Thursday, April 7, 2011
Leadership Is More Than Leaders
This article describes leadership as the outcome of: “1) direction, meaning a shared understanding of vision, goals, mission, and strategy, 2) alignment, meaning effective coordination and collaboration, and 3) commitment, meaning the willingness of individuals to put their individual interest at the service of the collective interest.” (24) The authors are pointing out that leadership involves so much more than just the person who is designated as the leader. The authors say that it is generally thought that leadership is the sole responsibility of the leader. The other entity that needs to be considered is the group of followers. What is the leader leading his or her followers to do? The other point that is made is that a leader is not even needed to achieve leadership. Most people seem to think that the success of leadership is solely dependent on the quality and skills of a leader. The authors here point out that success is really dependent on everyone involved in the situation. The main point that I see in this article is that leadership is dependent on the whole group of people involved.
I agree with this article. The leader is only one part of a successful leadership. First of all leader is only as good as the person who trains him or her. Then when considering the followers: if followers are not important in leadership, then who is led to develop and eventually become a leader also? Leadership is not a stagnant situation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the authors’ sentiments that in order to be effective, there needs to be a shared leadership culture between those who are being lead and the leader himself or herself. At one level, this seems to cohere with Paul’s proclamation that he “became all things to all people, so that by all means (he) might save some (1 Cor. 9:22 NIV).” This also implies the need for cultural sensitivity when a pastor from one particular culture is tasked with leading a parish of people from a different culture. It would be inappropriate for him or her to impose his or her cultural mores on that particular church, mistaking these mores for Christian morality.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, however, I think there needs to be a critical evaluation of the various mores and precepts of a leadership culture before a leader decides to adapt to them or work towards fostering them within his or her parish. It may be that this leadership culture itself goes against Christian ethics, e.g. placing undue emphasis on the supremacy of the leader as seems to be the case in the Linderman company. All this is to say that practical efficacy cannot be the sole determinate in the evaluation of leaders and leadership cultures.