Apologies that I've only just caught up with the last three week's postings.
The word "leadership" has evolved several different meanings, and is now
often used to describe organisational roles ( as in 'a business school
programme targetted at the executive leadership teams of organisations') -
to such an extent that I try to avoid the word altogether. The "vs."
argument of the last couple of weeks has this at its core.
The same is true of the words "leader" and "follower" - and of course none
of us, even a CEO, is solely one or the other. For me one way to clarity is
always to flag whether one is talking role or behaviour.
It is often most productive (although less interesting as measured by the
volume of discussion generated), to focus on the behavioural level, as
several of the previous contributors have done.
For each of us to be effective in organisations we need to be able to
demonstrate both leading behaviour and following behaviour, and to recognise
when each of those is required. Management roles particularly require both,
at every level.
We are in the middle of an organisational research programme on the factors
contributing to successful change, seeking to isolate the specific
behaviours which make a positive or negative difference to its delivery.
Our hypothesis is based on the existence of identifiable sets of behaviours:
- the leading behaviours (based on a transformational leadership model)
which inspire and enable others to invest their energy towards achieving a
shared vision), and
- the following behaviours which enthusiastically deliver a shared vision of
the future.
Any references or input would be most welcome.
Geoff Atkinson
ChangeNet Ltd., UK