leadership (57)

This post is on the Other BDSM web board.

26 Nov 09, 12:24 PM
De_Luxe
UK, 3 yrs

antinomy wrote:
are the qualities that make good leadership the same as the qualities of good Dominance?
Some are. Dominance is a more authoritative style of leadership but both leaders and dominants can be flexible as a situation dictates.
Both benefit from having a clear purpose, from being seen as being trustworthy, being able to communicate what they want and from behaving in ways that inspire others to want to follow and accomplish the goal(s).
Leaders inspire to gain co-operation but might lack in managerial skills to drive the project forward when it falters or stalls.
Dominance is more managerial by being active in making something happen and overcoming resistance.
So a good Dominant is one who satisfies the criteria of a submissive as being both dominant and a leader in the quantities the submissive requires for a relationship.

26 Nov 09, 12:52 PM
Belasarius
UK(M), 6 yrs
Y!

De_Luxe wrote:

antinomy wrote:
are the qualities that make good leadership the same as the qualities of good Dominance?
Some are. Dominance is a more authoritative style of leadership but both leaders and dominants can be flexible as a situation dictates.
Both benefit from having a clear purpose, from being seen as being trustworthy, being able to communicate what they want and from behaving in ways that inspire others to want to follow and accomplish the goal(s).
Leaders inspire to gain co-operation but might lack in managerial skills to drive the project forward when it falters or stalls.
Dominance is more managerial by being active in making something happen and overcoming resistance.
So a good Dominant is one who satisfies the criteria of a submissive as being both dominant and a leader in the quantities the submissive requires for a relationship.
Don't agree completely, Dominants can be bullies (shouldn't i grant); dominants need not be listeners. Dominants can require but can't inspire.
Leaders don't need managerial skills - because they find and fire-up those that have them.
All leaders have dominance. Not all dominants can be leaders.
(just my view of course).
(Agree entirely with your last paragraph, De Luxe!)
Best to all.
Patience is bitter - but its fruit is sweet.
Follow me on twitter: @belasarius99

26 Nov 09, 1:57 PM
De_Luxe
UK, 3 yrs

Belasarius wrote:

De_Luxe wrote:

antinomy wrote:
are the qualities that make good leadership the same as the qualities of good Dominance?
Some are. Dominance is a more authoritative style of leadership but both leaders and dominants can be flexible as a situation dictates.
Both benefit from having a clear purpose, from being seen as being trustworthy, being able to communicate what they want and from behaving in ways that inspire others to want to follow and accomplish the goal(s).
Leaders inspire to gain co-operation but might lack in managerial skills to drive the project forward when it falters or stalls.
Dominance is more managerial by being active in making something happen and overcoming resistance.
So a good Dominant is one who satisfies the criteria of a submissive as being both dominant and a leader in the quantities the submissive requires for a relationship.
Don't agree completely, Dominants can be bullies (shouldn't i grant); dominants need not be listeners. Dominants can require but can't inspire.
Leaders don't need managerial skills - because they find and fire-up those that have them.
All leaders have dominance. Not all dominants can be leaders.
(just my view of course).
(Agree entirely with your last paragraph, De Luxe!)
Best to all.
Dear Belasarius, I agree with your first part, but personally I'd call that sort of person a bully not a Dominant. My connotation of the word that's all.
Perhaps it would be more agreeable to you if I alter this to say I think I must listen and hear the unspoken in my relationship?
Funnily enough you have written what I was thinking, that 'Dominants require' and 'Leaders inspire'. And the rest I think we are in harmony on.
(obligatory disclaimer - only my view)
My Regards.

