Discussion: View Thread

> Corrosive or not, I look at the thread and topic (which has come up
> on other lists periodically) and I see a bit of contentiousness, a
> little bit of snottiness here and there and no way to definitively
> define the common meanings of the two terms.

One of the problems with the nearly instantaneous communication vehicle we call e-mail is that
it isn't a very rich medium. All the subtlety of inflection and body language are absent.
Vocabularies vary greatly, as do inferences, across individuals, cultures, and organizations.
Thick skins, therefore, are an obvious asset in this realm, as is, for that matter, a
presumption of innocent intent. The odds are I've offended someone here, but I assure you that
isn't my goal.

> That there is a lack of common understanding and meaning (and
> this happens in virtually all discussions on this topic) tells me that
> the concepts are not that useful, or in fact flawed.

Flawed? Undoubtedly. Not that useful? No, I think they're useful until we can reach a
consensus on alternatives. That is unlikely, however. Besides, it adds interest to
occasionally revisit old threads. Heck, somebody might actually hit upon something really
valuable. Anyway, it's "old news" to some and "new news" to others.

On 11 Nov 99, at 13:23, Dr. Ted Legatski wrote:

> > That there is a lack of common understanding and meaning (and
> > this happens in virtually all discussions on this topic) tells me that
> > the concepts are not that useful, or in fact flawed.
>
> Flawed? Undoubtedly. Not that useful? No, I think they're useful until
> we can reach a consensus on alternatives. That is unlikely, however.
> Besides, it adds interest to occasionally revisit old threads. Heck,
> somebody might actually hit upon something really valuable. Anyway, it's
> "old news" to some and "new news" to others.

I'm just not sure. If people were simply sharing their understanding
of the concepts that's one thing, but there seems to always be
some that believe that others should embrace their personal
definition, or the definition of some authority. I see little dialogue on
this topic.

Now, is it going to go into the "Was Hitler a good leader or a bad
one"? which often comes after such discussions (or similar figures).


>
>
>


Bookmark the search for anything page - websites, email addresses, books,newsgroups, lists.
http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal/search.htm

Let's look at things the way they are. Talking about "leadership" as if it
had one meaning and goalis inaccurate. The leadership of a company is
mostly concerned with performance and company direction as perceived by
the Board of Directors and the shareholders as these directly relate to
compendation and retention. Leadership at levels below that become more
people oriented, and they can afford to be, as the consequences of being
wrong decreases as one goes down the corporate ladder.

I'm writing about what is real, not ideal.

As a people-oroented head of a small company I performed well, but it was
largely my company so I didn't have to be concerned about job retention,
and the people there were close enough to reality to know the importance
of performance. And, yes, people were treated with respect; there was
concern about the people by the company and concern by the people for the
company. Once we were bought out things changed because what wads imposed
on us was a book of procedures that virtually eliminated thinking of
people as people.

Part of the problems and differences expressed here are that way because
there is insufficient information on the "platform" from which the
"observations" are made.

Besides, there are different styles of leadership and management that work
well for different people, so why should everyone agree?

Don