Eugene,
As I read your post, I realize that you are assuming that anyone who is in
an influencing mode--perhaps directing mode-- is a "leader." Ahhh. That
explains all the discussion I saw earlier on Hitler, etc. And, using that
interpretation of the word, then, yes, poor parents could be considered
"leaders" albeit poor ones.
In the context of discussing "leadership" in organizational settings, I am
referring to the positive influencer as a "leader." Ergo, to my thinking,
one would not be an effective leader if the influence was destructive or
less than effective. In leadership development, we would emphasize the
positive, constructive elements of leading people. Parents who don't lead
their children effectively with love and support would not fit my
definition of "leaders."
There may have been some discussion on this earlier and, if so and I
missed it, I apologize.
Sandy
>>Just one quick thing: Parents are not necessarily leaders. . . there are
>>plenty of lousy parents out there.
>
>Unfortunatley they are effective leaders. And most of the time the kids
>follow in the parents' foot steps.
>
>Leading is not about good and bad but does the person have followers. And
>what must be done for people to follow. Unfortunatly as with parenting a
>vacuum is all it takes. In an organization we hope it takes more but not
>always.
>
>Eugene Taurman
--"Sandy Wells" <sjwells@earthlink.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>