How can "leadership" resolve normal, self-rewarding behaviors?

houndlove

...

Given that dogs don't speak English, I'm pretty sure that trying to explain the very human concept of ownership in perpetuity even though it is not being held by me or on my person would just sound like so much blah blah blah to the dogs.

...

  No lengthy treatises to the dogs about the concept of ownership and right and wrong necessary.

I haven't been in your home, nor observed you and your dogs. But, based on the very many wonderful things I've heard you say about your relationship with your dogs, I'd wager they find you a pretty fabulous leader/mom/caretaker/handler/guardian/goddess-of-good-things. I imagine they not only respect your tactical management skills, but are also inspired and motivated by your attitude and demeanor - your world view - your leadership. All without having made explanations!

Ixas_girl

Example, my dog never witnesses me yelling at other drivers on the road

Oh, man! Once, in traffic an idiot pulled an idiot move and I blasted forth with a few favorite curses strung together (although my mom was a master at combing curse words in unique combinations) and Shadow blanched and started to cower, as if he had done something wrong. I learned quickly to curb my tongue.

My view of leadership is to lead by motivation. I've used it on my dog, I've used it on people. In 2005, I was responsible for a project that was 64,000 square feet, partly remodel, partly new construction of an admin and learning center for a school district. Most of the work had a 5 month delay, and a few items were never taken care of until I got there. It would get tedious and bore you to tears if I described all the things an electrical contractor is responsible for in a school building. It is huge. We are the first ones in and the last ones out. Because of the 5 month delay, they gave us a one week extension on the deadline. My crew and I finished by the deadline. How? I led the crew. A crew about half the size that I was supposed to have. When they did something good, I rewarded that. When they made a mistake, I absolutely refused to dwell on it and instead offered an idea or asked them for an idea as to how to fix it, in order to move away from failure and foster problem-solving, which made me more efficient. I had a crew that could think and was not afraid to think. They were motivated to do better and better just to hear "excellent job." Or get the wire scrap and cash it in for money. This was a drastic change from most bosses who constantly browbeat and berate and only talk when you do wrong. When my managers thought the job was going well, I relayed that as fast if not faster than any bad news. And no, I won't tell the fire hydrant story.

With my dog, I lead because I control resources and I have all the good things. And there's more than one reward. As for changing a behavior, it is largely conditioning, imo. Clothier said it well. "It is just a behavior." And many here feel the same way, in that behavior can be changed or managed. We have people in rescue and people with "difficult" dogs to prove that it can be done, sometimes with a mix of behavioral modification and environmental management. I think an effective leader both manages and leads.

But we may each have different views of leadership. I think leadership is an active role, even if I am just standing there saying "Man, you guys rock!" or handing out a treat to my dog at just the right moment. I think, for many dogs, some undesirable behaviors can extinguish in favor of working towards a reward. Sure, it can take some time but what doesn't take time?

dgriego

corvus

How do you set boundaries, though? I set boundaries with operant or classical conditioning, not leadership. I enforce boundaries with leadership, but operant conditioning comes into that as well. What is this airy concept of leadership in a practical sense? Are we talking about leadership as in taking reponsibility of your dog and control of its environment, or are we talking leadership as in 'energy projection' and hierarchies?

 

Set boundaries by establishing what is allowed and what is not. Using shoes as an example here is how I have set boundaries with Hektor: Shoes are left in the living room along with a few chew toys. When Hektor goes for the shoe I will get up, while telling him "hey leave it" and I will go close to him, standing over him if needed, once he drops the shoe I will offer him a toy. If he goes to the shoe I will use body blocks to prevent him from taking it, it is MY shoe. After some time he will rarely go for the shoe and if he does all I need to do is say hey and move forward toward him (this is just a leaning of the body and not a running towards him) and he will walk away from the shoe. My son left our bedroom door open yesterday on a day when I was unable to get home for lunch; he also left Gunnar and Hektor both free in the house. I arrived home at 7:00pm yesterday to find them both sleeping on the couch and nothing harmed even though my husband's stinky running shoes (which Hektor has always desired) sitting on the bedroom floor right where DH had left them.  I use the same method with food, I practice leave it with food, I practice anti counter surfing and yesterday when I arrived home there was a plate of french fries on the counter that my son had left (darn those teenagers!) in easy reach of both dogs yet still there and not eaten.

See, I'd call your methods conditoning, both operant and classical. I do the exact same thing with my hare and my rabbit. You should see the way Kit watches me when he's approaching something he knows I don't like him near. He's watching for a signal from me that I'm going to chase him off again. The moment I lean forward, he's away. Sometimes I only have to look at him and say "Kit! Leave that!". He's a hare and as far as I'm aware, hares don't have social hierarchies. They're mostly solitary. So how does this same method work on a dog and a hare if it's supposed to be a matter of leadership? That's what I'm trying to understand. I feel like I'm still misunderstanding what leadership actually means in this context.

