RE: Dominance and Leadership

RE: Dominance and Leadership (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

subjoe101 -> RE: Dominance and Leadership (11/26/2009 9:25:20 PM)
I'm going to have to take the less than popular opinion on this one. I don't think a good dominant equates to a good leader. In fact, I would argue in many cases that a dominant person is not a good leader. Dominant people are typically controlling and want things done their way. They decide how things are done. A good leader on the other hand seeks others opinions and relies on others to accomplish things. A good leader builds 'buy-in' from his/her subordinates and lets them be a part of the decision making process. It doesn't mean a leader is better than a dominant or visa versa. It's just two different personalities. A dominant can be a good leader but I don't agree that a good dominant is always a good leader.

lally2 -> RE: Dominance and Leadership (11/27/2009 11:51:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika I'm interested in discussing the link between dominance and leadership. Who to you is a great leader? 1. someone who considers all contingencies before making their move 2. doesnt ask anything of anyone that they wouldnt do themselves 3. takes responsibility for all decisions made 4. cares about the outcome 5. cares about the welfare of the people they lead 6. can inspire others to follow their lead Do they demonstrate any of the qualities that a good dominant should have? yes - ideally, with the possible exception of number 2. Do you think that to be a good dominant, you must be a leader? no, not necessarily, but they do need to know how to inspire people I have my views but I'm going to hold off a little. I'm more interested in hearing yours for now ;-) - LA

a1111 -> RE: Dominance and Leadership (11/28/2009 6:46:01 AM)
i dont think necceasrilly a good dominant would make a good leader, a lot of dominant people surpress others, not everyone is comfortable with this and it doesnt make for good leadership

maugseros -> RE: Dominance and Leadership (11/28/2009 11:56:20 AM)
This is a loaded question that is hard to even try to answer without a thesis. I believe dominance is a personality trait and leadership is more of a skill. There are qualities that can overlap, but that's not always required and are the two are not mutually inclusive. A good leader of a group (such as a nation) can need to be quite dominate at times AND quite submissive at other times. Dominate when their countries rights, interest, ect. are being infinged upon by another nation. But yet submissive to the general needs and desires of their people. As has been said, many "leaders" of companies, communities, states, nations, etc.. people in "power" who you believe would be "dominate", in private it seems more likely that we find out they are the one's who are submissive. I believe it's more in people's minds who want to project this "dominant" personality trait onto leaders because one's gut instinct is to think that a "leader" is also a "dominate" personality. When in fact.. or at least a good leader.. is simply someone who has good leadership skills.. but in fact could be anything but dominate. I can't remember all the facts.. but if I'm not mistaken there was once a leader of Russia during wartime who's son (who was in the Russian army) was captured by the enemy. The enemy offered to trade the Russian leaders son for a high ranking military officer that the Russians had captured. The Russian leader refused the trade. His son was a lowly grunt in the army.. so the best "leadership" descision was to NOT trade the much higher value POW that they had. That was the best decision.. and was the decision he made. In that instant.. he was a great leader. But what about a father? At that same instant that he was a great, strong leader... he was probably the worst father that ever lived. See the dilema there? What if that "leader" was your master... and that POW was YOU. The best leadership decision is to let the enemy keep you (even if it means they are going to kill you). As a slave/sub.. if you survived, could you live with that decision? A good leader "can" have a dominate personality.. but that doesn't mean it would translate into a BDSM relationship. Of course that's the fantasy. Look at bdsm story after story and book after book... and who is the dominate? A super-rich captain of industry or a king of the kings and on and on. He's not just the "alpha" male.. but he is the ALPHA of the alpha males. Yet in reality... you have to realize that someone who seeks power, success, etc.. THAT is their passion. And that is why and how they get to the positions that they obtain, is because it consumes virtually their every waking hour. Do you think that a captain of industry who runs a multibillion dollar company is going to have two seconds to spend time on a site like this even LOOKING for someone who is a submissive/slave? Why would they? Their passion is making more money.... or aquiring more power, etc. That is their love... sex, intimacy, etc.. are way down the list of priorities. I believe I have a lot of the common sence, logic and overall sense of fairness and other skills to make a decent and just leader. What I don't have is the patients to wade through all the political red tape to get things done. Basically I don't like the "politics" of being a leader... and the fact that a lot of people just don't want to hear the hard facts and truth. But mainly.. even if I believe I posses a lot of the skills of a leader.. it's not where my passion lies. I wouldn't be able to focus on leading a company, country, etc. My passion lies in the Male/female relationship... it lies within intimacy... sex, lust, love and passion. So even if I were to be a "leader".. I wouldn't be able to focus on it, because 99.99% of the time.. the only types of things I can think about is all the things I need to be doing to my sub/slave. ;)

