Discussion: View Thread

Back to discussions
Expand all | Collapse all

Technical Language

  • 1.  Technical Language

    Posted 04-17-2011 13:31
    Colleagues,
     

    I just returned from the annual meeting of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology in Chicago.  I was frustrated in my attempts to convince attendees (other than SIOP Fellows) that our sloppy use of technically precise language has denied us a straightforward understanding and practice of one of our most effective empowering mechanism in lives at work.  I refer to "team leadership©" defined technically by LMX psychologists as (1) Completely independent of "administration", (2) A powerful mechanism to generate professional empowerment at work, (3) Based on our deepest survival instincts and trainable, (4) Characterized as an interpersonal alliance between equals to commit to each other's and their teams best interests (5) Including the five functions of 1) developing a team leadership network of "interpersonal strategic alliances", 2) developing action plans, 3) organizing crew for action, 4) taking team action, and 5) adapting team action as required.

     Our practice of calling anyone in charge a "leader" creates a "white out" of the technical definition.  We end up calling people without any "followers" but in administrative positions "leaders" when we more accurately should call them "administrators".  Of course, we see nothing wrong with administrators who can be most effective.  They are not "leaders".  If they want to add the team leadership functions they need to find a new source of influence outside of the formal power of an office.  I suggest we call formal holders of administrative positions with authority over a group of employees "administrators".  Even Adolf Hitler was an administrator for Germany.  In addition, he was a team leader of a small group of top Nazi officers.  Please, let's watch our language in this area lest we continue to throw out the baby with the bath water.  Once we do, team leadership can become the empowering and engaging mechanism that saved our species from extinction.

     

    George B. Graen
    New Team Leadership©
    /jag


  • 2.  Technical Language

    Posted 04-17-2011 16:00
    I am confused. Are you equating Adolf Hitler to a team leader and administrator?
     

     
    Don A. Ball
    USCGR Retired
    "Empower your subordinate leaders to work at full level of their authority. Encourage your subordinate leaders; train them, trust them, hold them to standard. Remember--the prime measure of your performance is the performance of your men." Adm. Eric Olson


    From: George Graen <Lmxlotus@AOL.COM>
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Sent: Sun, April 17, 2011 1:31:27 PM
    Subject: Technical Language

    Colleagues,
     

    I just returned from the annual meeting of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology in Chicago.  I was frustrated in my attempts to convince attendees (other than SIOP Fellows) that our sloppy use of technically precise language has denied us a straightforward understanding and practice of one of our most effective empowering mechanism in lives at work.  I refer to "team leadership©" defined technically by LMX psychologists as (1) Completely independent of "administration", (2) A powerful mechanism to generate professional empowerment at work, (3) Based on our deepest survival instincts and trainable, (4) Characterized as an interpersonal alliance between equals to commit to each other's and their teams best interests (5) Including the five functions of 1) developing a team leadership network of "interpersonal strategic alliances", 2) developing action plans, 3) organizing crew for action, 4) taking team action, and 5) adapting team action as required.

     Our practice of calling anyone in charge a "leader" creates a "white out" of the technical definition.  We end up calling people without any "followers" but in administrative positions "leaders" when we more accurately should call them "administrators".  Of course, we see nothing wrong with administrators who can be most effective.  They are not "leaders".  If they want to add the team leadership functions they need to find a new source of influence outside of the formal power of an office.  I suggest we call formal holders of administrative positions with authority over a group of employees "administrators".  Even Adolf Hitler was an administrator for Germany.  In addition, he was a team leader of a small group of top Nazi officers.  Please, let's watch our language in this area lest we continue to throw out the baby with the bath water.  Once we do, team leadership can become the empowering and engaging mechanism that saved our species from extinction.

     

    George B. Graen
    New Team Leadership©
    /jag


  • 3.  Technical Language

    Posted 04-17-2011 17:00
    Have you considered that this is an extreme ideology with regard to language functions and use?i I refer you to Science and Sanity by Alfred Korzybski. He had some good points, but it was a similarly extreme ideology.
    Chris Allen Thomas
    Sent from my Blackberry

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    Sent: Sun Apr 17 13:31:27 2011
    Subject: Technical Language

    Colleagues,


    I just returned from the annual meeting of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology in Chicago. I was frustrated in my attempts to convince attendees (other than SIOP Fellows) that our sloppy use of technically precise language has denied us a straightforward understanding and practice of one of our most effective empowering mechanism in lives at work. I refer to "team leadership©" defined technically by LMX psychologists as (1) Completely independent of "administration", (2) A powerful mechanism to generate professional empowerment at work, (3) Based on our deepest survival instincts and trainable, (4) Characterized as an interpersonal alliance between equals to commit to each other's and their teams best interests (5) Including the five functions of 1) developing a team leadership network of "interpersonal strategic alliances", 2) developing action plans, 3) organizing crew for action, 4) taking team action, and 5) adapting team action as required.

    Our practice of calling anyone in charge a "leader" creates a "white out" of the technical definition. We end up calling people without any "followers" but in administrative positions "leaders" when we more accurately should call them "administrators". Of course, we see nothing wrong with administrators who can be most effective. They are not "leaders". If they want to add the team leadership functions they need to find a new source of influence outside of the formal power of an office. I suggest we call formal holders of administrative positions with authority over a group of employees "administrators". Even Adolf Hitler was an administrator for Germany. In addition, he was a team leader of a small group of top Nazi officers. Please, let's watch our language in this area lest we continue to throw out the baby with the bath water. Once we do, team leadership can become the empowering and engaging mechanism that saved our species from extinction.



    George B. Graen
    New Team Leadership©
    /jag


  • 4.  Technical Language

    Posted 04-17-2011 18:57
    Colleagues,
    Thank you, especially you George, for this amusing string on this Palm Sunday. So is the Pope a Leader or an Administrator? Wouldn't Hersey say it's Situational?
    Cheers,
    Ray Venero
    Trinity Washington University
    Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Chris Thomas <cthomas@TELEOSLEADERS.COM>
    Sender: Management Education and Development Discussion
    <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 16:59:57
    To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    Reply-to: Management Education and Development Discussion
    <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    Subject: Re: Technical Language

    Have you considered that this is an extreme ideology with regard to language functions and use?i I refer you to Science and Sanity by Alfred Korzybski. He had some good points, but it was a similarly extreme ideology.
    Chris Allen Thomas
    Sent from my Blackberry

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    Sent: Sun Apr 17 13:31:27 2011
    Subject: Technical Language

    Colleagues,


    I just returned from the annual meeting of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology in Chicago. I was frustrated in my attempts to convince attendees (other than SIOP Fellows) that our sloppy use of technically precise language has denied us a straightforward understanding and practice of one of our most effective empowering mechanism in lives at work. I refer to "team leadership©" defined technically by LMX psychologists as (1) Completely independent of "administration", (2) A powerful mechanism to generate professional empowerment at work, (3) Based on our deepest survival instincts and trainable, (4) Characterized as an interpersonal alliance between equals to commit to each other's and their teams best interests (5) Including the five functions of 1) developing a team leadership network of "interpersonal strategic alliances", 2) developing action plans, 3) organizing crew for action, 4) taking team action, and 5) adapting team action as required.

