Hello Bill,
What a great question you have been posed.
It has been awhile since I made a post, been finishing my dissertation on
Leadership in the New Millenium.
Your message raises several points which underscore many predominant
perspectives of leadership. Many by the way have been debunked. You see
I do see a direct and relevant connection between leadership and
technology.
Let me explain.
Your note said:
> My problem comes, when having to write a ten page paper on
> technology enhancing leadership, in thinking that technology has anything
> to do with what a leader is, or is not. They seem to be two completely
> separate thoughts and to put them together would be forcing the an issue.
The notion that leadership is about what a person is or is not is a
concept steeped in the industrial mindset of leadership theories wherein
the leader is the sole active member of a leadership dynamic. Leadership
flows from the leader. Leadership development and human development are
one in the same.
Here is a quote from my dissertation that tries to give a perspective
about this.
The industrial models of leadership which have pervaded organizational
conceptual frameworks since the early 1900s have had a common theme. As
noted in Chapter Two, that theme revolved around the idea that all we had
to do for organizational success was find and harvest great men (and
recently, women), get them into the highest positions and have their
subordinates follow their instructions. The job of leadership development
was concerned with developing these great leaders by making them better
people. Today, bookstores remain lined with leadership books that tell
the story of people portrayed as reaching some indefinable level of mystic
greatness or transcendental awareness who were able to change the course
of organizational events. The stories stress how these great individuals
acted almost single-handedly to bring about significant change. The
essence of these ideas is captured in the statement used by many
leadership development professionals that leadership is more about being
than doing. For them, leadership development and human development are
inextricably connected. I remain confused about this notion. If
leadership development is about human development, then what is
distinctive about human development? Conversely, if human development is
only about leadership development when will these leaders be ready to do
leadership? Good sense tells us that there is something wrong with this
perspective.
Leadership in this knowledge-based, postindustrial society has taken on a
new and more pragmatic notion to its meaning. Leadership is what people
do together. Leadership lives in action, not in contemplation.
Leadership is a relationship wherein people work together to meet the
challenges facing them.
Bill, the industrial era is over!! We live in the knowledge society
pervaded by knowledge workers and there is a huge difference between the
expectations of factory workers of the 20's, 30's, 40's and 50's and the
knowledge worker of today. The knowledge worker is highly trained, most
are college educated and they seek a great deal of intrinsic satisfaction
from the work they do. In the industrial model, workers came from the
farms and sought to hold down a job in the city, they were treated much
like interchangable parts. If you treat a knowledge worker like an
interchangable part, he or she might leave your organization with an
accumulated knowledge that will place any part of your organization in
jeopardy. I have seen it happen. In the knowledge society, things like
safety and trust become prime motivators because without them there will
be little knowledge sharing and it is this knowledge sharing that becomes
vital to organizational effectiveness, hence organizational learning.
Leadership is not about what the leaders is or is not, leadership Bill, is
what people do together. The job of the leader in the knowledge era is to
initiate and facilitate the leadership relationship and create and
environment where leadership can flourish at every level of the
organization. I call this model collaborative leadership only to
distinguish it from the industrial models. In so doing this,
organizational learning can flourish alongside of collaborative
leadership. By the way, management doesn't disappear. Leadership and
management are complementary processes. The focus of Leadership in the
new millenium is effectiveness and making transforming change, management
is, and has always been about efficiency, making incremental change.
The role of technology is important in the application of leadership
because it helps the leader facilitate the relationship. It does not
replace trust or trust building it facilitates that process.
So there you go, hope I haven't over burdened you with words but your note
was a good one, and I hope I have helped
My Best to you on your paper.
JD
--"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>