19 Nov 09, 12:06 AM
Belasarius
UK(M), 8 yrs
  
  |
rose_in_chains wrote:
Excellent thread, and it got me remembering some of the 'leadership' courses i've been on, digging into files and folders...
antinomy wrote:
what are the qualities of good leadership?
|
So, on leaders... (which by the way are very different to 'managers') - i liked this quote from one of the files...
the manager asks how and when; the leader asks what and why
the manager does things right; the leader does the right thing
|
and:
failing organisations are usually over managed and under led
(Warren Bennis - whoever he might be!)
|
Also:
Management job - where you are dependent for your results on people who you can control directly
Leadership job - where you are dependent for your results on people whom you don't control directly
|
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:
S1: Telling - is characterized by one-way communication in which the leader defines the roles of the individual or group and provides the what, how, when, and where to do the task
S2: Selling - while the leader is still providing the direction, he or she is now using two-way communication and providing the socioemotional support that will allow the individual or group being influenced to buy into the process.
S3: Participating - this is now shared decision making about aspects of how the task is accomplished and the leader is providing less task behaviors while maintaining high relationship behavior.
S4: Delegating - the leaders is still involved in decisions; however, the process and responsibility has been passed to the individual or group. The leader stays involved to monitor progress.
|
and the maturity levels are:
M1 - They generally lack the specific skills required for the job in hand and are unable and unwilling to do or to take responsiblity for this job or task.
M2 - They are still unable to take on responsibilty for the task being done; however, they are willing to work at the task.
M3 - They are experienced and able to do the task but lack the confidence to take on responsiblity.
M4 - They are experienced at the task, and comfortable with their own ability to do it well. They are able and willing to not only do the task, but to take responsibility for the task.
|
antinomy wrote:
how does leadership relate to Dominance?
|
Leaders could be Dominants and Dominants could be leaders. But not exclusively so. As above - perhaps Dominants are managers.
antinomy wrote:
from the outside, how can we tell the difference (if there is one) between leadership and Dominance?
|
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.
antinomy wrote:
are the qualities that make good leadership the same as the qualities of good Dominance?
|
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).
antinomy wrote:
can some of the qualities of leadership inform and enhance submission? after all, there would seem to be a great many subs who have leadership roles outside their relationships. do they bring something unique with them?
|
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:
PushMyLimits wrote:
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!
|
|
This (in my view - no offence intended) is not leadership. It is management.
leaders have charisma. People follow leaders to death. Patience is bitter - but its fruit is sweet.
Follow me on twitter: @belasarius99
|
19 Nov 09, 12:18 AM
Belasarius
UK(M), 8 yrs
|
Shibari_Cognoscenti wrote:
Captain William Bligh.
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  .
|
Patience is bitter - but its fruit is sweet.
Follow me on twitter: @belasarius99
Yes, and Bligh was a loser: if you know enough to write the above you know you have made an unfair characterisation.
|
19 Nov 09, 8:59 AM
slutling_angel
3 yrs
|
Belasarius wrote:
Hope this isn't a hi-jack.
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.
|
I agree with this ....I think a leader can inspire people to go somewhere they are afraid to go.
“It is always by way of pain one arrives at pleasure.”
'Marquis De Sade'
|
19 Nov 09, 9:03 AM
tanken
UK(NR), 2 yrs
|
Belasarius wrote:
rose_in_chains wrote:
Excellent thread, and it got me remembering some of the 'leadership' courses i've been on, digging into files and folders...
antinomy wrote:
what are the qualities of good leadership?
|
So, on leaders... (which by the way are very different to 'managers') - i liked this quote from one of the files...
the manager asks how and when; the leader asks what and why
the manager does things right; the leader does the right thing
|
and:
failing organisations are usually over managed and under led
(Warren Bennis - whoever he might be!)
|
Also:
Management job - where you are dependent for your results on people who you can control directly
Leadership job - where you are dependent for your results on people whom you don't control directly
|
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:
S1: Telling - is characterized by one-way communication in which the leader defines the roles of the individual or group and provides the what, how, when, and where to do the task
S2: Selling - while the leader is still providing the direction, he or she is now using two-way communication and providing the socioemotional support that will allow the individual or group being influenced to buy into the process.
S3: Participating - this is now shared decision making about aspects of how the task is accomplished and the leader is providing less task behaviors while maintaining high relationship behavior.
S4: Delegating - the leaders is still involved in decisions; however, the process and responsibility has been passed to the individual or group. The leader stays involved to monitor progress.
|
and the maturity levels are:
M1 - They generally lack the specific skills required for the job in hand and are unable and unwilling to do or to take responsiblity for this job or task.
M2 - They are still unable to take on responsibilty for the task being done; however, they are willing to work at the task.
M3 - They are experienced and able to do the task but lack the confidence to take on responsiblity.