What is this airy concept of leadership in a practical sense?  I cannot describe it well but it is a presence with which you carry yourself. You are the leader, you own and control all good things, you own the space, you own the toys, you own the yard and your dogs sense this and respond to it. It has nothing to do with being mean or cruel. You also read your dogs, or I should say you listen to what they are saying. Your dog speaks very well and says many different things, if you watch and listen you know when to move, when to block and how to respond in a manner that your dog understands. It is both taking responsibility and energy projection and hierarchies and how much of each is needed depends on the dog.

I'm just going to share what I think you're talking about and see if you concur.

With my dog, I teach her the 'get out of that!' sound, which is "ah-ah" and she learns through conditioning what that means. When I say that, she gets chased away from what she's doing by cranky me. Eventually, she knows what that means and if I use it, she stops dead and I tell her to come back and she does. That's still conditioning as far as I understand it. If she decides she'll test me about this 'get out of that!' command, then leadership comes in, I put on my no-nonsense tone and radiate my confidence and surety that she'll do just what I tell her to and warn her that she'd better do what she's told. She does it, because she's a dog. That kind of thing doesn't work on the hare or the rabbit. To me, that's how I tell it's leadership. Dogs understand leadership naturally, but hares don't, as they have no history of leadership in their evolution. So the initial teaching works on the hare as well as the dog (maybe not quite as well because dogs have an advantage and are more keen to make you happy), but the enforcement works only on the dog.

So in conclusion, I can see how leadership helps in the enforcement of habits that you create through conditoning, training, and environmental management, but I don't see how it resolves those problems in the first place. It's the conditoning and management that set the habits you want in place.  

 I think this is all totally over-scrutinised. Like I've said, it's all a matter of establishing habits. When dogs are reliable inside without supervision, it's the same as my hare being reliable in my room without supervision. In both I've managed the environment until the animals automatically go for the things they're meant to go for instead of the things they used to like to go for. If you manage the environment and make sure they have access to acceptable things to chew/play with/eat or whatever, and always chase them off something you don't want them to touch, then over time they habitually go to the acceptable thing because that's the one they're left to munch on in peace.

This is just my opinion (as someone formally trained in animal behaviour and who has a social animal and a non-social animal to manage, where are you cat people?), but I think the dog stays away from tempting things when you're not there because it's used to there not being tempting things, which occurs through management. Just like my hare can generally be left for a few hours unsupervised in a room and he probably won't chew anything he's not meant to because he's used to being chased away from them and has forgotten them as an option. However, leave him unsupervised indefinately and one day he'll find something particularly tempting and munch on it idly. Next day, he'll look for it again because it was rewarding last time and he was left in peace to enjoy it.

My dog is slightly more reliable than my hare, but as soon as she realises there are chips on the coffee table where she can reach it, she eats them. And then she'll check the table every day in case she finds more. Nothing to do with leadership, which might I add, I think is also way over-analysed, and over-emphasised when dealing with dogs. 

snownose

houndlove....do your dogs get in the garbage?

Nope. Have they in the past? A couple times, because I was stupid and left one or both of them loose in the house alone for long periods with easy access to a nice full kitchen trash can (and cleaning up a floor strewn with old garbage--and dealing with a dog who has ingested a few coffee grounds--taught mommy that lesson quickly). But the garbage is one of those things that is the top of my list for management because it's so obviously really tempting. For the first several months we had Marlowe, the kitchen garbage was kept behind a shut door, except the couple times one of us screwed up. They're both reliable with the garbage, even when they're inside loose and we're outside gardening or something, even when it's night time and everyone's asleep. They don't even acknowledge its existence because I actually think that neither of them really knows its there. Our kitchen is very small and it's right there out in the open, but they don't even sniff it. Same with the recycling.

corvus

it. If she decides she'll test me about this 'get out of that!' command, then leadership comes in, I put on my no-nonsense tone and radiate my confidence and surety that she'll do just what I tell her to and warn her that she'd better do what she's told.

In talking about anything, we humans will anthropromorphize to an extent, as a function of our language and it's emotional meaning to us. But in this quoted phrase, the leader exudes the "leader" aura. And what happens if she still doesn't do what she's told. Some dogs, as some people, are easily led by the "I am the boss" bravada. Others are not.

