The must recent issue of Industrial and Organizational Psychology Perspective (Vol. 5, December 2012) purposed to expand the definition of the acceptance of leadership to include an open-ended collective network of actors, behaviors and contexts within defining their unit of measurement. Whatever the size of their collective, they need to define the human motivation to routinely accept control from another person. This motivation may be the consequence of accepting or not accepting control by another in terms of rewards and punishments. These include wealth, wisdom, health, security, and heaven or hell. All of these work only under the correct conditions of actor, behavior and context. Our LMX research supports the proposition that positive leadership in organizations depends upon the acceptance by both parties of a unique strategic alliance (USA) within which they agree to watch each other's back and support each other to make them both successful. We find that this USA needs to be based on mutual trust, respect and commitment to the two above goals (Graen, Oxford Handbook of Leadership, 2012). See also the lead article in the Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 6, 1097-1130.
My question, is the rationale for advancing an open-end search for influence in networks without researching the fundamental question of under what conditions will a person voluntarily give control over his/her behavior at work without a contract and feel good about it? What do you think?
George Graen
jag
Richard, I just now received my copy of the New Oxford Handbook of Leadership! I'm learning a good deal about the new science and practice of this very human invention. This is a great leap foreward. Have your library order it now. It's a great time to be researching leadership! George Graen In a message dated 11/18/2012 11:21:44 A.M. Central Standard Time, richardcouto@COMCAST.NET writes: I like this link a lot. It focuses on leadership, rather than leader, and ties leadership to authority, formal and informal. Those in formal positions of authority, as you describe them, need to accept the authoritative and legitimate control without formal authority in their own organization. We severely limit ourselves when we conflate leadership with the position or behavior of leaders. The unit of human motivation to routinely accept control from another person suggests recognizing and accepting the legitimate of authority of people regardless of their position. For me, this is a much sounder foundation for the practice and understanding of leadership. Thanks. RC Richard A. Couto 11135 Wychwood Dr. Mechanicsville, VA 23116 804.368.7367 Distinguished Senior Scholar Union Institute and University From: Network of Leadership Scholars [mailto:LDRNET-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of George GraenSent: Friday, November 16, 2012 1:15 PMTo: LDRNET-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDUSubject: [LDRNET] The Missing Link in Leadership Acceptance The must recent issue of Industrial and Organizational Psychology Perspective (Vol. 5, December 2012) purposed to expand the definition of the acceptance of leadership to include an open-ended collective network of actors, behaviors and contexts within defining their unit of measurement. Whatever the size of their collective, they need to define the human motivation to routinely accept control from another person. This motivation may be the consequence of accepting or not accepting control by another in terms of rewards and punishments. These include wealth, wisdom, health, security, and heaven or hell. All of these work only under the correct conditions of actor, behavior and context. Our LMX research supports the proposition that positive leadership in organizations depends upon the acceptance by both parties of a unique strategic alliance (USA) within which they agree to watch each other's back and support each other to make them both successful. We find that this USA needs to be based on mutual trust, respect and commitment to the two above goals (Graen, Oxford Handbook of Leadership, 2012). See also the lead article in the Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 6, 1097-1130. My question, is the rationale for advancing an open-end search for influence in networks without researching the fundamental question of under what conditions will a person voluntarily give control over his/her behavior at work without a contract and feel good about it? What do you think? George Graen jag
I like this link a lot. It focuses on leadership, rather than leader, and ties leadership to authority, formal and informal. Those in formal positions of authority, as you describe them, need to accept the authoritative and legitimate control without formal authority in their own organization. We severely limit ourselves when we conflate leadership with the position or behavior of leaders. The unit of human motivation to routinely accept control from another person suggests recognizing and accepting the legitimate of authority of people regardless of their position. For me, this is a much sounder foundation for the practice and understanding of leadership. Thanks. RC Richard A. Couto 11135 Wychwood Dr. Mechanicsville, VA 23116 804.368.7367 Distinguished Senior Scholar Union Institute and University From: Network of Leadership Scholars [mailto:LDRNET-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of George GraenSent: Friday, November 16, 2012 1:15 PMTo: LDRNET-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDUSubject: [LDRNET] The Missing Link in Leadership Acceptance The must recent issue of Industrial and Organizational Psychology Perspective (Vol. 5, December 2012) purposed to expand the definition of the acceptance of leadership to include an open-ended collective network of actors, behaviors and contexts within defining their unit of measurement. Whatever the size of their collective, they need to define the human motivation to routinely accept control from another person. This motivation may be the consequence of accepting or not accepting control by another in terms of rewards and punishments. These include wealth, wisdom, health, security, and heaven or hell. All of these work only under the correct conditions of actor, behavior and context. Our LMX research supports the proposition that positive leadership in organizations depends upon the acceptance by both parties of a unique strategic alliance (USA) within which they agree to watch each other's back and support each other to make them both successful. We find that this USA needs to be based on mutual trust, respect and commitment to the two above goals (Graen, Oxford Handbook of Leadership, 2012). See also the lead article in the Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 6, 1097-1130. My question, is the rationale for advancing an open-end search for influence in networks without researching the fundamental question of under what conditions will a person voluntarily give control over his/her behavior at work without a contract and feel good about it? What do you think? George Graen jag
I like this link a lot. It focuses on leadership, rather than leader, and ties leadership to authority, formal and informal. Those in formal positions of authority, as you describe them, need to accept the authoritative and legitimate control without formal authority in their own organization. We severely limit ourselves when we conflate leadership with the position or behavior of leaders. The unit of human motivation to routinely accept control from another person suggests recognizing and accepting the legitimate of authority of people regardless of their position. For me, this is a much sounder foundation for the practice and understanding of leadership.
Thanks.
RC
Richard A. Couto
11135 Wychwood Dr.
Mechanicsville, VA 23116
804.368.7367
Distinguished Senior Scholar
Union Institute and University
From: Network of Leadership Scholars [mailto:LDRNET-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of George GraenSent: Friday, November 16, 2012 1:15 PMTo: LDRNET-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDUSubject: [LDRNET] The Missing Link in Leadership Acceptance