Before returning to the main topics in our current discussion of the problems with the prescriptions of the modern leadership movement (MLM), we’re going to take a brief look at two more types of what are generally regarded as genuine examples of “leadership” in organizations. Today, we will explain why one of these examples actually is not leadership at all as it is understood by the MLM, and why it is more accurately seen as a symptom of an unwell organization. This is the sort of leadership we see in the person who steps up and “takes charge.”
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
there is another form of what is widely recognized as individual leadership in organizations. Anna Smith refers to an excellent example of this in a recent post on her site, a wonderful resource for managers, What Do You Want From Them. This is the individual leader who appears from within. This typically occurs in larger, more mature organizations, since the form of leadership expressed by founder/owners tends to overwhelm the expression of it by, or even the presence of it in, others. Anna describes an individual . . .
n the most recent post in this current series on the fallacy of individual leadership, we noted that, among the types of leadership we seem to genuinely see in organizations, there is at least one that is, more or less in fact, both organizationally relevant and valid. Valid, because this type has the legal and moral right to give expression to personal leadership in the organization with no concern for violation of fiduciary duty (this is a real and fundamental problem with the modern concept of individual leadership, which we will discuss later in this series). Organizationally relevant, because it does indeed serve as the basis for the formation and operation of the organization. This type is the founding owner. . .
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Managing Leadership is back on-line and stable, with all posts and links restored. My apologies to those who have received repetitive event notifications about this site via their subscription methods or Twitter resulting from the reconstitution process – this should be over, now; your patience is greatly appreciated. Six items published between the last back-up [...]
Also filed in
|
|
In the course of our current review of the reasons to reject the concept of individual leadership as it is taught by its modern proponents, it is worth addressing the unavoidable fact that there really are some leaders around. In the last two posts, we looked at why a widely advocated leadership type is, at best, essentially irrelevant to organizational purpose and, at the sadly common worst, is actively destructive of it. But the general theme of our argument here . . .
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Among the most dangerous of the many troubling features of the modern leadership movement’s prescriptions is its cultivation of the idea that leadership, at its best, is expressed by individuals so possessed of the leadership persona that they simply infect “followers” with the impulse to follow them. This is most often characterized as charismatic leadership, and it retains a strong place in writing and teaching about individual leadership to the present day. . .
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Easily among the most disagreeable aspectsof the generally disagreeable concept of exceptional individual leadership is the noxious notion of “followership.” When the modern leadership movement’s supporters find even themselves waxing too reverential about the singular qualities of their hopes and dreams, when they realize that there may be a problem . . .
