Hello John, Vana, Eugene and others
I hope everything is going well for all.
>I will tell you that his definition has changed a
>bit, he no longer uses the word followers in his definition, he uses the
>term collaborators.
How interesting to see this change. When I first read it I really liked
the definition, it helped me understand my position because at the time I
was National President of AIESEC (http://www.aiesec.org), an international
student4s organization.
But to be honest, there was one thing that was (and still is) somehow not
letting me buy a part of the concept. To me the concept means that most
of the relationships within companies are not leadership, but are
management, which Rost defines as "an authority relatioship between at
least one manager and one subordinate who coordinate their activities to
produce and sell particular goods and/or services" (pg. 145).
Now, I have little experience working for companies, I have recently
graduated from college and it extends to only my job as President (one
full year) which I mentioned before, as a consultant for Strategic
planning (only 4 months) a Peace Corps trainer (http://www.peacecorps.gov)
for the Small Business Program (only 4 months) and now as an assitant
national sales manager for an electromechanical company (a month so far ).
[somehow it is really hard for a 24 year old to find a job that is worth
waking up in the morning that pays you :) ]
Anyway, in all of my jobs (except for the one at AIESEC) I can not say
that I had a leader, I had bosses. It was only in AIESEC where I felt
like I really was in a leadership relationship, where the relationship was
not coercive, nobody was forcing me to stay or even pay me to stay; I
recognized my leaders and realized the influence I had on them; I sough
[past of seek, I'm not sure how to spell it] to understand my followers'
desires, willingness on where to go, how and why, and synthetize it so
everyone would feel a part; everyone held mutual purposes, and most
important we intended real changes.
It is on this last part where my uneasiness on the concept is, because
Rost says, under 'intending real changes vs. producing and selling
goods/services': "... when managers and subordinates join forces to really
_change the ways they produce and sell_ their goods/services, or really
_change the kind of goods/services_... [they] may have transformed their
managerial relationship into a leadership relationship." (pg. 151).
To me, ways of production or sales and kinds of products/services are
still part of management. Just coordinate differently to change the way
they produce, or do a market study to change the kind of products/services
they sell. If he was to say that their _products/services produce change_
or help to produce change, I would feel better. Because you can still
coordinate differently to change the way you produce, or do a market study
to change the kind of products/services you sell.
In my last paragraph I implied that change was to be produce elsewhere,
because most of the activities within the organization are to produce
certain kinds of product/services. That may be a flaw in my thinking, I
can4t really explain exactly why I feel that way (the uneasyness on the
concept), but somehow I think it's right (probably one of my mental
models). Anyway, I never had the opportunity to express and share this
thoughts with anyone (not even my teachers because they are still thinking
in other terms, when I showed them this definition, they said it was too
broad) so please comment on my thinking.
Now, if you are still with me, his recent change from followers to
collaborators is very interesting. To me it sounds like the central
element of this relationship is the leader. In spanish, 'colaborador' is
she/he who helps someone in achieving whatever that someone wants, they
are peripheral. I know that he wasn4t happy to use the word 'followers'
neither, but if I was to call things (and this case people) by their name,
I would just call them followers, or active followers like he does. I am
not going to call 'negative' 'not positive' just because it has a negative
connotation (did you get that?, uh.. am I being too critical?)
Vana wrote:
>I found Sr. Parra's thoughts on leadership useful. However, defining a
>characteristic by saying what it is not (i.e.: coercive) is somewhat
>difficult for me since it implies it can be anything but that. I would
>further define the noncoercive influencing style of a leader as being
>respectful and concious of dignity of others.
Just one thought, coercitivity (does that word exist?) is just one part
of the whole definition, he also discusses other elements.
And, thank you so much for calling me Sr. (Senor I guess), in my culture
I still don4t make it there :) I am still being called 'Joven' or junior
Eugene wrote:
>Leadership consists of a process,methods and skills both acquired and
>natural. It is common to all leaders from street gangs to nations.
>The process consists of 7 steps or 12 depending on how you count.
This reminds me of Mintzberg4s theories on developing the Ideology
system (Henry Mintzberg, Power in and around organizations, 1983: Prentice
Hall), where he identifies three stages:
Stage 1: The roots of an ideology in a sense of mission (pg, 182)
Stage 2: Development of the ideology through tradition (pg, 183)
Stage 3: Reinforcement of the ideology through identification (pg, 185)
His model is a bit more simple, but very good.
>WHAT DO LEADERS DO?
I4ve a question, what do followers do?
I am very sorry that this has gotten so long... I hope that some of you
have made it here. Thanks for reading.
M. Alejandro
-- you only see what your eyes want to see/ How life can be what you want it to be/ You're frozen/ When your heart is not open/ +Madonna (FROZEN/Ray of light)Mauricio Alejandro Parra/Cochabamba/BOLIVIA
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>