Where I work, I am the attached master. Without me, the company wouldn't have a state contractor license, which is based on my master license. And they wouldn't be able to get permits for jobs that require city permits and inspections. There are two apprentices, both young enough to be my children (early to mid 20's.) The pres has never done electrical, the salesman doesn't have electrical experience. So the pres hires another young'n to be his "service dept. manager." He will be 28 this year. He spent 6 years in the Marines, worked in an oil field, and drove a flatbed delivering drywall. Which goes to show the management of this company. Anyway, he came with all kinds of bravado walking around like the rooster of the walk, "barking" orders and trying to tell me how to do my job. Which in some regard, can't legally happen, since my attachment is a legal definition. There are times I would just laugh, other times, I ignore. And the apprentices aren't always impressed by his aura of leadership. Being leader means earning trust and having the experience to know what you are talking about.

To some extent, I think dogs can act in analogous ways in regards to humans. That is, a dog may not necessarly work for another dog but they would much rather appease than fight. And the ones that do want to fight may not give a hoot about macho posturing. The people here who are successfully owning problematic dogs do a few things. One, they have earned the respect of their dog, sometimes to the point where the dog defends them, only. Second, with issues that haven't been changeable yet, they manage the environment to avoid the triggers, thereby setting the dog up for success. With some dogs, you could bark all you want and walk around like Henry VIII and they will do the doggy equivalent of laughing and going on about their business. Other dogs may simply always follow you, as it is in their individual personality to do so.

 One way or another, we are applying a conditioning. I'm one of the few people here that has used a scruff and pin. And usually with no more than momentary success in changing behavior. So the dog better do what he is supposed to, or else. Or else what?

As opposed to leading a dog by earning his respect. He can respect you if you are leading to desirable things. Even the hardest dog is more likely to look to a human for cues than a true wolf. Even a captive-raised wolf will still prefer to seek answers on his own, which is different than a dog. And I'm not sure dogs look at human posture and a Clint Eastwood squint as signs of being a leader of canids.

Observing my relationship with my dogs confirms that there is something more than being a caregiver or a parental figure.....more than trust or respect.......there is that extra something......I have mentioned this before.....a while back we had a horrible storm, we are talking thunder, lightning, horrible winds.....we lost power, DH out of town, I was the one having to go outside and fire up the generator.......while I am doing this in a terrible storm, my dogs were right there with me getting wet....I didn't call them...they just came and stood there watching me, now this couldn't have been a fun time for them considering there was a good amount of thunder and lightning.

I have fallen way behind here but I think that there is a learning process for the dogs over what is OK and what isn't - that to me is defined by by the leader over time, for some dogs it takes longer than others but I do think at some point they understand the boundaries the leader imposes. Regardless of the presence of the 'leader'.

One manages the environment but that is not instructional. Just like a parent I need to ensure that my dog's environment is safe.

As I have said previously I believe that with dogs one must lead and manage.  You must know your dogs tendencies and lead and manage as necessary. 

Now as for crates - I do not have my dog for protection, period.  And to me that has nothing to do with crating or not crating.  Up until Bugsy was about a year he was crated when we left.  We did that because we knew that he  was quite likely to get into something that could cause him harm.  He slept in his crate because that was the only place he would completely turn off.  His personality is such that he doesn't just switch off. At about 18 mos old we had to train him to turn off with the crate door open.  After which he still chose to sleep in his crate each night - way at the back, curled up in a ball. 

He now is completely trustworthy when we are not here or watching him, inside or out.  He is mischief personified when we are here but not when we aren't. 

snownose

....I didn't call them...they just came and stood there watching me, now this couldn't have been a fun time for them considering there was a good amount of thunder and lightning

And that is really neat. I mean that sincerely. I think you are saying that you felt that leadership was not involved nor parental management, in that you didn't require the dogs to be with you. It was something like a show of camraderie, nicht wahr? Would they normally have been frightened or want to run off in search of their own reward? Or is it rewarding to stay with you, rain or shine? I think the latter. Their definition of what is good includes you.

The leadership word does nothing for when it comes to life with dogs.

I think, based on the explanations given by posters who use the term, that I would qualify as a "good leader" to my dog.  That isn't the framework I use in thinking about humans and dogs.  

I'm a caretaker and companion, who gets to set the rules.   We all set rules, though.  Even "bad leaders" have some rules.  Is leadership then a measure of how well the interactions meet the needs of human and dogs?  In other words, a person who enforces all of his or her rules by beating the dog is not a good leader, right?  Nor is a person who let's the dog do just about anything the dog wants, regardless of how much the human likes it. 

If leadership is about mutually beneficial interactions, then I think the term does not evoke its intended meaning.  If leadership means "My way or the highway" then it isn't always a positive.  "My dogs happily look to me for direction" is an example of a mutually beneficial interaction.  