    Our practice of calling anyone in charge a "leader" creates a "white out" of the technical definition. We end up calling people without any "followers" but in administrative positions "leaders" when we more accurately should call them "administrators". Of course, we see nothing wrong with administrators who can be most effective. They are not "leaders". If they want to add the team leadership functions they need to find a new source of influence outside of the formal power of an office. I suggest we call formal holders of administrative positions with authority over a group of employees "administrators". Even Adolf Hitler was an administrator for Germany. In addition, he was a team leader of a small group of top Nazi officers. Please, let's watch our language in this area lest we continue to throw out the baby with the bath water. Once we do, team leadership can become the empowering and engaging mechanism that saved our species from extinction.



    George B. Graen
    New Team Leadership©
    /jag


  • 5.  Technical Language

    Posted 04-18-2011 00:51
     
    I apologize for any hurt feeling I may have unintentionally caused by my reference to the devil--Hitler. I was only emphasizing that Administration is an independent role from Team leadership. A person can be great at one and  poor at the other. When an executive is great at administration and poor at team leadership, he or she is handicapped because an executive of a competitive corporation cannot be successful. When we call such a person a leader we confuse the definition of team leader. I suggest that we call such a person an administrator with no followers but only subordinates, and save the term team leader for an executive with a team of committed followers. We are experiencing a famine of team leadership according to all the recent surveys. Please cooperate because we cannot understand "team leadership" Until we tidy up our language.
     
    George
     
     
     
    In a message dated 4/17/2011 3:33:40 P.M. Central Daylight Time, coasty1977@YAHOO.COM writes:
    I am confused. Are you equating Adolf Hitler to a team leader and administrator?
     

     
    Don A. Ball
    USCGR Retired
    "Empower your subordinate leaders to work at full level of their authority. Encourage your subordinate leaders; train them, trust them, hold them to standard. Remember--the prime measure of your performance is the performance of your men." Adm. Eric Olson


    From: George Graen <Lmxlotus@AOL.COM>
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Sent: Sun, April 17, 2011 1:31:27 PM
    Subject: Technical Language

    Colleagues,
     

    I just returned from the annual meeting of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology in Chicago.  I was frustrated in my attempts to convince attendees (other than SIOP Fellows) that our sloppy use of technically precise language has denied us a straightforward understanding and practice of one of our most effective empowering mechanism in lives at work.  I refer to "team leadership©" defined technically by LMX psychologists as (1) Completely independent of "administration", (2) A powerful mechanism to generate professional empowerment at work, (3) Based on our deepest survival instincts and trainable, (4) Characterized as an interpersonal alliance between equals to commit to each other's and their teams best interests (5) Including the five functions of 1) developing a team leadership network of "interpersonal strategic alliances", 2) developing action plans, 3) organizing crew for action, 4) taking team action, and 5) adapting team action as required.

     Our practice of calling anyone in charge a "leader" creates a "white out" of the technical definition.  We end up calling people without any "followers" but in administrative positions "leaders" when we more accurately should call them "administrators".  Of course, we see nothing wrong with administrators who can be most effective.  They are not "leaders".  If they want to add the team leadership functions they need to find a new source of influence outside of the formal power of an office.  I suggest we call formal holders of administrative positions with authority over a group of employees "administrators".  Even Adolf Hitler was an administrator for Germany.  In addition, he was a team leader of a small group of top Nazi officers.  Please, let's watch our language in this area lest we continue to throw out the baby with the bath water.  Once we do, team leadership can become the empowering and engaging mechanism that saved our species from extinction.

     

    George B. Graen
    New Team Leadership©
    /jag
     


  • 6.  Technical Language

    Posted 04-18-2011 11:45

    There is a further distinction we can make. I usually discuss Hitler with my students to make clear that a leader is not necessarily "a nice guy/girl". Both Hitler and Obama gave their peoples hope, found the favor of many voters and were very good at giving speeches, and both reflected the sentiment in the country. But in the case of Hitler, it was primarily the negative (poverty, fear of communism, humiliated by the French) that he expressed, while Obama, in my impression, primarily reflected the constructive elements in US culture. Typically, a leader reflects a situation and an era (Churchill was a very important leader of the British during World War II, but lost the elections after the war). This distinction is not black and white, as many "constructive leaders" had their shadowsides (Kennedy and Dr. King, despite having been very important for their country and for the world, betrayed their wives and Gandhi seems to have been rather racist), but the distinction seems valid: does the leader reflect negative sentiments or positive sentiments?


    On Apr 18, 2011, at 6:51 AM, George Graen wrote:

     
    I apologize for any hurt feeling I may have unintentionally caused by my reference to the devil--Hitler. I was only emphasizing that Administration is an independent role from Team leadership. A person can be great at one and  poor at the other. When an executive is great at administration and poor at team leadership, he or she is handicapped because an executive of a competitive corporation cannot be successful. When we call such a person a leader we confuse the definition of team leader. I suggest that we call such a person an administrator with no followers but only subordinates, and save the term team leader for an executive with a team of committed followers. We are experiencing a famine of team leadership according to all the recent surveys. Please cooperate because we cannot understand "team leadership" Until we tidy up our language.
     
    George
     
     
     
    In a message dated 4/17/2011 3:33:40 P.M. Central Daylight Time, coasty1977@YAHOO.COM writes:
    I am confused. Are you equating Adolf Hitler to a team leader and administrator?
     

     
    Don A. Ball
    USCGR Retired
    "Empower your subordinate leaders to work at full level of their authority. Encourage your subordinate leaders; train them, trust them, hold them to standard. Remember--the prime measure of your performance is the performance of your men." Adm. Eric Olson


    From: George Graen <Lmxlotus@AOL.COM>
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Sent: Sun, April 17, 2011 1:31:27 PM
    Subject: Technical Language

    Colleagues,
     
    I just returned from the annual meeting of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology in Chicago.  I was frustrated in my attempts to convince attendees (other than SIOP Fellows) that our sloppy use of technically precise language has denied us a straightforward understanding and practice of one of our most effective empowering mechanism in lives at work.  I refer to "team leadership©" defined technically by LMX psychologists as (1) Completely independent of "administration", (2) A powerful mechanism to generate professional empowerment at work, (3) Based on our deepest survival instincts and trainable, (4) Characterized as an interpersonal alliance between equals to commit to each other's and their teams best interests (5) Including the five functions of 1) developing a team leadership network of "interpersonal strategic alliances", 2) developing action plans, 3) organizing crew for action, 4) taking team action, and 5) adapting team action as required.
     Our practice of calling anyone in charge a "leader" creates a "white out" of the technical definition.  We end up calling people without any "followers" but in administrative positions "leaders" when we more accurately should call them "administrators".  Of course, we see nothing wrong with administrators who can be most effective.  They are not "leaders".  If they want to add the team leadership functions they need to find a new source of influence outside of the formal power of an office.  I suggest we call formal holders of administrative positions with authority over a group of employees "administrators".  Even Adolf Hitler was an administrator for Germany.  In addition, he was a team leader of a small group of top Nazi officers.  Please, let's watch our language in this area lest we continue to throw out the baby with the bath water.  Once we do, team leadership can become the empowering and engaging mechanism that saved our species from extinction.

