Leadership and Dominance

It seems that, lately, whenever I try and write about relationship dynamics and power structures, I keep going back to romantic involvements – even though what I’m trying to address are principles which are fundamental to human behaviour in general, not just our sexual natures.

A product of our times, I suppose: romantic relationships are one of the few areas where freedom is still allowed.  The War of the Sexes doesn’t have any sort of Geneva Convention, just nuclear armaments on the side of the women.  Contrast to the rest of the social world – school, work, socializing – where very strict protocols are enforced upon us, limiting human-interaction to a list of pre-approved phrases.

Everybody has an opportunity to practice Game, but very few of us are ever in a situation where we can practice Leadership.

Nonetheless, I’m going to ignore romantic involvements this time around.  The implications for Game should be obvious, but I want to focus on something far more primordial:

That humanity craves Leadership and Dominance, and that we live in an era bereft of it.

The Canadian Forces used to have an amazing document called “The Ten Principles of Leadership” which I explored here.  It’s one of the most admirable doctrines I’ve ever run into.  The Ten Principles are far more than just an exploration of effective command, they’re a bullet-point summation of basic morality.  But times change, and even traditional institutions erode under the saltwater of Cultural Marxism, so they’ve since been replaced by what I like to call “The Twelve Principles of Middle Management”; I’ll quote a few of them here so that you can see what I mean:

3) Solve problems; make timely decisions
4) Direct; motivate by persuasion and example and by sharing risks and hardships
5) Train individuals and teams under demanding and realistic conditions
6) Build teamwork and cohesion

If you clicked the above link and read the Ten, you can see that there isn’t a huge difference between the two lists, but that the new phrasing is far more feminine.  Adding two bullets didn’t clarify, it diluted.

The twelve are chock-full of temerity and timidness.  Instead of taking charge, you seduce.  Instead of being decisive, you seek consensus.  Instead of setting standards, you woo the errant.  Thus, middle management: when you view your people like dumb cattle, you don’t seek to engage them – simply corral them into doing what you want.  Guide them dumbly into the abattoir with a funnelled-fence, the beasts at the back urging those at the front forward, concerned only with the posterior of the cow in front of them.  This is how you run a call centre or a Walmart: eyes down, follow the rules.

This is not how you run an army, a country, a friendship, or a dynamic business.

This is how post-scarcity is squeezing the middle class on both sides; on its lower-half, jobs are becoming automated and exported, turning low-IQ people into liabilities, not assets: the Prison/Industrial Complex and Welfare are the present solutions.  On the upper-end you get those who are too free-thinking, talented, and hard-working to be so easily coralled; it’ll be interesting to see what happens with us, as we’re increasingly excluded from the mainstream economy…

But I digress.

The point is that as middle-management techniques become ubiquitous, true Leadership gets swept under the rug.  Middle-management requires obedience and passivity; Leadership demands engagement and aggression.  It’s no wonder, then, that “dominance” has become a dirty word.

To be a Leader of men, you first must recognize that most people don’t want to be leaders – not if they understand what Leadership truly is.  Plenty of people lust after being the boss, having servants, or being able to get things their way – but this is just an artifact of Cultural Narcissism and the over-abundance of consumerist “choice” (you can have a shiny bauble in any colour you want, but you can’t find quality anymore).  Unfortunately, the Middle Management system encourages this as an outlet for natural leadership-related tendencies, rendering most of these people useless.  They can neither follow orders nor give them; they’ve been trained into becoming problem-children who are usually more trouble than they’re worth.

A good Leader needs good people; people who are talented and willing to be engaged, who don’t need constant supervision to curb their rebellious natures.  They exist, but be picky; and when you find them, treat them right.

The computer programmer you hire is damned good at his job, and proud of it – he needs you to provide him a framework where he can ply his trade.  He doesn’t want you to ask his permission – he wants you to tell him what it is that he needs to do!  As Robert Greene would say, “Enter Action With Boldness.” Don’t pussy-foot around.  Say what you want, and how you want it.  You’re not begging for him to be there – that’s Middle Management thinking (they’ll beg you to be there, and fire you at the drop of a hat) – you’re telling him what he needs to do if he wants to be there.

And this is exactly what he wants.

“Thank God,” he thinks, “An organization that’s doing something – where I have a role – and I know what my role is!” He is now happy.  He is now content.  His reality is structured and predictable, while remaining dynamic.  Contrast: the bureaucracy of the Corporation will never change, and yet its effects are unpredictable.  The True Leadership Environment is constantly prepared to change, but the changes themselves will be predictable – possibly, the change will even be a direct result of an idea the programmer had, “Hey boss, you know this software could easily do X,Y, and Z as well?”

With the Middle Manager, life is tediou, and he has no job security; with you life is engaging, and you’ve invested yourself into him – you’re not going to let him go on a whim.

Go.  Do.  Say what you think, bluntly and politely, and people will admire you for it.  Even if it pisses them off, they’ll say as much to your face and you can have a discussion.  Mince words, and they’ll passive-aggressively stab you in the back.

Be Dominant.  Be a Leader.

ͼ-Ѻ-ͽ

Let’s stop talking about theoreticals, and start talking in specifics.  Let’s talk about a situation where even the “Leadership Inclined” want to be dominated and led: it’s whenever you walk into a retail location with an intent to purchase.

When I walk into a clothing store to buy something fashionable, I have no idea what precisely I’m looking for.  I’ve got a good eye for colour and material, but I am not up on what the current fashion trends are.  Whether or not I purchase something is up to the sales clerk: is he willing to dominate me and tell me what I need?

If he’s a good salesman, he’ll figure out who I am, what I’m generally looking for, and then he’ll tell me what I need to buy.  He won’t prattle on, asking me if I like it – he’ll tell me, bluntly, “No, that cut doesn’t work on you,” or “Yes – that one right there.  Every man needs a good power shirt.” At which point I will say, “You are absolutely correct, sir.” I don’t want him to worry about my feelings, I want him to make me look good.

It’s no different selling any higher-end product; electronics, automobiles, washing machines, or even advertising.  Tell me what I need.

As a Leader you’re doing the exact same thing.  This is what dominance looks like.

A final note: Leadership is a combination of both talent and skill; as a consequence, not everybody is psychologically predisposed to being a Leader, and yet it’s incumbent upon all men to learn as much as they can.  A friend of mine – Phlegmatic Temperament, the Donatello of the four-man-band – once related to me how much he hates the focus on how “Everybody is a potential Leader!” which you find in schooling and business these days.

When you hear that phrase, you know you’re being sold a bogus bill of goods; they’re not selling Leadership, they’re selling narcissism and entitlement.

He hates being a Leader, and yet has found himself in actual Leadership positions because he’s skilled and competent – he knows when he needs to take command – but even then, he hates the position, and the faux-leadership they sell is insulting to his nature.

Most men are followers; that is fine.  All men want to be dominated, in one situation or another; that is, again, fine.  It’s only those who’ve been twisted-up by the ethos of Middle Management who add psycho-sexual connotations to this; on the contrary, hierarchy is the most masculine organization-structure that there is.

Don’t be afraid to be blunt and dominant.  I guarantee: people will love you for it.