M4 - They are experienced at the task, and comfortable with their own ability to do it well. They are able and willing to not only do the task, but to take responsibility for the task.
|
antinomy wrote:
how does leadership relate to Dominance?
|
Leaders could be Dominants and Dominants could be leaders. But not exclusively so. As above - perhaps Dominants are managers.
antinomy wrote:
from the outside, how can we tell the difference (if there is one) between leadership and Dominance?
|
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.
antinomy wrote:
are the qualities that make good leadership the same as the qualities of good Dominance?
|
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).
antinomy wrote:
can some of the qualities of leadership inform and enhance submission? after all, there would seem to be a great many subs who have leadership roles outside their relationships. do they bring something unique with them?
|
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:
PushMyLimits wrote:
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!
|
|
This (in my view - no offence intended) is not leadership. It is management.
leaders have charisma. People follow leaders to death.
|
Well it's not always voluntarily often then are conscripted or coerced.
Also, more often than not, it isn't the charisma of the leaders but the perceived importance of the cause. "Red hair and black leather is my favourite colour scheme" - Richard Thompson
|
19 Nov 09, 11:08 AM
merrynb99
UK(SL), 5 yrs
|
The_Perfect_Sadist wrote:
<brilliant piss-take>
... best of all, they are totally expendable, while I am irreplaceable.
|
Best piece of leadership advice I ever received:
"People can be irreplaceable, but no-one's indispensable!"
I may be a sick, twisted pervert, but I am NOT corrupt.
|
21 Nov 09, 7:35 AM
hiddentreasures
UK, 3 yrs
|
I have always tended to think of managers managing workloads...whereas a leader inspires and leads people. A leader is not necessarily a manager, but a manager should also be a leader. Sadly they aren't in many cases.
A manager should therefore spend time managing work, but leading their team as well. People dont want to be managed, they want to be lead, inspired and walk together toward the monthly targets. |
21 Nov 09, 9:03 AM
Belasarius
UK(M), 8 yrs
|
Leadership inspires - yes. But I think leadership is seen incredibly rarely in business.
Why? Because two forces exist which make it difficult for leadership to thrive and there is one Characteristic of leadership which also leads to its absence inside organisations that are "managed".
The forces are entrepreneurialism and management.
Both are vital: both inhibit leadership.
entrepreneurialism is based on greed and an ability to take risks. It looks like leadership but it isn't because ultimately the other people in the process don't matter - only the entrepreneur.
Management is about making systems as effective as possible by standardising things. Most managers therefore hate and resist innovation (a key component in business leadership). Managers like heirarchy and use it to stifle junior leaders whose talents never blossom.
Leadership thrives in organisations where the quality is endemic and respected throughout. This is rare in most circumstances, even where It is required. Leadership is a more fragile quality than many realise. It requires nurturing. Organisations usually kill it and then pretend to recreate it.
Organisations that require leaders select for the quality and fan the spark.
Most organisations think they can turn mangers into leaders. They cant. Patience is bitter - but its fruit is sweet.
Follow me on twitter: @belasarius99
Edited 21 Nov 09, 11:57 AM by Belasarius
|
21 Nov 09, 11:21 AM
angellover
UK(CM), 3 yrs
|
Belasarius wrote:
HarmCandy wrote:
I agree with much that has been said here. The best leaders don't concern themselves with their own interests, but those of the people they lead.
Lao Tzu: 'If you want to lead the people you must first learn to follow them.'
Contrasted with modern politics [or maybe just politics]... pfft.
H
|
Hear - hear: nail banged on head!
|
I have to agree with the above and also add i am told that I am a leader at work, yet i only try to bring out the positives and show others how they can achieve their goals and aspirations.
I look at what's achievable in any given individual learner. I never spoon feed but i do set guideline's and boundaries and ensuring they keep to the dead lines by often offering more support and openly answering questions and observing the learners body language and then ask if they understand what they have to complete... its not all as simple as that but I try to be firm but fare. One doesn't need to be a bully within the vanilla or BDSM lifestyle but sadly there is many about.
I added this to just show that i do also lead a team of staff, yet i am dyslexic and a submissive.
So many lead within their working life and so many of us submit...
The highest fences we have to climb, are those we have built within our mind
|
21 Nov 09, 12:18 PM
The_Perfect_Sadist
UK(PO), 4 yrs
|
Belasarius wrote:
Captain Bligh rose from the ranks, starting as a cabin boy and later an able seaman.
|
Cabin boys! Mmmmmmmmm.
There may be more than one way to skin a cat - but there is only one try per cat.
|
26 Nov 09, 12:46 AM
Vet_For_The_Insane
UK(B), 4 yrs
|
antinomy wrote:
leadership
how does leadership relate to Dominance?
what are the qualities of good leadership?
are the qualities that make good leadership the same as the qualities of good Dominance?
from the outside, how can we tell the difference (if there is one) between leadership and Dominance?
and from the inside? how does leadership feel? does it feel the same or different to Dominance?
can some of the qualities of leadership inform and enhance submission? after all, there would seem to be a great many subs who have leadership roles outside their relationships. do they bring something unique with them?
|
Leadership helps but sometimes the traits needed in being a leader can exist to the extent that a bad leader will think they are a good leader. Bad leaders won't recognise this flaw or know it exists.
I'd suggest a cross between a Manager and Leader is more important in good dominance because then you're bringing in the necessary planning and potential nurturing and maybe even detail when detail is needed.
Through all that you're mixing in the cerebralness that's necessary.
But, then again, it depends what someone wants in a "dominant". If all they want is a sadistic fuck who'll beat em seven ways to sunday, then the cerebral qualities won't be needed.
|