     

    George B. Graen
    New Team Leadership©
    /jag
     



  • 7.  Technical Language

    Posted 04-18-2011 11:48

    From: Ruth H. Axelrod raxelrod@gwu.edu (forwarded by list director for technical reasons)

    George,

    I don't think that we are going to be able to agree on definitions until we divorce the term leadership from positional headship (headship being a term that was used among OB scholars in the 40s to distinguish the two).  The term leadership must be shared with the political scientists, sociologists and other observers of human behavior.  Personally, I use the term managerial leadership to refer to positional leadership in organizations, assuming, of course, that the individual involved is exercising leadership as well as serving as a manager.  If you have not yet read it, I strongly recommend Burn's "Leadership," with his clear distinction between transformational and transactional leadership, which was later muddied by organizational scholars.  So, I seek a definition of leadership that applies equally to Tom Watson, Louis Pasteur, Leonard Bernstein, Winston Churchill, Eleanor Roosevelt, Mother Theresa, Karl Marx and Michelangelo, to name a few. 

    I am not willing to concede that the LMX scholars have the right to coopt the term "team leadership" because it means different things to different people and the LMX framework, IMO, is more one of headship (Burn's transactional leadership) than of leadership in its purest sense.

    Ruth  

    From:     George Graen <Lmxlotus@AOL.COM>

    Colleagues,

     

    I just returned from the annual meeting of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology in Chicago.  I was frustrated in my attempts to convince attendees (other than SIOP Fellows) that our sloppy use of technically precise language has denied us a straightforward understanding and practice of one of our most effective empowering mechanism in lives at work.  I refer to "team leadership©" defined technically by LMX psychologists as (1) Completely independent of "administration", (2) A powerful mechanism to generate professional empowerment at work, (3) Based on our deepest survival instincts and trainable, (4) Characterized as an interpersonal alliance between equals to commit to each other's and their teams best interests (5) Including the five functions of 1) developing a team leadership network of "interpersonal strategic alliances", 2) developing action plans, 3) organizing crew for action, 4) taking team action, and 5) adapting team action as required.

     Our practice of calling anyone in charge a "leader" creates a "white out" of the technical definition.  We end up calling people without any "followers" but in administrative positions "leaders" when we more accurately should call them "administrators".  Of course, we see nothing wrong with administrators who can be most effective.  They are not "leaders".  If they want to add the team leadership functions they need to find a new source of influence outside of the formal power of an office.  I suggest we call formal holders of administrative positions with authority over a group of employees "administrators".  Even Adolf Hitler was an administrator for Germany.  In addition, he was a team leader of a small group of top Nazi officers.  Please, let's watch our language in this area lest we continue to throw out the baby with the bath water.  Once we do, team leadership can become the empowering and engaging mechanism that saved our species from extinction.

     

    George B. Graen

    New Team Leadership©

    /jag

     



    -- 
    Ruth H. Axelrod
    (H/O) 301-698-0513
     


  • 8.  Technical Language

    Posted 04-18-2011 11:53
    George,
    I like your explanation. Team leaders are given subordinates but do they translate into followers??? Good question. It might be a good time to do some research on our senior level leaders and middle managers in Corrections across the country. I conduct two programs in the field; one for senior level leaders and one for mid-mangers. Your thoughts?
     
    John
     
    John T. Eggers, Ph.D
    Correctional Program Specialist
    National Inst. of Corrections Academy
    791 Chambers Road
    Aurora, CO 80011
    Ofc. 800-995-6429, ext 4405 or
    303-365-4405
    Cell: (720) 670-6932
    jeggers@bop.gov

    >>> George Graen <Lmxlotus@AOL.COM> 4/17/2011 10:51 PM >>>
     
    I apologize for any hurt feeling I may have unintentionally caused by my reference to the devil--Hitler. I was only emphasizing that Administration is an independent role from Team leadership. A person can be great at one and  poor at the other. When an executive is great at administration and poor at team leadership, he or she is handicapped because an executive of a competitive corporation cannot be successful. When we call such a person a leader we confuse the definition of team leader. I suggest that we call such a person an administrator with no followers but only subordinates, and save the term team leader for an executive with a team of committed followers. We are experiencing a famine of team leadership according to all the recent surveys. Please cooperate because we cannot understand "team leadership" Until we tidy up our language.
     
    George
     
     
     
    In a message dated 4/17/2011 3:33:40 P.M. Central Daylight Time, coasty1977@YAHOO.COM writes:
    I am confused. Are you equating Adolf Hitler to a team leader and administrator?
     

     
    Don A. Ball
    USCGR Retired
    "Empower your subordinate leaders to work at full level of their authority. Encourage your subordinate leaders; train them, trust them, hold them to standard. Remember--the prime measure of your performance is the performance of your men." Adm. Eric Olson


    From: George Graen <Lmxlotus@AOL.COM>
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Sent: Sun, April 17, 2011 1:31:27 PM
    Subject: Technical Language

    Colleagues,
     

    I just returned from the annual meeting of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology in Chicago.  I was frustrated in my attempts to convince attendees (other than SIOP Fellows) that our sloppy use of technically precise language has denied us a straightforward understanding and practice of one of our most effective empowering mechanism in lives at work.  I refer to "team leadership©" defined technically by LMX psychologists as (1) Completely independent of "administration", (2) A powerful mechanism to generate professional empowerment at work, (3) Based on our deepest survival instincts and trainable, (4) Characterized as an interpersonal alliance between equals to commit to each other's and their teams best interests (5) Including the five functions of 1) developing a team leadership network of "interpersonal strategic alliances", 2) developing action plans, 3) organizing crew for action, 4) taking team action, and 5) adapting team action as required.

     Our practice of calling anyone in charge a "leader" creates a "white out" of the technical definition.  We end up calling people without any "followers" but in administrative positions "leaders" when we more accurately should call them "administrators".  Of course, we see nothing wrong with administrators who can be most effective.  They are not "leaders".  If they want to add the team leadership functions they need to find a new source of influence outside of the formal power of an office.  I suggest we call formal holders of administrative positions with authority over a group of employees "administrators".  Even Adolf Hitler was an administrator for Germany.  In addition, he was a team leader of a small group of top Nazi officers.  Please, let's watch our language in this area lest we continue to throw out the baby with the bath water.  Once we do, team leadership can become the empowering and engaging mechanism that saved our species from extinction.

     

    George B. Graen
    New Team Leadership©
    /jag
     



  • 9.  Technical Language

    Posted 04-18-2011 13:20
    It may be useful to apply systemics to note that administrator and manager are 'locations' in a field of endeavor whereas leader is an 'activity.'
    Also that either can be positive vs. negative and even real vs. imaginary.

    On Apr 18, 2011, at 8:47 AM, Charles Wankel wrote:

    From: Ruth H. Axelrod raxelrod@gwu.edu (forwarded by list director for technical reasons) 

    George,

    I don't think that we are going to be able to agree on definitions until we divorce the term leadership from positional headship (headship being a term that was used among OB scholars in the 40s to distinguish the two).  The term leadership must be shared with the political scientists, sociologists and other observers of human behavior.  Personally, I use the term managerial leadership to refer to positional leadership in organizations, assuming, of course, that the individual involved is exercising leadership as well as serving as a manager.  If you have not yet read it, I strongly recommend Burn's "Leadership," with his clear distinction between transformational and transactional leadership, which was later muddied by organizational scholars.  So, I seek a definition of leadership that applies equally to Tom Watson, Louis Pasteur, Leonard Bernstein, Winston Churchill, Eleanor Roosevelt, Mother Theresa, Karl Marx and Michelangelo, to name a few.  