LadyAngelika -> RE: Dominance and Leadership (11/28/2009 5:52:19 PM)
I'm going to address a few answers in one shot ;-) I really love the mixed opinions coming up, it is really addressing a lot of issues! quote: ORIGINAL: Adelleda I am part of a militaristic youth organisation and we get taught what makes a good leader. 1) Things that make a great leader are, amongst other things but this is the one i remember most is, being aware of your strengths and limitations and those of your subordinates. There's other that would apply also, but I don't remember them right now. 2) A good dominant should definitly show these. 3) They are mutually inclusive. Then again all this is just my opinion and experience. Agreed! quote: ORIGINAL: subjoe101 I'm going to have to take the less than popular opinion on this one. I don't think a good dominant equates to a good leader. In fact, I would argue in many cases that a dominant person is not a good leader. Dominant people are typically controlling and want things done their way. They decide how things are done. A good leader on the other hand seeks others opinions and relies on others to accomplish things. A good leader builds 'buy-in' from his/her subordinates and lets them be a part of the decision making process. Then by your perception of what a dominant is, I'm a lousy one, but I am a fabulous leader! ;-) quote: ORIGINAL: subjoe101 It doesn't mean a leader is better than a dominant or visa versa. It's just two different personalities. A dominant can be a good leader but I don't agree that a good dominant is always a good leader. I feel, in my case, because of my style of dominance, they are one in the same. So perhaps we can conclude that some styles of dominance are similar to good leadership principles? quote: ORIGINAL: lally2 I'm interested in discussing the link between dominance and leadership. Who to you is a great leader? 1. someone who considers all contingencies before making their move 2. doesnt ask anything of anyone that they wouldnt do themselves 3. takes responsibility for all decisions made 4. cares about the outcome 5. cares about the welfare of the people they lead 6. can inspire others to follow their lead Do they demonstrate any of the qualities that a good dominant should have? yes - ideally, with the possible exception of number 2. Really? I wonder about no 2. For the sado-maso bit, I've usually experience what I dish out, except for CBT as I don't have the C & the B ;-) But for the rest, I'm not sure. I wouldn't use the word wouldn't because I don't see what my submissive is doing as lesser than. It's just that it's not my role, just like what I do is not theirs. And I believe that applies in efficient business and other areas of leadership & followership as well. As for no 3, I would disagree. I like to give a sense of responsibility for their part of the relationship, make them accountable. For the rest, I'm in total agreement. - LA

Domitianus -> RE: Dominance and Leadership (11/30/2009 10:58:39 AM)
Dee Hock, founder and CEO emeritus of Visa, is quoted as saying: "Control is not leadership; management is not leadership; leadership is leadership." As is often pointed out on these boards, dominance is about more than control...but it is also something different than leaderhsip. Others above have rightly said dominance is a personality trait while leadership is something more akin to a skill. Likewise, some of the most humble, subservient of people can be very effective leaders in a given time and place...often even by their servanthood itself (not to be confused with submission). Ultimately...being a leader implies others are following. While some may follow in response to one's dominant nature, most will follow for very different reasons that have no relation to one's dominance.