Hmmm.  Perhaps leadership is a form of mutually beneficial interaction, used by those who envision a specific style of dog-human relatedness?  This would explain why the term works for some and not for others.  If the word *is* so specific, we need to be aware of that when talking with each other, because not all dog owners envision life with a dog in the same way.  This is not a bad thing.  For example, a farmer with a working dog has a different idea of owning a dog than I do.  We are both capable of being happy owners with happy dogs.

Comparing management and leadership seems futile, because management is a technique and leadership is a philosophy. 

As far as behaviors go, I've always taken the approach that I'm managing my dog. Training is a part of that, as is limiting the dog's access to objects and behaviors.  Sasha is 99.9% trustworthy in the house.  I never puppy-proofed my house, except for things that could be life-threatening.  I house-proofed my puppy, by CONSTANT supervision and redirection.  Sasha knew by 6 months old that unless an item was explicitly given to her, it was not hers to chew.  Everything but formally presented objects were off limits.  She has a toy box that she is free to rummage through at any time, and when she wants to chew or kill stuffies, she goes and gets one of her things. 

Interestingly, I have a neighbor with two labs that never leave his yard/driveway without permission.  It is amazing.  I asked him how he did it, and he said that at his previous house, he had a length of rope that stopped at the end of his driveway.  The older dog was often on the rope (the owners go in and out of their home a lot - the dog was not abandoned).  He said eventually he took the rope off, and the dog stayed on the property.  When they got a puppy, the younger dog took its cues from the older.  Management can facilitate learning. 
 

 Nice post, Dogma. You show how both habit and learning can have roles in managing dogs.

To answer Ron's question about what you do when the stern tone doesn't work, my answer has always been scare the dog by acting angry and send them to bed. I no longer think this is a very good way to achieve your ends, but it's been a long time since I had a puppy or a dog that tested. Penny tested as a puppy, but quickly learnt where the boundaries were and when I meant what I said and I honestly don't remember the last time the stern tone didn't work. 

I don't think it's ideal, but Jean Donaldson in her book "Culture Clash" suggests going mental the first time the dog does its "No!" routine and frightening it enough without hurting it that it thinks twice about trying that one again. I'd better figure out what I think is the best way to deal with this before I get a puppy next year! I do think an alternative would be to establish habits, like the dog on a rope. I don't think that would work with every dog, though. Management may well be the key.

I think true leadership is something you're born with. I know loads of people in leadership positions that aren't very good at it. They can get better at it with practice, but they'll likely never be as good as someone born with it. I've worked in a lot of teams before, and often no one stands out and takes the reigns. Every now and then, though, you get someone who everyone listens to and follows meekly for no reason they can put their finger on. That's true leadership. I don't think that's necessary for keeping dogs happy, otherwise the majority of dogs in the world would be miserable, and that doesn't seem the case to me.

I guess at the end of the day I'm more concerned about what I do over what I am or what I call myself.  The proof is in the pudding I guess. Something that I'm doing is working to have dogs who are reliable, trustworthy, well trained and pretty far lodged up by butt. But I don't spend much time thinking about what ineffable quality I have that produces that. Just what I do to effect changes in the dog's behavior and attitudes--management and training and meeting their needs.

I guess in the end we are all different, own different breeds with different issues......as long as each owner/handler achieves their goal or goals with their dogs that's all that matters......... I, for one am happy with my relationship I have with my dogs, some of them would go to battle for me some not, it depends on the breeds I own.........but, in the end we are one happy bunch that lives out in the sticks and we enjoy each others company......with our new toy, the four wheeler

snownose

with our new toy, the four wheeler

A four wheeler!  I need to get one for rescue purposes.  I have to test the dogs to see if they have a herding instinct by chasing and biting the tires.  Prospective adopters need to know this.  Of course, it would not be a toy and I would not have fun on it.

I guess in the end it sounds like focusing on mutual dependencies of social dynamics, makes the best relationship and the least amount of work. 

 It's all just habit, folks. I'm quite convinced. I'm afraid it's all very simple and down to earth, but habit is your best tool to get an animal to behave in a certain way without supervision, and you establish good habits with management. Works with the rabbits, works with the dogs. And it works with the cats, too. The dogs perform marginally better than the rabbits and my mother's cats because it's easier to meet their needs with walks and the likes, but stop meeting their needs quite so well and they're all about as reliable as each other. Trust me; I've tried it. You'll get some variation with breed and personality, but guess what, you get the exact same variation in non-social, untrained animals. Bonnie is way more reliable than my last rabbit because Bonnie is a homebody and my last rabbit was a bundle of mischief. They've been treated exactly the same, though, and it all comes down to management and a wee bit of conditioning sure helps.

Think I've figured out how I'm going to get my next dog reliable when I'm not around!