    I am not willing to concede that the LMX scholars have the right to coopt the term "team leadership" because it means different things to different people and the LMX framework, IMO, is more one of headship (Burn's transactional leadership) than of leadership in its purest sense.

    Ruth   

    From:     George Graen <Lmxlotus@AOL.COM>

    Colleagues,
     
    I just returned from the annual meeting of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology in Chicago.  I was frustrated in my attempts to convince attendees (other than SIOP Fellows) that our sloppy use of technically precise language has denied us a straightforward understanding and practice of one of our most effective empowering mechanism in lives at work.  I refer to "team leadership©" defined technically by LMX psychologists as (1) Completely independent of "administration", (2) A powerful mechanism to generate professional empowerment at work, (3) Based on our deepest survival instincts and trainable, (4) Characterized as an interpersonal alliance between equals to commit to each other's and their teams best interests (5) Including the five functions of 1) developing a team leadership network of "interpersonal strategic alliances", 2) developing action plans, 3) organizing crew for action, 4) taking team action, and 5) adapting team action as required.
     Our practice of calling anyone in charge a "leader" creates a "white out" of the technical definition.  We end up calling people without any "followers" but in administrative positions "leaders" when we more accurately should call them "administrators".  Of course, we see nothing wrong with administrators who can be most effective.  They are not "leaders".  If they want to add the team leadership functions they need to find a new source of influence outside of the formal power of an office.  I suggest we call formal holders of administrative positions with authority over a group of employees "administrators".  Even Adolf Hitler was an administrator for Germany.  In addition, he was a team leader of a small group of top Nazi officers.  Please, let's watch our language in this area lest we continue to throw out the baby with the bath water.  Once we do, team leadership can become the empowering and engaging mechanism that saved our species from extinction.
     
    George B. Graen
    New Team Leadership©
    /jag
     


    -- 
    Ruth H. Axelrod
    (H/O) 301-698-0513
     



  • 10.  Technical Language

    Posted 04-18-2011 13:32
    To a certain extent, aren't the leadership differences/styles really a function of the power granted to the individual by the followers - coercive, legitimate, reward, referent and expert?
     
    John Brandon
    Director, Human Resources
    Ashland University
    419-289-5034
     
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Charles Wankel [wankelc@VERIZON.NET]
    Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 11:47 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Technical Language

    From: Ruth H. Axelrod raxelrod@gwu.edu (forwarded by list director for technical reasons)

    George,

    I don't think that we are going to be able to agree on definitions until we divorce the term leadership from positional headship (headship being a term that was used among OB scholars in the 40s to distinguish the two).  The term leadership must be shared with the political scientists, sociologists and other observers of human behavior.  Personally, I use the term managerial leadership to refer to positional leadership in organizations, assuming, of course, that the individual involved is exercising leadership as well as serving as a manager.  If you have not yet read it, I strongly recommend Burn's "Leadership," with his clear distinction between transformational and transactional leadership, which was later muddied by organizational scholars.  So, I seek a definition of leadership that applies equally to Tom Watson, Louis Pasteur, Leonard Bernstein, Winston Churchill, Eleanor Roosevelt, Mother Theresa, Karl Marx and Michelangelo, to name a few. 

    I am not willing to concede that the LMX scholars have the right to coopt the term "team leadership" because it means different things to different people and the LMX framework, IMO, is more one of headship (Burn's transactional leadership) than of leadership in its purest sense.

    Ruth  

    From:     George Graen <Lmxlotus@AOL.COM>

    Colleagues,

     

    I just returned from the annual meeting of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology in Chicago.  I was frustrated in my attempts to convince attendees (other than SIOP Fellows) that our sloppy use of technically precise language has denied us a straightforward understanding and practice of one of our most effective empowering mechanism in lives at work.  I refer to "team leadership©" defined technically by LMX psychologists as (1) Completely independent of "administration", (2) A powerful mechanism to generate professional empowerment at work, (3) Based on our deepest survival instincts and trainable, (4) Characterized as an interpersonal alliance between equals to commit to each other's and their teams best interests (5) Including the five functions of 1) developing a team leadership network of "interpersonal strategic alliances", 2) developing action plans, 3) organizing crew for action, 4) taking team action, and 5) adapting team action as required.

     Our practice of calling anyone in charge a "leader" creates a "white out" of the technical definition.  We end up calling people without any "followers" but in administrative positions "leaders" when we more accurately should call them "administrators".  Of course, we see nothing wrong with administrators who can be most effective.  They are not "leaders".  If they want to add the team leadership functions they need to find a new source of influence outside of the formal power of an office.  I suggest we call formal holders of administrative positions with authority over a group of employees "administrators".  Even Adolf Hitler was an administrator for Germany.  In addition, he was a team leader of a small group of top Nazi officers.  Please, let's watch our language in this area lest we continue to throw out the baby with the bath water.  Once we do, team leadership can become the empowering and engaging mechanism that saved our species from extinction.

     

    George B. Graen

    New Team Leadership©

    /jag

     



    -- 
    Ruth H. Axelrod
    (H/O) 301-698-0513
     


  • 11.  Technical Language

    Posted 04-18-2011 21:48

    The good definition of a leader that instantly connects with a senior middle management audience is – "a leader is one who has willing followers". You can then define leadership as "an ability to create willing followers". Top management audiences typically do not like this definition as they instinctively recognize that it does not apply to them! Important point to note is that that the effectiveness/efficiency aspect is missing in the definition.  An administrator or manager in contrast is "one without willing followers" but with the "ability to manage subordinates effectively and efficiently".

    Ganesh N Prabhu, Professor of Strategy, Indian Institute of Management Bangalore.

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of John Eggers
    Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 9:23 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Technical Language

     

    George,

    I like your explanation. Team leaders are given subordinates but do they translate into followers??? Good question. It might be a good time to do some research on our senior level leaders and middle managers in Corrections across the country. I conduct two programs in the field; one for senior level leaders and one for mid-mangers. Your thoughts?

     

    John

     

    John T. Eggers, Ph.D
    Correctional Program Specialist
    National Inst. of Corrections Academy
    791 Chambers Road
    Aurora, CO 80011
    Ofc. 800-995-6429, ext 4405 or
    303-365-4405
    Cell: (720) 670-6932
    jeggers@bop.gov

    >>> George Graen <Lmxlotus@AOL.COM> 4/17/2011 10:51 PM >>>

     

    I apologize for any hurt feeling I may have unintentionally caused by my reference to the devil--Hitler. I was only emphasizing that Administration is an independent role from Team leadership. A person can be great at one and  poor at the other. When an executive is great at administration and poor at team leadership, he or she is handicapped because an executive of a competitive corporation cannot be successful. When we call such a person a leader we confuse the definition of team leader. I suggest that we call such a person an administrator with no followers but only subordinates, and save the term team leader for an executive with a team of committed followers. We are experiencing a famine of team leadership according to all the recent surveys. Please cooperate because we cannot understand "team leadership" Until we tidy up our language.

