Hola a todos,
I had a realization about my previous posting (yesterday). I realized
that having understood fully the concept of leadership in a particular
relationship (AIESEC), and that in that relationship the change we
intended was on society (outside our organization), I assumed that change
in any leadership relationship, as defined by Rost, must be about change
outside the organization. Wow, now I understand Maturana :)
But I have a question now: why do organizations exist? is it maybe that
they have a role in contribuiting to the development of society (through
their services/products)? , what do you think?
>Steven
>Covey's assertion of what leadership is? Hardly, Covey is also an
>industralist, and one who speaks, at least in my opinion not of leadership
>development but human development.....
I totally agree with you, I believe that there can not be 'Personal
leadership' because you need at least two to have a leadership
relationship. Don4t get me wrong, I am a great admirer of Covey, actually
I am dying to get one of his organizers, but they don4t sell them here in
Bolivia... and their web site shopping part is so confuzing now with the
merger with Frankling (confuzing to me anyway)... sorry I was drifting.
When he writes about personal leadership, I think of it as personal
mastery.
>You see Gene, the industrial perspecitive is all about what the leader, as
>the sole actor in a leadership dynamic does. What about the followers?
I asked the same question
>Well, in the industrial perspective the followers are just that followers,
>as you imply in your comments. In the postindustrial or collaborative
>perspective, the term followers is not used, we use collaborators or
>partners. There is a major difference because these folks are truly
>active in the relationship.
I really like the term 'partners', that made my day :)
>So instead of the leader establishing
>purpose, the group establishes and reaffirms what is called a mutual
>purpose. That is why we say Leadership is a relationship, leadership is
>what people DO TOGETHER. This is very different from what leadership is
>what the leader alone mobilizes us to do.
Ok, question, what if the partner has entered the relationship after the
ideology has been stablished? s/he will have (?) to identify with it? is
it the organization4s role to help her/him identify with it? or should (?)
it be a natural process.
>Management is about making
>incremental change, and leadership is about making transforming change.
My first reaction to this comment was: management is not change, it is
the organization or coordination of activities _for_ the transforming
change brought about by leadership. what do you think?
>James MacGregor Burns and Joe Rost lay this out in a very completely.
>Burns in "Leadership" and Rost in "Leadership for the 21st Century".
I must have missed it.
>...to implement the tenets of the learning organization retreat to the
>strategies of the industrial revolution to do so. As Einstein is credited
>with saying it is time to change our level of thinking.
What is a tenet?
Well, this is getting very interesting.
Diviertanse,
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/ +MadonnaMauricio Alejandro Parra/Cochabamba/BOLIVIA
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>