Replying to LO1506 --
Charlie Fleetham said: "My assumptions about leaders are different:
* I don't assume that leaders automatically translate or act as
patriarchs.
* I assume it is possible to follow a leader without giving up personal
responsibility or giving control to the leader.
* I assume that many of the important lessons we learn occur when we
follow leaders.
* I assume that all human beings have tendencies to follow and lead and
that attempts to be completely independent of either drive are futile. I
believe we are biological connected in hierarchies and networks that are
too complex to understand with absolutes or either ors.
* Finally, I believe that leadership is an essential ingrediant for
organizational change. Pete, you pose the question if anyone can or
should be a leader. I think people are leaders whether they know they can
or should be leaders."
As I understand your descriptions, Charlie, I essentially share all of
your assumptions about leadership. However, I think in that way both you
and I are only describing our construct of leadership, so we'll be able to
recognize it when it's there. "I know it when I see it."
At one time - after having been badly burned in a political environment I
was too naive to grasp - I thought of "leadership" as just a label we
place on behavior after the fact, and after the consequences are known;
and yes, this is still the way many people treat the phenomenon. I'm
convinced now that "leaderhsip" is the outcome of a constellation of
internal and external ingredients where "readiness is all".
I'm especially intrigued by your sense which I share that "leadership" is
a potential resident in all people, which can be exercised - if developed,
so that it may emerge - in a variety of styles and situations. I think of
it as a propensity - like natural language - and have sometimes speculated
that, like language, it is congenital, and therefore a fundamental human
characteristic.
--Jack Hirschfeld Can analysis be worthwhile? Is the theatre really dead? jack@his.com