leadership (57)

First comment - bloomin' marvellous thread, thank you!

I have a leadership role in my vanilla life and I'm told I am pretty good at that, I am sub in my non-vanilla relationship but who know's if I'm any good at that cos I'm always doing something wrong and getting into trouble ;-P

I have known a Dom who has made me melt and desire to sub to him but I wouldn't have been led by him for all the tea in china. I know a couple of excellent leaders but I wouldn't want to be Dom'd by them and they don't inspire any subbie feelings in me. I do know two Dom's that tick both boxes so I don't think they're exclusive. So from a purely personal perspective the question posed is quite a conundrum.

In a nutshell I think for me the primary differentiator is that I want a leader to lead me but a Dom to take me!

So after that mini-biog what could I bring as a leader to my subbie relationship? In short I try very hard not to have any 'work like thoughts' when submitting because it puts me in completely the wrong mindset. I know that being a leader makes me set the bar far higher than I might otherwise for those that might seek to Dom me. If anything I'd say that as a sub I recognise when we are both aiming at the same end goal (gratification, he by getting what he wants, me by giving what he wants) and therefore I trust that my leader/Dom will create a path to that end and that I will facilitate that even if the path is unknown to me and that I will recognise that my eagerness to do so motivates him to aim higher/push limits.

yuk - that's really taken the fun out of it...

"a sub shares things with her master she can barely admit to herself"

oh go on I'll bite...

... another non-believer and might I venture an uneducated viewpoint on coaching? I can assure you that coaching (if done by a qualified coach) is not wet, soft or 'counselling-speak crap'.

Of course there are different approaches with coaching and that's great because the variety of styles means you're able to find a coach with whom you have rapport.

Coaching requires self-reflection and a good hard honest look at your failings as well as your successes, encourages you to take responsibility for your actions and their consequences and supports people in achieving all that they want in life... that's not a soft option, but it is a rewarding one!

I've met many who claim to be leaders but who, in fact, are managers with people they manage.

I don't think this is the same - I think a leader can inspire people to go somewhere they are afraid to go.

If you can't do that. You aren't a leader. Go on. Shoot me down.

Patience is bitter - but its fruit is sweet.
Follow me on twitter: @belasarius99

Captain Bligh cruel and tyrannous? Please go check his wiki.

Patience is bitter - but its fruit is sweet.
Follow me on twitter: @belasarius99

For me they are completly different and not connected.

Some vanilla women are domineering all day long but when it comes to intimacy they want their bloke to take control.

Some dominant people involved in bdsm are natural leaders others are not.

Think about the old cliche about men like Frank Bough in high powered jobs who turn out to be sub. Their submissivness said nothing about their ability to have a powerful job.

Leadership has nothing to do with dominance per se.

I was dominated sexually when I was a teenager by another boy and he was a timid, skinny gay geek that people used to bully but when I stayed at his house and we were alone he showed me another side of himself.

The most dominant lovers I have ever had were quite quiet and unassuming in their day to day lives but in those intimate moments their cruel fearsome, sexy, dominant glory shone brightly.

Edited 19 Nov 09, 1:16 AM by luke35

I've checked out reliable Internet sources and I now realise how wrong I was. Far from being a cruel and tyrannical leader Captain Bligh was, in fact, nothing more than a life coach who encouraged his crew to take a good hard honest look at their failings, and encouraged them to take responsibility for their actions and their consequences. He set out to do nothing less than to support his mutinous crew in achieving what they wanted in life.

I'd like to apologise to everyone on IC for inadvertently giving the impression that Captain Bligh was in any way a cruel and tyrannous leader.

There may be more than one way to skin a cat - but there is only one try per cat.

Patience is bitter - but its fruit is sweet.
Follow me on twitter: @belasarius99

When put in command of the Bounty he was only a very junior officer (and in fact the only commissioned officer on board).

He did not ill treat his men but the mutiny was caused by extreme privation and a desire by a minority of the crew to get back to Tahiti.

I think I remember that a bare majority of the crew elected to stay with Bligh and be set adrift in an open boat - the subsequent voyage of which, to Indonesia was one of the greatest feats of navigation and leadership of all time.

I'd be surprised if the web would not call up this in an instant.

Patience is bitter - but its fruit is sweet.
Follow me on twitter: @belasarius99

Edited 18 Nov 09, 11:58 PM by Belasarius

Two naval mutinies, one army mutiny, and exonerated by the British Government. Does one smell a Peter Mandleson?

Remember, history is written by the winners .

Owner of The Croppery Dungeon and Breakfast. Organises The St Leonards munch Promotes The Club with no name

So, on leaders... (which by the way are very different to 'managers') - i liked this quote from one of the files...

and:

Also:

So... management = Dominance, leadership = something else??

Anyhoo... on one of these fun jollies that i was sent on when i actually had a job, they taught the Situational Leadership Model. Which was developed in the 70s and some more information can be found on wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situational_leaders...

Basically, there are four styles of leadership, and when you apply each depends on the maturity of the people you are leading. The mark of a good leader is the ability to move flexibly through the different styles as the situation requires.

The styles are:

and the maturity levels are:

Leaders could be Dominants and Dominants could be leaders. But not exclusively so. As above - perhaps Dominants are managers.

Well, in my opinion, i think they are vastly different. i see Domination as an autocratic hierarchial function, whereas in my opinon, leadership can be consultative, colloborative and empowering.

Some of them. i think Dominants should be inspiring, they should lead their sub, they should nurture and make their sub feel empowered. But essentially they are autocratic and leadership (whilst that has a place in certain situations) flexibly moves away from this model when required - and importantly, the ultimate aim of a good leader is to not need that autocratic model but instead have a self-sufficient empowered team.

(as an aside, i know that many subs will say they feel empowered in their relationships; i'm not saying this is not the case just that the empowerment is 'allowed' within an autocratic framework).

The leadership roles i have held have primarily been around thought leadership. In order to achieve this effectively within the organisation, skills such as influencing, collaboration and consultation are key. You can hardly shout loudly and hope everyone will think your ideas are good! These skills are not what i would associate with a dominant. What my working life experiences do mean is that as a sub, looking at wanting to be led by my Dom, i expect someone who is more than an equal in these skills - who can influence me, counter my intellect with one greater. Perhaps it makes me a challenging sub, might explain why i'm single! LOL!

Sorry for going on so long... i liked this:

Tipping the Velvet women only play club - memo me for details!
Also, check out www.thenewtopical.com