LadyAngelika -> RE: Dominance and Leadership (11/30/2009 4:09:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Domitianus Dee Hock, founder and CEO emeritus of Visa, is quoted as saying: "Control is not leadership; management is not leadership; leadership is leadership." Well Dee Hock broke the number one rule of formulating a definition! You can't define a term by using the term in the definition because there is no way to advance the understanding. quote: As is often pointed out on these boards, dominance is about more than control...but it is also something different than leaderhsip. Others above have rightly said dominance is a personality trait while leadership is something more akin to a skill. Likewise, some of the most humble, subservient of people can be very effective leaders in a given time and place...often even by their servanthood itself (not to be confused with submission). Ultimately...being a leader implies others are following. While some may follow in response to one's dominant nature, most will follow for very different reasons that have no relation to one's dominance. I agree. That said, both are about power. I think that because I've studied leadership extensively and I have a very nurturing sense of dominance, for me, and not necessarily all, I find there are many parallels. I am however convinced after reading this thread that because of all the different styles of leadership and the different styles of dominance, that there is a strong possibility that there is no link. - LA

JAS61 -> RE: Dominance and Leadership (12/1/2009 2:12:58 PM)
This is a very interesting thread. I think that Dominance and Leadership can exist together but do not have to. A leader can be someone who is submissive if you think religious leaders or can be very militaristic too. A leader is a thinker and plans his or her actions and is in control of them. THey also know their strengths and weakness and plan to maximize the strengths and minimize the weakness in relation to the goal they are pursuing. I am a leader and people seek direction from me for many reasons. IT is a position that is not given but is earned really. You have to make the wisest uses of your resources to attain the goal with the least cost in either money or blood. A Dominant can be a leader but it is a personal trait. It is how we approach people and not issues. You can not dom an opposing army but you can lead yours to victory. A leader and a dom may overlap though. The leader and a dom will both have strong force of will and will drive themselves harder than others. A leader will care for his charges as a Dom should etc. There are Doms and there are Leaders and sometimes they are one in the same. It also has to be said that not all Dominants are capable of subduing all slaves. Some slaves/subs are stronger leaders than the Dom and that is where you will have failure at times though if the slave chooses to be a sub he or she will subdue that tendency to allow the other to control them.

Thatbastard -> RE: Dominance and Leadership (12/1/2009 6:59:15 PM)
1. Francis Pharcellus, Danny Shine 2. Yes, because trust is trust, respect is respect. It comes down to character, courage, accountability and responsibility. 3. Yes. Definitely. I think people confuse being a good dominant with simply tending to be very dominant. They're not the same. Good question! I think it highlights the difference between a real, honest dominant who is good at what they do, and a twit with hormonal issues and impulse control problems.

LadyAngelika -> RE: Dominance and Leadership (12/1/2009 7:25:38 PM)
quote: Good question! I think it highlights the difference between a real, honest dominant who is good at what they do, and a twit with hormonal issues and impulse control problems. Interesting. When I've been in job interviews, I always ask my potential boss what their management style is. I will not work for a micromanager. I don't see any value in it and I can't see how it instill any values, confidence or autonomy in the follower. I'm anything but a micromanager. I prefer to encourage good behaviours rather than punish bad ones. I don't want a mother/child relationship whether it be with my employees or with my partner. In my private life, I want a woman/man relationship. I just happen to believe that relationships work better when one person is leading the other. In my case, I'm a leader. But a leader who values her follower and holds him in high esteem. I want to tell him what I expect of him and trust that he will use his judgement to make the best decision possible. When he doesn't use his judgement and doesn't come to the realisation himself first, we will talk about it. I don't use my dominant/sadistic side to iron these out. I use words. However, that is not to say that, after the conflict is resolved, that the next time we play, that I won't give him a few reminders and make him recite the rules while being caned or strapped on his bottom ;-) I call this technique reinforcement!! It must be the educator in me... ;-) - LA

