I am wondering what the source is of what I sense as a growing hostility
to hierarchy and leadership, perhaps exemplified by J.B. Bryant's comment:
>I am not saying that no team can succeed with a leader nor all teams
>succeed without them. I am saying that the most effective teams will
>succeed either without or in spite of them.
It is hard to imagine (hard for me to imagine) a successful football team
without a quarterback, where some notions of equality and democracy
require that all decisions be made by vote in the huddle before each play.
Or any of the ensemble arts, like dance and drama, creating works of high
quality without leaders and directors.
Steve Eskow
>My guess is that the teams without leaders that didn't function well were
>affected by non-team players, and a majority of them at that. My guess is
>also that the teams that DID succeed WITH leaders did so in spite of them,
>and perhaps not as fully as they might have otherwise.
>
>I am not saying that no team can succeed with a leader nor all teams
>succeed without them. I am saying that the most effective teams will
>succeed either without or in spite of them.
>
>"Bryant, J B" <jbryant@cas.org>
--"Dr. Steve Eskow" <dreskow@magicnet.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>