     

    George

     

     

     



  • 12.  Technical Language

    Posted 04-19-2011 04:17
    Garish,
     
    I like your distinction between an administrator and a team leader.
     
    Mine is that administrators are assigned subordinates to play the game and team leaders rally colleagues into team leadership cadres to change the game(new Oxford Handbook of leadership, 2012).
     
    I'll send you a copy if you like.
     
    George Graen
     
     
     
     
    In a message dated 4/19/2011 1:24:41 A.M. Central Daylight Time, gprabhu@IIMB.ERNET.IN writes:

    The good definition of a leader that instantly connects with a senior middle management audience is – "a leader is one who has willing followers". You can then define leadership as "an ability to create willing followers". Top management audiences typically do not like this definition as they instinctively recognize that it does not apply to them! Important point to note is that that the effectiveness/efficiency aspect is missing in the definition.  An administrator or manager in contrast is "one without willing followers" but with the "ability to manage subordinates effectively and efficiently".

    Ganesh N Prabhu, Professor of Strategy, Indian Institute of Management Bangalore.

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of John Eggers
    Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 9:23 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Technical Language

     

    George,

    I like your explanation. Team leaders are given subordinates but do they translate into followers??? Good question. It might be a good time to do some research on our senior level leaders and middle managers in Corrections across the country. I conduct two programs in the field; one for senior level leaders and one for mid-mangers. Your thoughts?

     

    John

     

    John T. Eggers, Ph.D
    Correctional Program Specialist
    National Inst. of Corrections Academy
    791 Chambers Road
    Aurora, CO 80011
    Ofc. 800-995-6429, ext 4405 or
    303-365-4405
    Cell: (720) 670-6932
    jeggers@bop.gov

    >>> George Graen <Lmxlotus@AOL.COM> 4/17/2011 10:51 PM >>>

     

    I apologize for any hurt feeling I may have unintentionally caused by my reference to the devil--Hitler. I was only emphasizing that Administration is an independent role from Team leadership. A person can be great at one and  poor at the other. When an executive is great at administration and poor at team leadership, he or she is handicapped because an executive of a competitive corporation cannot be successful. When we call such a person a leader we confuse the definition of team leader. I suggest that we call such a person an administrator with no followers but only subordinates, and save the term team leader for an executive with a team of committed followers. We are experiencing a famine of team leadership according to all the recent surveys. Please cooperate because we cannot understand "team leadership" Until we tidy up our language.

     

    George

     

     

     

     


  • 13.  Technical Language

    Posted 04-19-2011 06:23
    Ganesh-

    Big advantage of your definition - it permits the teaching of deliberate
    leadership, especially in a multi-cultural context.

    If managers learn that they must "invoke the followership" of others,
    they begin to study the differences in followership among others and
    creatively work to shape their actions and behaviors to influence
    through leadership. And of course it is even more challenging when
    attempting to build leadership across teams and organizations which are
    multi-cultural. But it is also challenging to deal with the differences
    of followership across business functions and disciplines.

    On 4/18/2011 8:48 PM, Ganesh N Prabhu wrote:
    > The good definition of a leader that instantly connects with a senior
    > middle management audience is – “a leader is one who has willing
    > followers”. You can then define leadership as “an ability to create
    > willing followers”. Top management audiences typically do not like this
    > definition as they instinctively recognize that it does not apply to
    > them! Important point to note is that that the effectiveness/efficiency
    > aspect is missing in the definition. An administrator or manager in
    > contrast is “one without willing followers” but with the “ability to
    > manage subordinates effectively and efficiently”.
    >
    > Ganesh N Prabhu, Professor of Strategy, Indian Institute of Management
    > Bangalore.
    >
    > *From:* Management Education and Development Discussion
    > [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] *On Behalf Of *John Eggers
    > *Sent:* Monday, April 18, 2011 9:23 PM
    > *To:* MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    > *Subject:* Re: Technical Language
    >
    > George,
    >
    > I like your explanation. Team leaders are given subordinates but do they
    > translate into followers??? Good question. It might be a good time to do
    > some research on our senior level leaders and middle managers in
    > Corrections across the country. I conduct two programs in the field; one
    > for senior level leaders and one for mid-mangers. Your thoughts?
    >
    > John
    >
    > John T. Eggers, Ph.D
    > Correctional Program Specialist
    > National Inst. of Corrections Academy
    > 791 Chambers Road
    > Aurora, CO 80011
    > Ofc. 800-995-6429, ext 4405 or
    > 303-365-4405
    > Cell: (720) 670-6932
    > jeggers@bop.gov
    >
    >> >> George Graen <Lmxlotus@AOL.COM> 4/17/2011 10:51 PM >>>
    >
    > I apologize for any hurt feeling I may have unintentionally caused by my
    > reference to the devil--Hitler. I was only emphasizing that
    > Administration is an independent role from Team leadership. A person can
    > be great at one and poor at the other. When an executive is great at
    > administration and poor at team leadership, he or she is handicapped
    > because an executive of a competitive corporation cannot be successful.
    > When we call such a person a leader we confuse the definition of team
    > leader. I suggest that we call such a person an administrator with no
    > followers but only subordinates, and save the term team leader for an
    > executive with a team of committed followers. We are experiencing a
    > famine of team leadership according to all the recent surveys. Please
    > cooperate because we cannot understand "team leadership" Until we tidy
    > up our language.
    >
    > George
    >

    --
    Christopher M. Barlow, PhD
    The Co-Creativity Institute
    551 Roosevelt Road #112
    Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137
    Voice: (630) 221-9456
    mailto://barlow@cocreativity.com
    http://www.cocreativity.com
    http://barlowcocreativity.blogspot.com/


  • 14.  Technical Language

    Posted 04-19-2011 10:00
    Ganesh,

    For me, you have touched on the key issue, which is that the leader-follower relationship is voluntary. 

    James MacGregor Burns also said that true leadership can occur only in an environment where there are competing ideas and/or agendas.  I am still thinking about that, though I am leaning toward it.

    Ruth

    On 4/18/2011 9:48 PM, Ganesh N Prabhu wrote:
    1503D42B09E2A3409BFBA28B9CBFCEF505293B6D@venus.iimb.ernet.in" type="cite">

    The good definition of a leader that instantly connects with a senior middle management audience is – "a leader is one who has willing followers". You can then define leadership as "an ability to create willing followers". Top management audiences typically do not like this definition as they instinctively recognize that it does not apply to them! Important point to note is that that the effectiveness/efficiency aspect is missing in the definition.  An administrator or manager in contrast is "one without willing followers" but with the "ability to manage subordinates effectively and efficiently".

    Ganesh N Prabhu, Professor of Strategy, Indian Institute of Management Bangalore.

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of John Eggers
    Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 9:23 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Technical Language

     

    George,

    I like your explanation. Team leaders are given subordinates but do they translate into followers??? Good question. It might be a good time to do some research on our senior level leaders and middle managers in Corrections across the country. I conduct two programs in the field; one for senior level leaders and one for mid-mangers. Your thoughts?