starshineowned -> RE: Dominance and Leadership (12/1/2009 7:33:00 PM)
quote: #1 Who to you is a great leader? Master to me is because of what I see and hear from those around him. He is not at the bottom nor is he at the top in his field..yet because of his integrity, personal/work ethics, and his desire to teach/not preach, and to listen with a open mind to others in understanding that he to can learn much..he has many that come to him often seeking advisement or just preferring to be partnered with him during the work day. quote: #2 Do they demonstrate any of the qualities that a good dominant should have? Yes in the sense of being a dominant person, and not someones dominant. quote: #3 Do you think that to be a good dominant, you must be a leader? Not really, and a lot depends on what area/s you'd be asking where they were being a leader at because that would probably make for quite a few yes, no, no, yes, maybes. I figure there are a great deal of Leaders who got to that position by not generally accepted methods. Naturally the first that pops into my head is the girl that gets to the top through sex. starshine

LadyAngelika -> RE: Dominance and Leadership (12/1/2009 7:46:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: starshineowned quote: #3 Do you think that to be a good dominant, you must be a leader? Not really, and a lot depends on what area/s you'd be asking where they were being a leader at because that would probably make for quite a few yes, no, no, yes, maybes. I figure there are a great deal of Leaders who got to that position by not generally accepted methods. Naturally the first that pops into my head is the girl that gets to the top through sex. starshine I probably should have written good leader. But then again, a bad leader isn't a leader in my eyes. - LA

InvisibleBlack -> RE: Dominance and Leadership (12/1/2009 7:53:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika Do you think that to be a good dominant, you must be a leader? Not at all. I think there is some connection between the two but it's not necessary. I've been thinking about this since you posted it and after some reflection, I would put it this way. I view dominance as the tendency of someone to assert control when dealing with others. This happens in most social settings,whether consciously or unconsciously, and having nothing to do with BDSM. You sit in on a jury and very quickly a couple of people are basically running the show. You call a meeting at work and fairly quickly you can pick out who the dominant people at the table are. Even out of a group of friends, you know who makes most of decisions and who just goes along. I view leadership as the ability to motivate and inspire people to follow you and take on your goals and/or vision. They can happen together and it's nice when they do. They do not have to. Sometimes the person making the decisions and actually "in control" is not the one who is inspiring and leading the troops. Sometimes the person selling everyone on the plan and getting everyone on board isn't the one who decided where the ship is going. Neither of these two has anything to do with management which is more about the ability to organize and handle large groups of people (or things or whatever). One can be a great manager and a terrible leader, or a great leader and totally dominant and a lousy manager. To address something else that's come up in this thread - I've met many many senior management types who aren't dominant at all. In fact, the classic stereotypical "yes man" wouldn't be considered dominant, but might end up Chief Operating Officer of a major corporation because he's a sycophant of the CEO. Many submissives make great managers and leaders, because they're deriving personal satisfaction out of organizing and inspiring their department or their group for their boss. That interaction gives them a sense of fulfillment. They might never want to be the President of the company, but they would be happy to be the Vice President and make sure the directives of the President were achieved in the best way possible. I suspect that many of the "hard driving" executive types who seek out Dom/mes in order to submit "behind the scenes" probably aren't dominant at all, but feel forced to act dominant and in control in the highly stressful and competitive environment of their offices and then have problems reconciling the dichotomy between who they are and how they find themselves forced to act.

