Bill Bray wrote
>"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.
>So, in keeping with my assignment I am trying to find any type of
>information that might lead me to complete this quest, (At this point
>"ending" is the catch word.) This is a difficult subject, something
>similar to , "what came first the chicken or the egg?" "
Here are the ramblings you provoked in my mind:
First thing that I thought of is the recurring debate on what technology
is. Without going the route of "according to Webster's dictionary", what
if we say that technology is a technique or tool used to accomplish a
stated objective? This widens the field considerably.
Next, what is leadership? I propose that it is a process rather than a
state of being. Leadership is the process of accomplishing stated
objectives through other people.
Therefore, what if we make a connective leap and say: Leadership is a form
of technology.
Technology is often considered to be morally neutral--the stated objective
it seeks to solve may range the moral scale from the cure of a dread
disease to an "ethnic cleansing" campaign. Each objective on the moral
scale may make use of similar technologies--perhaps logistical
technologies or information tools. Yet the technology itself--the actual
tool--is, by itself, ethically neutral. (Of course you can do very nasty
things with technology but it is the use to which it is put, not the
technology itself, that creates the moral dilemma.)
Likewise, leadership styles can range from the servant leadership of a
Mother Theresa to the fascist dictatorship of a Hitler. In addition,
leadership may make use of many auxiliary technologies to accomplish its
goals, just as there are "families" of technologies such as information
technology, mechanical technology, or even human performance technology.
If leadership is a form of technology, then I submit that leadeship occurs
only when a person decides on an objective to accomplish and must do it
through other people. Leadership does not really exist in itself as a
state of being--people designated "leaders" use the technologies of
leadership just as those designated "technicians" use the technologies of
electronics (for example). A person is not a "born leader" although a
person may have a talent for making use of the technology of leadership.
If my stated objective is to do the bookkeeping, I can use the technology
of computer accounting software or I can use the technology of leadership
to persuade, coerce, or contract another person to do it for me. In this
way, leadership is a kind of additional layer of technology in that its
purpose is to induce other people to use other technologies to accomplish
the objective.
My opinion is that first you start with a person who wants to do
something. If that "something" requires other people to accomplish it,
then we are in the realm of leadership. The one applying the technology of
leadership then has several additional technologies at his or her disposal
to enhance the leader-follower interface. The follower in this system may
then make use of yet more technologies to accomplish the stated ends--the
"real work", if you will. Perhaps there is no "chicken or egg" here and
no" separation of thoughts," as you might surmise. Instead, it may be the
process--the system!-- of egg-laying that is operative.
Hopefully I haven't laid too large an egg here today! Thanks for the
thought-provoking post and good luck on your quest.
Regards,
Jeff Bennett
Networks and Technology Specialist
Sony Disc Manufacturing
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>