Skip to content

Category Archives: Management

Management from the top

There has been growing interest recently, albeit in fits and starts, in the capacity for self-management – even self-organization – of groups. As it happens, the most profound thinking on the topic was offered by the great Mary Parker Follett nearly a century ago, and it has scarcely been appreciated, much less meaningfully approached, by any of her successors. But they are intrigued, and seek to plumb the depths of the possibilities these concepts open up. . .

As bad as all that?

There is a long list of types and styles of leadership enthusiastically promoted by their various proponents. These cover a lot of ground, from the fantastic (edge-walking leaders) to the mystical (shaman leaders) to the comical (inspired to leadership by toys). Their number increases, it seems, daily. One recent addition is partially spiritual - “wellness leaders” - and another almost refreshingly prosaic – growth leaders. The problem with them all is the word “leader.” Or, at least, the way it is used in these contexts . . .

Glimpses of leadership

The old metaphor about the experts examining the elephant is so familiar to us because it has so many applications. One at a time the experts inspect one part of the creature and announce with triumphant finality what it is. Each, of course, is not just wrong, but comically so. Sometimes that reminds me of all the various gurus’ talk about leadership. . .

Creativity and leadership

This is a pretty big topic. Often, innovation gets mixed up with it, but that’s okay for our purposes here, since the dialogue promoting these as leadership functions or essential traits of leaders is generally not overly particular about their scope or application in specific ways. Creativity and innovation certainly are desirable in an organization. But are they leadership functions?

People and leadership

Many observers have noted that leadership, as viewed from the modern leadership movement’s many corners, is bound up with people and the relationships between them, if you can imagine that. Indeed, one such thinker has enthused that it should really be called “peoplership.”