restaurant, the waitress is calling me sensei. Likewise with taxi-drivers etc. This partially highlights for me how strange it is that something which is just a generic term of respect (to a senior) for the japanese has gradually morphed into a term of status or power in western dojos.

Hooray for being on a first-name basis with everyone, I say. :)

Ruairi Quinn
Bujinkan Meehan Dojo

[sam tsang]

Mr. Quinn,

this is my first post and I am not expert. Coming from oriental background, the issue of student/client idea is a double edged sword. w/o money changing hands, the arts will always stay within the family, thus losing its integrity as it's taught to the outsider. So the money is the glue which promises reward to the client. On the other hand, you can equally say that money has bastardized MA in a sense that those who don't know better are paying big bucks especially for their kids program to maintain the cost of running the dojo. Thus, MA in its purest and rawest form is not really taught but the clients are pleased because they are having fun and learning culture.

I am all for using titles and respecting someone who has learned an art more years than I. Even if I am steeped in another art a few more years, it does not mean I cannot learn from somene steeped in a different art. The problem is not title but ego and familial dysfunctionality.

MA is full of ego, politics and sometimes function like a family. When that heppens in a bad way, you've got an abuse of hierarchy. Very much like a family, I would never call my dad by his name. Never!! I suspect most of us would have a little trouble with that also. However, just because his title is Dad and is to be respected, it does not give him the right to abuse me in any way. If you see abusive behavior, that's when respect breaks down and you must take your business elsewhere.

With respect,

Sam Tsang

[JasonE]

A lot of cool comments so far, and it sounds like many of you have had similar experiences to mine, seeing how different dynamics can emerge from organizations with similarly-stated intentions.

I've studied in both very formal and very informal groups, including a college club I established for cooperative training.

When I established the club, we had a written code of conduct that all members were required to read and agree to before they were allowed to train with us. If they did not abide by the code of conduct, we could throw them out. Aside from that, we had a few club officers (as required by the university) that would keep an eye on things to make sure people stuck to the rules of safe and respectful conduct.

The participants were of all levels and many different styles. When training in groups or pairs, we would delegate one person to lead or all work on an equal basis, depending on whether it was a teaching situation or just drilling what we already knew. In sparring and grappling, each set of participants would decide what the rules were before they started.

The unusual thing about the club was that you could be an officer with administrative powers without having a high level of skill or rank in any particular discipline. This differentiation between administrative leadership and technical ability or style ranking worked very well in the time I was involved. We often had people coming in from schools all over the community for extra mat time and to share concepts and practice with students of other disciplines.

Unfortunately, it did require a level of attention and commitment on the part of the officers, and when a weak leader took over administration some years after I left, it all fell apart due to lack of attention to the necessary details and unwillingness to exert authority when required.

All other groups I have worked with are either "equal participants" or autocratic heierarchies with varying levels of attention paid to rank, experience, or strength of personality.

The school I currently study with has some Eastern trapping in protocol and uniform, but from the Head Instructor on down, we are all students together, with guidance provided to enable us to each find our own maximum effectiveness. It's an interesting dynamic, having an autocratic heierarchy that requires each person to take responsibility for their own training and earn the respect of their peers.