LO a means or an end? LO6389

Lyle G. Courtney (link@unixg.ubc.ca)
Wed, 3 Apr 1996 10:29:34 -0800 (PST)

Replying to LO6308 --

I would like to add another possibility. Both leader and followers know
that reality has to be defined in some way for actions to proceed with
some order and stability. Leaders presumably [and in some cases, this is
a big 'if', e.g. where we have leadership by 'default'] have some
combination of teaching/facilitation skills and/or experience which makes
it likely they will not have to reinvent reality from scratch every time.
So by consensus, often implicit, leaders do the defining, and followers go
along. No one is demeaned, since the leader depends on the critique of
the followers on an ongoing basis, as actual events unfold, and the
followers depend on the leader monitoring the entity's direction.

Where you get 'shepherd and sheep' is in information-poor organizations,
where the assumptions/facts underlying direction is doled out on a 'need
to know' basis. 'Leaders' in this case often confuse executive power with
actual understanding of the situation. No one person can understand the
whole picture in detail - unless that person can also leap tall buildings
in a single bound - and therefore, detailed central control only works in
conditions of stability. Let a shepherd assume stability, and what

Lyle Courtney


"Lyle G. Courtney" <link@unixg.ubc.ca>

Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>