In my opinion, Doc you have made some very insightful and keen
observations. If you will allow me I would like to make some further
comments about your response. Your comments about purpose in paragraphs
3, 4, 5, and 6 really ring true with me. You have done a wonderful job of
articulating the notion of mutual purpose. I agree with you doc, it is an
issue of congruency within the relationships.
I.e. leadership is a relationship, leadership is what people do together.
At this point I would like to go back to your paragraph 2 and comments
about the issue of Joe Rost's advocacy as it pertains to leading for a
future that hasn't yet occurred. Here is an extract from my doctoral
dissertation.
"No matter what concept of leadership an individual might align with at
this point, it is understood that leadership is not attempted in a vacuum.
Leadership is always contextual, that is, performed in a particular
setting. This notion is not the same as situational leadership.
Situational leadership is a specific theory of leadership which defines a
set of particular behaviors (Participating, selling, coaching, telling)
leaders are encouraged to perform depending on a particular situation and
the judged maturity level of the followers. Instead, understanding the
contextual nature of leadership provides an ability to note the congruency
of a consistent practice of leadership across several contexts. Without a
context in which leadership can be applied, leadership remains a
meta-philosophical discussion, an idea without a purpose. Leadership
would remain a high octane fuel with no engine within which to run."
Special Note: It is my opinion, that situational leadership has nothing at
all to do with leadership but is more a managerial paradigm of the
industrial era. Interestingly enough if one reads the situational
leadership literature you will find leadership and management used as
interchangeable terms. In situational leadership, the sole active member
of a leadership dynamic is the leader. His or her job is to do whatever
it takes to get the leaders wishes done through the use of other people.
Situational leadership presumes perfect knowledge on the part of the
leader to know which behavior to use at any given moment. Doc, your
explanation in paragraphs 3,4, 5 and 6 of your posting did a wonderful job
in explaining why these sorts of actions can result in failing
relationships. Jim O"Toole, in Leading Change does the same thing.
Ok, so what? So think of the this list serve we are part of. The
Learning organization, a new perspective if you will of what organizations
are and will be required to do in order to survive. Doc, at this point I
could make a parallel statement which would reflect your comments in
paragraph 2 of your posting. You said " I was only bothered by his
advocacy in prescribing the right way to lead for future that hasn't yet
occurred". I could say "I am bothered by Peter Senge's advocacy of
learning as the right way for an organization to conduct itself in the
future" I mean the bottom line is still the same, how do they know this?
Fair enough.
However, If I believe that Peter Senge is really onto something, then I
truly believe that the Postindustrial or collaborative leadership
perspective as espoused by Joe Rost is also a vital contribution.
Peter Senge has said repeatedly that the bureaucratic and hierarchical
practices used during the industrial revolution are incongruent with the
facilitation and the implementation of the learning organization. I
agree. If you agree, then I hope you can understand how collaborative
leadership is really the fuel that runs the rocket ship called the
learning organization. These two perspectives are congruent with each
other. The reasoning is simple, Collaborative or Postindustrial
leadership endorses decentralized decision-making, it endorses learning at
all levels as well as leadership at all levels of an organization or
community, it endorses the concept of mutual purpose as a way in which
individuals find meaning in their daily work and why an individual's sense
or purpose and an organization's sense or purpose are inseparable, and as
Joseph Campbell might say it exalts the individuality and diversity of
each person as they are engaged in heroic efforts in the service of
society.
>From me doc, when you put these two concepts together they seem to bear
each other out consistently.
Two other notes. 1, in the next few days I will post another message
which attempts to tie collaborative leadership, the learning organization,
and the human element for the search for meaning together in a more
comprehensive way.
2, I am in the process of creating an article the present title of which
is "Buyer Beware: The five questions you need to ask and before buying
leadership development services" and hopefully will have it posted at my
Web Site address. I will let you know when this has been accomplished.
>From Sunny Point Loma California I bid you good day.
John P. Dentico
Avatar Leadership Simulations
P.O. Box 6305
San Diego, CA 92166-0305
619-300-3080 Ph
619-523-3068 Fax
www.leadsimm.com
--"John P. Dentico" <jdentico@adnc.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>