     

    John

     

    John T. Eggers, Ph.D
    Correctional Program Specialist
    National Inst. of Corrections Academy
    791 Chambers Road
    Aurora, CO 80011
    Ofc. 800-995-6429, ext 4405 or
    303-365-4405
    Cell: (720) 670-6932
    jeggers@bop.gov

    >>> George Graen <Lmxlotus@AOL.COM> 4/17/2011 10:51 PM >>>

     

    I apologize for any hurt feeling I may have unintentionally caused by my reference to the devil--Hitler. I was only emphasizing that Administration is an independent role from Team leadership. A person can be great at one and  poor at the other. When an executive is great at administration and poor at team leadership, he or she is handicapped because an executive of a competitive corporation cannot be successful. When we call such a person a leader we confuse the definition of team leader. I suggest that we call such a person an administrator with no followers but only subordinates, and save the term team leader for an executive with a team of committed followers. We are experiencing a famine of team leadership according to all the recent surveys. Please cooperate because we cannot understand "team leadership" Until we tidy up our language.

     

    George

     

     

     


    --  Ruth H. Axelrod (H/O) 301-698-0513


  • 15.  Technical Language

    Posted 04-19-2011 12:29
    Dear Colleagues,

    This has been an interesting stream. I agree that one difference between the use of power and the nature of leadership is whether the followers are behaving voluntarily or not. If power is getting people to do what you want them to do, leadership is about getting a voluntary response. Responses (buy-in) though are not binary. I've been using a seven point buy-in scale, that is, when you try to get someone to do something you might get 7. Active resistance, 6. Passive resistance, 5. Apathy, 4. Compliance, 3. Agreement, 2. Engagement, or 1. Passion. Many things contribute to the kind of response one gets. I also agree and John Kotter has also noted that being in a position of authority doesn't mean one is a leader. Below they are called administrators, I call them "authoritors." People with authority. Not necessarily leaders. So connecting voluntary response and the buy-in scale, it seems to me that leadership is about managing energy, first in one's self and then in those around them. Many authoritors and/or managers are not so good at the first part, yet they expect high energy from their "followers." Henry Mintzberg's call to self-reflection/knowledge is important here. Mood is contagious. Steve Ballmer's YouTube clip is one demonstration of HIS VABE about that connection.

    Best to all,

    Jim
    James G. S. Clawson
    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration
    Darden Graduate School of Business, University of Virginia
    Tel: 434 924-7488
    Fax: 434 243-7680
    Mail: Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906
    Packages: 100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903
    Web: http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/Clawsonj
    Twitter: @Jajisee


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Chris Barlow
    Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 6:23 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Technical Language

    Ganesh-

    Big advantage of your definition - it permits the teaching of deliberate leadership, especially in a multi-cultural context.

    If managers learn that they must "invoke the followership" of others, they begin to study the differences in followership among others and creatively work to shape their actions and behaviors to influence through leadership. And of course it is even more challenging when attempting to build leadership across teams and organizations which are multi-cultural. But it is also challenging to deal with the differences of followership across business functions and disciplines.

    On 4/18/2011 8:48 PM, Ganesh N Prabhu wrote:
    > The good definition of a leader that instantly connects with a senior
    > middle management audience is - "a leader is one who has willing
    > followers". You can then define leadership as "an ability to create
    > willing followers". Top management audiences typically do not like
    > this definition as they instinctively recognize that it does not apply
    > to them! Important point to note is that that the
    > effectiveness/efficiency aspect is missing in the definition. An
    > administrator or manager in contrast is "one without willing
    > followers" but with the "ability to manage subordinates effectively and efficiently".
    >
    > Ganesh N Prabhu, Professor of Strategy, Indian Institute of Management
    > Bangalore.
    >
    > *From:* Management Education and Development Discussion
    > [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] *On Behalf Of *John Eggers
    > *Sent:* Monday, April 18, 2011 9:23 PM
    > *To:* MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    > *Subject:* Re: Technical Language
    >
    > George,
    >
    > I like your explanation. Team leaders are given subordinates but do
    > they translate into followers??? Good question. It might be a good
    > time to do some research on our senior level leaders and middle
    > managers in Corrections across the country. I conduct two programs in
    > the field; one for senior level leaders and one for mid-mangers. Your thoughts?
    >
    > John
    >
    > John T. Eggers, Ph.D
    > Correctional Program Specialist
    > National Inst. of Corrections Academy
    > 791 Chambers Road
    > Aurora, CO 80011
    > Ofc. 800-995-6429, ext 4405 or
    > 303-365-4405
    > Cell: (720) 670-6932
    > jeggers@bop.gov
    >
    >> >> George Graen <Lmxlotus@AOL.COM> 4/17/2011 10:51 PM >>>
    >
    > I apologize for any hurt feeling I may have unintentionally caused by
    > my reference to the devil--Hitler. I was only emphasizing that
    > Administration is an independent role from Team leadership. A person
    > can be great at one and poor at the other. When an executive is great
    > at administration and poor at team leadership, he or she is
    > handicapped because an executive of a competitive corporation cannot be successful.
    > When we call such a person a leader we confuse the definition of team
    > leader. I suggest that we call such a person an administrator with no
    > followers but only subordinates, and save the term team leader for an
    > executive with a team of committed followers. We are experiencing a
    > famine of team leadership according to all the recent surveys. Please
    > cooperate because we cannot understand "team leadership" Until we tidy
    > up our language.
    >
    > George
    >

    --
    Christopher M. Barlow, PhD
    The Co-Creativity Institute
    551 Roosevelt Road #112
    Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137
    Voice: (630) 221-9456
    mailto://barlow@cocreativity.com
    http://www.cocreativity.com
    http://barlowcocreativity.blogspot.com/


  • 16.  Technical Language

    Posted 04-19-2011 13:58

    All --

    This is indeed a very interesting and thoughtful stream.

     

    I might add another layer to what Jim has mentioned below. That layer begins with how engaged an individual is in the vision and mission of the organization. If it is just a job to the individual, if their level of passion for the job is low, then it would follow that based on Jim's scale bel0ow that we would see levels from 4-7; if they believe that what they are doing is more than a job, then it would also follow that you would more likely see  level three through one.

    When you take this to the enth degree, I suppose that one can look at men and women at war. Noone really wants to go to battle -- to put their lives on the line and to take the lives of others. I continually look at the Band of Brothers book and mini series where you will see leadership embodied at many levels. In fact in an interview in American History Mangazine the main character of that book and series, the late Dick Winters, notes (see: http://www.historynet.com/dick-winters-reflections-on-the-band-of-brothers-d-day-and-leadership.htm for the full interview and story:

    Winters believes his ability to inspire men to follow him into harm's way on the dike in Holland and elsewhere was attributable to his bedrock beliefs in basic leadership qualities.

    The qualities you are looking for in a leader include: Does the individual have the respect of the men? How do you get the respect of the men? By living with them, being a part of it, being able to understand what they are going through and not to separate yourself from them. You have to know your men. You have to gain their confidence. And the way to gain the confidence of anybody, whether it's in war or civilian life or whatever, you must be honest. Be honest, be fair and be consistent. You can't be honest and fair one day, and the next give your people the short end of the stick. Once you can achieve that, you will be a leader.

