Coming from a background of teaching on an MBA but also running a
strictly non-academic 'Personal Leadership Programme'I guess I'm
surprised there are only 62 definitions!
Isn't the trouble that 'leadership' as most of us probably understand it
is a hugely complex social phenomenon whereby people interact in a
specific context to willingly create a shared direction or effort? So if
we get more specific the definition will vary according to the people
and the context we are thinking of/familiar with. But then other people
still see 'leadership' as a personality trait, others as a role in a
hierarchy, and others as 'something that if I learn it will speed me to
a position of power/accelerate me up the hierarchy/make me more
successful in my management career'.
It may sound a bit 'Alice in Wonderlandish', but if there are a number
of different definitions and for each, a significant number of people
who would agree with that definition, as well as a large number who
want to know about it without being able to define it for themselves,
then aren't they all valid definitions? Even if it makes the in/not in
classification problematic.
I'm not sure why I'd want to classify anyway. My interest is in the
development of individuals, so figuring out quite what they want to be
able to do/understand is more important than whether or not there is a
'solid concept' of leadership against which their desires do or do not
match.
Indeed, if understanding is the goal, I'd be suspicious of any such
concept given the complexity (as I see it) of the phenomenon. I'd rather
talk about influencing, motivating, collaborating, communicating,
enabling, strategic analysis or whatever seem to be the constituent
elements of what someone wants to achieve. Using a word that suggests a
simple answer to something so complicated seems far less helpful, though
possibly if you are a consultant it presents an easier selling
proposition!
Sheila
-----Original Message-----
From: Management Education and Development Discussion
[mailto:
MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.pace.edu] On Behalf Of
nickols@att.net
Sent: 30 January 2008 17:19
To:
MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
Subject: Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Institutional Leadership
For me, the interesting aspect of 62 definitions of leadership is that
their existence indicates the lack of a solid concept of leadership.
Over in the instructional technology (and the old, old world of
programmed instruction) can be found the notion of "concept mastery". A
person's mastery of a given concept is indicated when the individual
being assessed can (a) correctly classify examples AND non-examples of
the concept in question and (b) articulate the definition of that
concept. The existence of 62 definitions of leadership suggests that
articulating the concept of leadership proves problematic. That raises
the question as to whether or not the other part of concept mastery,
that is, the correct classification of examples and non-examples, can be
applied. Based on my observations of discussions of leadership,
including good and bad examples, I rather doubt it. If true, then that
leaves us without any solid footing when it comes to leadership.
Hmm.
--
Fred Nickols
Toolmaker to Knowledge Workers
www.skullworks.com
nickols@att.net
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: George Graen <
Lmxlotus@AOL.COM>
>
>>
> How many definitions of leadership can you count? Ralph Stogdill
could
> count the infamous 62!
> George Graen
>