26 Nov 09, 4:50 PM
enquiring_eyes
UK, 9 mths

Since this thread has fired up again, I have dragged out a post which I wrote earlier but didn't finish before the thread seemed to have died. My apologies for it's length, breadth and rambles. I've split it across several posts just so no-one inadvertently clogs up the thread by quoting it!
It's possible in all this that I may just be repeating what Jahc alluded to...(he did that thing of being concise and eloquent which I struggle so much to emulate)
jahc99 wrote:
We might have to admit that the leader, and the led, fly faster when they understand each other as well.... you can't race boats without a damned good crew.
...But since I want to weigh in with my tuppence worth...
antinomy wrote:
"In whatever direction a ship moves the flow of water it cuts will always be noticeable ahead of it. . . etc
I think this IS a good image of leader-'ship'(sic) and/or dominance: the movement of the bow wave is dictated or caused by the movement of the boat, but the appearance is one of harmony and it is perhaps impossible to determine simply by watching it whether the boat has caused the wave, the wave is responding to the direction of the boat, or whether there is simply harmonious commonality of movement and purpose happening... (although if the wave were happening first, and yes I know we have established that scientifically it isn't, then it doesn't actually destroy the analogy, since a good leader can teach those he leads to anticipate what is required...)
The experience I bring to the debate is that I have regularly taken on a 'leader' role (this being a role I was picked for by others, as opposed to chosen for myself). It is a training role, and as I understand my responsibilities it is to lead & train a team, which may make it slightly different to leadership in general.
However, I am a submissive, in that I have a submissive personality. This is expressed by a need to submit within relationships (I was trying to 'submit' in all my vanilla relationships prior to 'enlightenment'), but I also think I express this personality trait (or aspects of it) to a certain extent in areas other than just my relationship.
I thought about this [apparent dichotomy of a submissive who can lead] a lot when trying to understand my submissiveness, and it seems to me that I do approach the role of leading differently to others.
I would suggest my style is to lead from "alongside'. My aim when I am acting as team leader is to train the group to a point where I become redundant; such that the team has its own momentum and enough knowledge to 'lead' itself. That within the team, I will have passed on my knowledge to the point that they know at least as much as I do, and that they will have learnt/developed enough into the roles the team requires to no longer need me to monitor/organise/protect them. I am not looking to secure or bolster my leadership role with the group. I guess I ask people to go along with me, rather than requiring them to follow me. To be honest I wouldn't have the first clue how to achieve the latter. (I do try to create clear guidelines/boundaries but that may be because they are something I personally feel comfortable with.)
I really don't believe I have (cliche warning: all those likely to be offended, please switch off now) a dommy bone in my body. When I 'lead' I am not looking for people to look up to me, I am looking to pass on knowledge and to empower them. I am not looking to make people do things my way. I will show/teach/explain the way that is safe; and if they choose to disagree I comfortable and confident enough to defend my view but also listen and try to explain why.
Now I have just read Belasarius's post...
Belasarius wrote:
I think a leader can inspire people to go somewhere they are afraid to go.
...and yes, my role requires me to encourage people to do things they are frighten of. So by his definition I pass the test, but actually I think that any inspiration I give is simply showing people that I understand their fears and showing them that I have 'stood in their shoes' and learned to conquer those fears, and thus encourage them that, if I can do it (lil' ol' me), so can they. Leading perhaps by example, but from within amongst them, not from out front.
As to whether it is necessary to be a leader to be dominant, I am not really qualified or equipped to answer this. But to throw in an observation...
A fair few indisputably dominant men are able to lead, but don't necessarily do so with shouts from the front. But if you look around to see who people are choosing to follow, is it that quiet, confident guy who is whispering over there... see how people lean in to hear him...
Edited to amend glaring misspelling
Subbies are always wrong... even when they are right
Edited 26 Nov 09, 4:53 PM by enquiring_eyes

26 Nov 09, 4:51 PM
enquiring_eyes
UK, 9 mths

Part 2..
Whilst I appreciate that the two concepts (leadership and dominance) are different and not automatically linked, I would be surprised if a man who was dominant (in the BDSM sense as opposed to simple dictionary definitions), as opposed to a 'top', who was not also capable of leadership. Afterall a 'successful' dominant is leading at least one person. Whilst a top may be able to get a bottom to buy into an autocratical hierarchical function in order to enjoy some play. To get a submissive to respond positively in a sustained D/s relationship I think requires some leadership skills or we are talking merely extended roleplay.

