Discussion: View Thread

From: Erwin Rausch [mailto:DidacticRa@aol.com]

Hi

Can't help but add my two cents to the revival of the perennial
discussion on
what might make management, or more precisely management-and-leadership
education, bring practical help to learners, a topic on which I have
been
thinking, writing, rewriting, and speaking, for almost 25 years.

I am responding to Ken Friedman's remarks which I find a positively
fascinating way to restart the discussion. He wrote:

<< Without suggesting this as a genuine list - much less a taxonomy -
the kinds of rubrics we consider might involve such headings as:
- Emotional-behavioral skills,
- Human skills,
- Administrative skills,
- Logistical skills,
- Financial skills,
- Technical skills.
>>

He is applying logic and reasoning in an environment in which 'empirical

validation' rules.

No way can such a structure be validated empirically within 20 years, if

ever, AND it would take literally hundreds of researchers, organized to
cooperate and coordinate, OR someone funding it with millions.

Maybe there will come a day when his foundation for logically deriving a

practical management and leadership syllabus, or a different but equally

sound foundation for logical exploration will bring serious discussion
in
both academia and the associations of practicing managers.

It will be interesting to see whether Ken's start will lead to a serious

thread here, from which something useful might emerge.

Still hoping.

Erwin Rausch
Didactic Systems and Kean University
908-789-2194

From: Steven.Henderson@solent.ac.uk
[mailto:Steven.Henderson@solent.ac.uk]

The more I read what colleagues have written on leadership, the more it
strikes me that I don't know anything about follower ship. Are there
hard followers, who are inspired by leaders to achieve great things for
the organisation? Are there soft followers, who reject leadership that
cannot justify itself in terms of the good of the organisation, or the
wider society of which it is a part? Do the range of skills described
by Erwin depend upon some aspects of followership for their efficacy? Is
there an equivalent set of followership skills?

Steven Henderson

Steven--

I'm glad you raised that issue because, for me, followership is the sine qua
non
of leadership; without followers, there are no leaders. I distinguish
leadership from both management and headship (a term that was popular in the
1940s to label the functions of being in charge and coordinating things; the
military version is command, though a head is not necessarily in the position
to
order others to do things.) In this, I confess to being influenced by James
MacGregor Burns (who, in 1978, revolutionized the field of leadership theory
by
distinguishing transformational from transactional leadership); he says that
unless there is controversy (i.e., competing alternatives) and/or change
(including crises), leadership is not needed and it doesn't emerge (see the
interview with Burns that I coauthored with James Bailey in the Leadership
Quarterly, Spring 2000). For me, leadership is a dynamic relationship between
leader and follower that is grounded in an emotional link whether it is a
personal face-to-face relationship or a relationship with an Ideal (i.e., when
the parties have not actually met each other). It is also voluntary. So, for
me there are only what you call "hard followers"; otherwise, they are either
competitors for leadership or, if they are obligated to "follow",
subordinates.

I should note that I also acknowledge, and teach to, the notion of
self-leadership as a combination of vision, attitudes and action that
motivates
and enables us to take control of our own lives.

Ruth

>===== Original Message From wankelc@optonline.net =====
>From: Steven.Henderson@solent.ac.uk
>[mailto:Steven.Henderson@solent.ac.uk]
>
>The more I read what colleagues have written on leadership, the more it
>strikes me that I don't know anything about follower ship. Are there
>hard followers, who are inspired by leaders to achieve great things for
>the organisation? Are there soft followers, who reject leadership that
>cannot justify itself in terms of the good of the organisation, or the
>wider society of which it is a part? Do the range of skills described
>by Erwin depend upon some aspects of followership for their efficacy? Is
>there an equivalent set of followership skills?
>
>Steven Henderson

Ruth H. Axelrod
Organizational Sciences
The George Washington University
2147 F Street, NW
Washington, DC 20052
(H/O) 301-593-4938
(O) 202-994-1880
(F) 202-994-1881

Steven,

According to LMX theory of leadership, leaders possess hard skills
(technology), soft skills (cooperation and interpersonal), and leadership
skills (LMX and charisma). They can be gifted or challenged on each of these
skills. Followers possess hard skills (technology), soft skills (cooperation
and interpersonal), and followership skills (LMX and charisma). They also
can be gifted or challenged on these.

With low skills on technology, the building falls down. With low skills on
cooperation and interpersonal relations, the building never gets finished.
With low skills leadership/followership, the company falls down.

If one side of the dyad has the relevant quality of skills, it can muddle
through, but if both have it, they can do great things under the most
stressful conditions.

Yes, it takes leaders' right stuff, followers' right stuff, and a
relationship with the right stuff.

If either company teacher or university teacher doesn't understand this, I'm
sorry but he or she is lost.

George

/jag
PLEASE NOTE AREA CODE CHANGE
George Graen, Ph.D.
University of Louisiana at Lafayette
Management Department
(479) 631-9394
(479) 631-9365
lmxlotus@aol.com