LadyAngelika -> RE: Dominance and Leadership (12/1/2009 8:07:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika Do you think that to be a good dominant, you must be a leader? Not at all. I think there is some connection between the two but it's not necessary. I've been thinking about this since you posted it and after some reflection, I would put it this way. And let me tell you that I appreciate your contribution. You made me reflect a lot on the way we define things. I might not agree with everything you wrote, but I'm hoping my responses will spark an intersting debate. quote: I view dominance as the tendency of someone to assert control when dealing with others. This happens in most social settings,whether consciously or unconsciously, and having nothing to do with BDSM. You sit in on a jury and very quickly a couple of people are basically running the show. You call a meeting at work and fairly quickly you can pick out who the dominant people at the table are. Even out of a group of friends, you know who makes most of decisions and who just goes along. I view leadership as the ability to motivate and inspire people to follow you and take on your goals and/or vision. You've compared a dominant with a leader. I was comparing a good dominant with a leader. Do you see the difference? quote: They can happen together and it's nice when they do. They do not have to. Sometimes the person making the decisions and actually "in control" is not the one who is inspiring and leading the troops. Sometimes the person selling everyone on the plan and getting everyone on board isn't the one who decided where the ship is going. I think it is absolutely wonderful when they do, to be honest. quote: Neither of these two has anything to do with management which is more about the ability to organize and handle large groups of people (or things or whatever). One can be a great manager and a terrible leader, or a great leader and totally dominant and a lousy manager. Not sure I agree with this. Management is getting people together to accomplish desired goals and objectives. To do that, you need strong leadership. Management without strong leadership usually is very ineffective. I've got quite a bit of data on this topic considering that it is the focus of my doctoral studies. As for the totally dominant part, totally is not necessarily good. quote: To address something else that's come up in this thread - I've met many many senior management types who aren't dominant at all. In fact, the classic stereotypical "yes man" wouldn't be considered dominant, but might end up Chief Operating Officer of a major corporation because he's a sycophant of the CEO. "Yes men" or "yes women" do more damage to a company than those who learn how to voice their opinions respectfully and backed with facts and offering up alternatives. Of course, the organizational culture needs to be open to this, which is only possible in an organization with strong leadership. quote: Many submissives make great managers and leaders, because they're deriving personal satisfaction out of organizing and inspiring their department or their group for their boss. That interaction gives them a sense of fulfillment. They might never want to be the President of the company, but they would be happy to be the Vice President and make sure the directives of the President were achieved in the best way possible. I never meant to imply that if someone is submissive that they can't be a leader. A leader requires inner strength, amongst a whole other set of qualities. There is therefore no contradiction for me. quote: I suspect that many of the "hard driving" executive types who seek out Dom/mes in order to submit "behind the scenes" probably aren't dominant at all, but feel forced to act dominant and in control in the highly stressful and competitive environment of their offices and then have problems reconciling the dichotomy between who they are and how they find themselves forced to act. That might be a desire to balance out the pressure. Most men that I've met in that position (and I know quite a few), feel that they have a lot of pressure on them in their everyday lives and this is a way to escape. I don't want to say that is the case for all, but this is a common situation. - LA

xssve -> RE: Dominance and Leadership (12/2/2009 6:04:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subjoe101 I'm going to have to take the less than popular opinion on this one. I don't think a good dominant equates to a good leader. In fact, I would argue in many cases that a dominant person is not a good leader. Dominant people are typically controlling and want things done their way. They decide how things are done. A good leader on the other hand seeks others opinions and relies on others to accomplish things. A good leader builds 'buy-in' from his/her subordinates and lets them be a part of the decision making process. It doesn't mean a leader is better than a dominant or visa versa. It's just two different personalities. A dominant can be a good leader but I don't agree that a good dominant is always a good leader. What he said, a good leader has to be persuasive and tolerant, both of which require a degree of empathy - leadership is about maximizing group utility, whereas most people tend to seek to maximize their own individual utility by default, dominant or submissive. Too one way, and he/she will end up leading everybody over the edge of a cliff, history is rife with examples.

MarcEsadrian -> RE: Dominance and Leadership (12/2/2009 12:04:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika Do you think that to be a good dominant, you must be a leader? I don't only think it, I know it. Of course, "good leadership" is as varied as the individuals and situations involved. Overall, however, it is my experience poor decision making, faulty reasoning, the inability to empathize, plan ahead or steer the relationship correctly will inflict slaves / submissives with what I call the "runaround disease". They will become overworked, overstressed and underinspired. A wise leader plies his or her resources thoughtfully. Put simply, they manage things well for the long-term.

Justme696 -> RE: Dominance and Leadership (12/2/2009 12:32:16 PM)
I think dominant means in many cases leading (why else would one be seen as dominant if he is not leading)...weather he is good or bad..is a different question.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125