rose_in_chains wrote:

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.
Leadership and domination are both consultative, collaborative and empowering. The only difference between domination and vanilla leadership in respect to these traits is the end goal. For a dominant within a relationship to be simply �autocratically hierarchical� would simply stunt growth - good if you like doormats (who wants to have to mow a doormat?!) but not much use otherwise.
Traditional understandings of leadership does indeed retain control (and by this definition my ability in a leadership role IS limited), but in good leadership this is not always overt and with development can be produced by education of those under their leadership to thrive and excel with minimal guidance.... does this sound so different from where most D/s relationships aim to get to... Most Doms seem to like the idea of a sub who anticipates their needs (or at least understands them).
I would hope to be(become?) a self-sufficient, empowered sub (as opposed to clingy & unable to operate without constant guidance)... but I suspect I will always look to my dominant to check I am going in the direction he chooses/has decided, and equally will be alert and pliant to the 'nudges' of directional control he uses. The other situation is surely micro-management - something that could be delicious fun on occasion, but I suspect something most doms don't have the time to devote to, so surely a minority sport and, possibly, therein lies obsession.
So, what is my answer from all this? Well that whether or not you are able to lead is not dependent on you being dominant or submissive, although if you fall into one of those categories it will most likely influence the style by which you lead.
However, I am going to stick to my guns on this... I think it is likely that if you are a dominant in the terms of BDSM, and those generally accepted by those that walk these threads, it is likely you are capable of leading, whether or not you choose to exert/display this part of your personality in your vanilla life. Otherwise you are simply a man yelling at a girl (ok, ok, or a woman yelling at a man).
Dominants convince us subbie types to follow or bend to them.
Leaders convince 'people' to follow their lead.
Yep, sounds the same to me.
Of course, this presupposes that a leader is still a leader whether he chooses to lead one or many.
Subbies are always wrong... even when they are right

26 Nov 09, 4:51 PM
enquiring_eyes
UK, 9 mths

Part 3 (don't worry...end in sight!)

antinomy wrote:
from the outside, how can we tell the difference (if there is one) between leadership and Dominance?
That will depend on what we consider dominance. If we are happy to simply submit to a dom rather than respond to their domination then, yes, there will likely be a difference; and it is probably discernible by the very fact that the act of submission is an active conscious decision rather than an obvious consequence of their effect on us.

aninomy 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?
I am going to be contentious here... and turn the supposition on its head: I think in fact it is that submissiveness informs and enhances a style of leadership, just as dominance and appreciation of the responsibilities that entails enhances another style.
So my best guess is that dominants are a subset of leaders. Or at least (and yeah, yeah, I can hear the "twoo" shrieks) good dominants** are. Which means I think Loki got it right.

BarbieSlutLoki wrote:
You can have leaders that inspire people to greatness, but they don't have to be dominant to do so
And that Belsarius is playing with definitions:

Belsarius wrote:
I think leadership is the exemplary subset of dominance: a bully can be dominant but is rarely a leader
A bully can conform to the dictionary definition of dominant, but not to what most would consider the BDSM definition.
**For the purposes of this narrative the phrase 'good dominant' is used to describe those dominants whose characteristics are such that are coveted by many submissives as opposed to those dominants which the occasional sub will endure.
Subbies are always wrong... even when they are right

26 Nov 09, 8:55 PM
psycheee
UK(W), 3 yrs

enquiring_eyes wrote:
Since this thread has fired up again, I have dragged out a post which I wrote earlier but didn't finish before the thread seemed to have died.
next time please don't hesitate for fear of a dead thread!
i can't turn my attention to your very comprehensive () post this evening, or tomorrow for that matter, but i promise to try and reply on the weekend. thanks for posting.
check out www.thenewtopical.com!
i tell you something... i think i... i think you understand...


	©1997-2010 Informed Consent