     

    Just another perspective on this interesting area of discussion.

    pax,

    -rr

     


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Jim Clawson" <ClawsonJ@DARDEN.VIRGINIA.EDU>
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 9:28:54 AM
    Subject: Re: Technical Language

    Dear Colleagues,

    This has been an interesting stream.  I agree that one difference between the use of power and the nature of leadership is whether the followers are behaving voluntarily or not.  If power is getting people to do what you want them to do, leadership is about getting a voluntary response.  Responses (buy-in) though are not binary.  I've been using a seven point buy-in scale, that is, when you try to get someone to do something you might get 7. Active resistance, 6. Passive resistance, 5. Apathy, 4. Compliance, 3. Agreement, 2. Engagement, or 1. Passion.  Many things contribute to the kind of response one gets.  I also agree and John Kotter has also noted that being in a position of authority doesn't mean one is a leader.  Below they are called administrators, I call them "authoritors."  People with authority.  Not necessarily leaders.  So connecting voluntary response and the buy-in scale, it seems to me that leadership is about managing energy, first in one's self and then in those around them.  Many authoritors and/or managers are not so good at the first part, yet they expect high energy from their "followers."  Henry Mintzberg's call to self-reflection/knowledge is important here.  Mood is contagious.  Steve Ballmer's YouTube clip is one demonstration of HIS VABE about that connection.  

    Best to all,

    Jim
    James G. S. Clawson
    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration
    Darden Graduate School of Business, University of Virginia
    Tel: 434 924-7488
    Fax: 434 243-7680
    Mail: Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906
    Packages: 100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903
    Web: http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/Clawsonj
    Twitter:  @Jajisee


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Chris Barlow
    Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 6:23 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Technical Language

    Ganesh-

    Big advantage of your definition - it permits the teaching of deliberate leadership, especially in a multi-cultural context.

    If managers learn that they must "invoke the followership" of others, they begin to study the differences in followership among others and creatively work to shape their actions and behaviors to influence through leadership.  And of course it is even more challenging when attempting to build leadership across teams and organizations which are multi-cultural.  But it is also challenging to deal with the differences of followership across business functions and disciplines.

    On 4/18/2011 8:48 PM, Ganesh N Prabhu wrote:
    > The good definition of a leader that instantly connects with a senior
    > middle management audience is - "a leader is one who has willing
    > followers". You can then define leadership as "an ability to create
    > willing followers". Top management audiences typically do not like
    > this definition as they instinctively recognize that it does not apply
    > to them! Important point to note is that that the
    > effectiveness/efficiency aspect is missing in the definition. An
    > administrator or manager in contrast is "one without willing
    > followers" but with the "ability to manage subordinates effectively and efficiently".
    >
    > Ganesh N Prabhu, Professor of Strategy, Indian Institute of Management
    > Bangalore.
    >
    > *From:* Management Education and Development Discussion
    > [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] *On Behalf Of *John Eggers
    > *Sent:* Monday, April 18, 2011 9:23 PM
    > *To:* MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    > *Subject:* Re: Technical Language
    >
    > George,
    >
    > I like your explanation. Team leaders are given subordinates but do
    > they translate into followers??? Good question. It might be a good
    > time to do some research on our senior level leaders and middle
    > managers in Corrections across the country. I conduct two programs in
    > the field; one for senior level leaders and one for mid-mangers. Your thoughts?
    >
    > John
    >
    > John T. Eggers, Ph.D
    > Correctional Program Specialist
    > National Inst. of Corrections Academy
    > 791 Chambers Road
    > Aurora, CO 80011
    > Ofc. 800-995-6429, ext 4405 or
    > 303-365-4405
    > Cell: (720) 670-6932
    > jeggers@bop.gov
    >
    >> >> George Graen <Lmxlotus@AOL.COM> 4/17/2011 10:51 PM >>>
    >
    > I apologize for any hurt feeling I may have unintentionally caused by
    > my reference to the devil--Hitler. I was only emphasizing that
    > Administration is an independent role from Team leadership. A person
    > can be great at one and poor at the other. When an executive is great
    > at administration and poor at team leadership, he or she is
    > handicapped because an executive of a competitive corporation cannot be successful.
    > When we call such a person a leader we confuse the definition of team
    > leader. I suggest that we call such a person an administrator with no
    > followers but only subordinates, and save the term team leader for an
    > executive with a team of committed followers. We are experiencing a
    > famine of team leadership according to all the recent surveys. Please
    > cooperate because we cannot understand "team leadership" Until we tidy
    > up our language.
    >
    > George
    >

    --
    Christopher M. Barlow, PhD
    The Co-Creativity Institute
    551 Roosevelt Road #112
    Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137
    Voice: (630) 221-9456
    mailto://barlow@cocreativity.com
    http://www.cocreativity.com
    http://barlowcocreativity.blogspot.com/



  • 17.  Technical Language

    Posted 04-19-2011 16:39
    Thank you very much for a great virtual seminar on the question:
     
    Under what conditions would a colleague consider becoming a member of a volunteer, unpaid, unappreciated, and risky source of game changing power?
     
    Those who would strive to share this influence of what I call a "Team Leadership Cadre" (TLC) need to learn the protocal. Almost anyone can learn how it's done, but it takes coached practice to do it successfully. Although it takes practice to do it within a single culture, it takes much more to do it with a multinational group. 
     
    George Graen
     
    In a message dated 4/19/2011 1:47:11 P.M. Central Daylight Time, rustyrae@comcast.net writes:

    All --

    This is indeed a very interesting and thoughtful stream.

     

    I might add another layer to what Jim has mentioned below. That layer begins with how engaged an individual is in the vision and mission of the organization. If it is just a job to the individual, if their level of passion for the job is low, then it would follow that based on Jim's scale bel0ow that we would see levels from 4-7; if they believe that what they are doing is more than a job, then it would also follow that you would more likely see  level three through one.

    When you take this to the enth degree, I suppose that one can look at men and women at war. Noone really wants to go to battle -- to put their lives on the line and to take the lives of others. I continually look at the Band of Brothers book and mini series where you will see leadership embodied at many levels. In fact in an interview in American History Mangazine the main character of that book and series, the late Dick Winters, notes (see: http://www.historynet.com/dick-winters-reflections-on-the-band-of-brothers-d-day-and-leadership.htm for the full interview and story:

    Winters believes his ability to inspire men to follow him into harm's way on the dike in Holland and elsewhere was attributable to his bedrock beliefs in basic leadership qualities.

    The qualities you are looking for in a leader include: Does the individual have the respect of the men? How do you get the respect of the men? By living with them, being a part of it, being able to understand what they are going through and not to separate yourself from them. You have to know your men. You have to gain their confidence. And the way to gain the confidence of anybody, whether it's in war or civilian life or whatever, you must be honest. Be honest, be fair and be consistent. You can't be honest and fair one day, and the next give your people the short end of the stick. Once you can achieve that, you will be a leader.

