I feel that leadership can be taught. However, given present day
business direction of empowerment and teaming, our paradigm of discussing
leadership qualities in a "command and control" background must change.
In this paradigm, leaders or leadership, is a very immobile and
centralized entity. When one speaks of leaders the assumption is that
they are full time leaders and should not follow those previously
identified as followers. In working with teams that are trying to become
self directed, this assumption is the main obstacle for them
to EFFECTIVELY move from the storming phase to the norming phase (as a
self-directed flat structure).
Leadership, if the desire is that complete communities be taught, needs to
be implemented with a strong background of behavioral respect for the
qualities of all of the other individuals on their team. Because our
society generally rewards competition and individual accomplishment rather
than teaming and cooperation, these corporate teaming and nurturing skills
must be taught. People must be taught to identify, understand and support
all others in their efforts to explain thoughts and criticism. "Thank you
for disagreeing", needs to be an integral part of the cultural mindset of
the team. To do this individuals must be allowed to confront their own
presumptions of people of different; personality styles, accents, genders,
disciplines, education levels, races, religions, etc. To paraphrase a
great educator "Brains are where you find them", not where you think they
should be. This concept must be the basis of all interactions.
If this approach is accepted and implemented, everyone can be trained to
understand and use leadership skills. The increase in productivity will
be manifested in multiples instead of increments, as voiced in numbers of
studies and case studies. However it must be noted that getting to this
concept of everyone is a leader is a very counter-cultural business
concept. The attainment of this goal is typically uncomfortable and is
fraught with elements of self destructive (to the goal) behaviors.
The iconic image of John Wayne is not one typically associated with
empowerment, however I feel comfortable in saying that a majority of
people would feel good behaving like him.
On Mon, 5 Jun 1995, Pete Heineman wrote:
> I was intrigued by Dave Crisp's response to John Walker's comments on
> "leadership can be taught." I did not read the original posting, and may
> be speaking out of context. But I was curious about the specifics of how
> and what Dave is "teaching" with the store managers. The reason for my
> curiosity is that our doctoral cohort has been discussing the issue of
> leadership for about two years now and have not come to a firm consensus
> as to whether or not "leadership" can or should be "taught" or if anyone
> can or should be a leader.
> The gist of the argument in one direction is that leadership implies
> followership. It is a governance system, a patriarchy we have inherited
> and continue to create based on sovereignty and a form of intimate
> colonialism. The strength in the concept of leadership as Peter Block
> explains is that it connotes initiative and responsibility. Good friends
> in hard times. It carries the baggage, however, of being inevitably
> associated with behaviors of control, direction, and knowing what is best
> for others.
[...quote of prev msg trimmed by your host...]
-- James Moore <zoiho@digex.net>