     

    Just another perspective on this interesting area of discussion.

    pax,

    -rr

     


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Jim Clawson" <ClawsonJ@DARDEN.VIRGINIA.EDU>
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 9:28:54 AM
    Subject: Re: Technical Language

    Dear Colleagues,

    This has been an interesting stream.  I agree that one difference between the use of power and the nature of leadership is whether the followers are behaving voluntarily or not.  If power is getting people to do what you want them to do, leadership is about getting a voluntary response.  Responses (buy-in) though are not binary.  I've been using a seven point buy-in scale, that is, when you try to get someone to do something you might get 7. Active resistance, 6. Passive resistance, 5. Apathy, 4. Compliance, 3. Agreement, 2. Engagement, or 1. Passion.  Many things contribute to the kind of response one gets.  I also agree and John Kotter has also noted that being in a position of authority doesn't mean one is a leader.  Below they are called administrators, I call them "authoritors."  People with authority.  Not necessarily leaders.  So connecting voluntary response and the buy-in scale, it seems to me that leadership is about managing energy, first in one's self and then in those around them.  Many authoritors and/or managers are not so good at the first part, yet they expect high energy from their "followers."  Henry Mintzberg's call to self-reflection/knowledge is important here.  Mood is contagious.  Steve Ballmer's YouTube clip is one demonstration of HIS VABE about that connection.  

    Best to all,

    Jim
    James G. S. Clawson
    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration
    Darden Graduate School of Business, University of Virginia
    Tel: 434 924-7488
    Fax: 434 243-7680
    Mail: Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906
    Packages: 100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903
    Web: http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/Clawsonj
    Twitter:  @Jajisee


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Chris Barlow
    Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 6:23 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Technical Language

    Ganesh-

    Big advantage of your definition - it permits the teaching of deliberate leadership, especially in a multi-cultural context.

    If managers learn that they must "invoke the followership" of others, they begin to study the differences in followership among others and creatively work to shape their actions and behaviors to influence through leadership.  And of course it is even more challenging when attempting to build leadership across teams and organizations which are multi-cultural.  But it is also challenging to deal with the differences of followership across business functions and disciplines.

    On 4/18/2011 8:48 PM, Ganesh N Prabhu wrote:
    > The good definition of a leader that instantly connects with a senior
    > middle management audience is - "a leader is one who has willing
    > followers". You can then define leadership as "an ability to create
    > willing followers". Top management audiences typically do not like
    > this definition as they instinctively recognize that it does not apply
    > to them! Important point to note is that that the
    > effectiveness/efficiency aspect is missing in the definition. An
    > administrator or manager in contrast is "one without willing
    > followers" but with the "ability to manage subordinates effectively and efficiently".
    >
    > Ganesh N Prabhu, Professor of Strategy, Indian Institute of Management
    > Bangalore.
    >
    > *From:* Management Education and Development Discussion
    > [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] *On Behalf Of *John Eggers
    > *Sent:* Monday, April 18, 2011 9:23 PM
    > *To:* MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    > *Subject:* Re: Technical Language
    >
    > George,
    >
    > I like your explanation. Team leaders are given subordinates but do
    > they translate into followers??? Good question. It might be a good
    > time to do some research on our senior level leaders and middle
    > managers in Corrections across the country. I conduct two programs in
    > the field; one for senior level leaders and one for mid-mangers. Your thoughts?
    >
    > John
    >
    > John T. Eggers, Ph.D
    > Correctional Program Specialist
    > National Inst. of Corrections Academy
    > 791 Chambers Road
    > Aurora, CO 80011
    > Ofc. 800-995-6429, ext 4405 or
    > 303-365-4405
    > Cell: (720) 670-6932
    > jeggers@bop.gov
    >
    >> >> George Graen <Lmxlotus@AOL.COM> 4/17/2011 10:51 PM >>>
    >
    > I apologize for any hurt feeling I may have unintentionally caused by
    > my reference to the devil--Hitler. I was only emphasizing that
    > Administration is an independent role from Team leadership. A person
    > can be great at one and poor at the other. When an executive is great
    > at administration and poor at team leadership, he or she is
    > handicapped because an executive of a competitive corporation cannot be successful.
    > When we call such a person a leader we confuse the definition of team
    > leader. I suggest that we call such a person an administrator with no
    > followers but only subordinates, and save the term team leader for an
    > executive with a team of committed followers. We are experiencing a
    > famine of team leadership according to all the recent surveys. Please
    > cooperate because we cannot understand "team leadership" Until we tidy
    > up our language.
    >
    > George
    >

    --
    Christopher M. Barlow, PhD
    The Co-Creativity Institute
    551 Roosevelt Road #112
    Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137
    Voice: (630) 221-9456
    mailto://barlow@cocreativity.com
    http://www.cocreativity.com
    http://barlowcocreativity.blogspot.com/

     


  • 18.  Technical Language

    Posted 04-20-2011 06:57

    Dear Ruth,

    Thanks for your comment and reminder of what McGregor Burn's saying.  It is a liberating thought that leadership emerges from competing ideas/agendas/interest and open discussions. 

    Best wishes,

    Lichia

     

    Prof. Lichia Saner-Yiu, Ed.D.
    President
    Centre for Socio-Eco-Nomic Development (CSEND)
    CP 1498 Mont Blanc, 1211 Geneva 1, Switzerland
    Tel. (41-22) 906 1720, Fax. (41-22) 738 1737

    www.csend.org (development),
    www.diplomacydialogue.org (multi-stakeholder interactions)
    www.adequate.org (quality assurance)

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Ruth H. Axelrod
    Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 4:00 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Technical Language

     

    Ganesh,

    For me, you have touched on the key issue, which is that the leader-follower relationship is voluntary. 

    James MacGregor Burns also said that true leadership can occur only in an environment where there are competing ideas and/or agendas.  I am still thinking about that, though I am leaning toward it.

    Ruth

    On 4/18/2011 9:48 PM, Ganesh N Prabhu wrote:

    The good definition of a leader that instantly connects with a senior middle management audience is – "a leader is one who has willing followers". You can then define leadership as "an ability to create willing followers". Top management audiences typically do not like this definition as they instinctively recognize that it does not apply to them! Important point to note is that that the effectiveness/efficiency aspect is missing in the definition.  An administrator or manager in contrast is "one without willing followers" but with the "ability to manage subordinates effectively and efficiently".

    Ganesh N Prabhu, Professor of Strategy, Indian Institute of Management Bangalore.

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of John Eggers
    Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 9:23 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Technical Language

     

    George,

    I like your explanation. Team leaders are given subordinates but do they translate into followers??? Good question. It might be a good time to do some research on our senior level leaders and middle managers in Corrections across the country. I conduct two programs in the field; one for senior level leaders and one for mid-mangers. Your thoughts?

     

    John

     

    John T. Eggers, Ph.D
    Correctional Program Specialist
    National Inst. of Corrections Academy
    791 Chambers Road
    Aurora, CO 80011
    Ofc. 800-995-6429, ext 4405 or
    303-365-4405
    Cell: (720) 670-6932
    jeggers@bop.gov

    >>> George Graen <Lmxlotus@AOL.COM> 4/17/2011 10:51 PM >>>

     

    I apologize for any hurt feeling I may have unintentionally caused by my reference to the devil--Hitler. I was only emphasizing that Administration is an independent role from Team leadership. A person can be great at one and  poor at the other. When an executive is great at administration and poor at team leadership, he or she is handicapped because an executive of a competitive corporation cannot be successful. When we call such a person a leader we confuse the definition of team leader. I suggest that we call such a person an administrator with no followers but only subordinates, and save the term team leader for an executive with a team of committed followers. We are experiencing a famine of team leadership according to all the recent surveys. Please cooperate because we cannot understand "team leadership" Until we tidy up our language.

     

    George

     

     

     



    -- 
    Ruth H. Axelrod
    (H/O) 301-698-0513