Here are 3 most popular ways to defend leadership, each from a slightly different perspective:
- Leadership means being a dominant individual in a group.
- Leadership means doing things done with people.
- Leadership means requiring the load load and suggesting a better way.
For many, leadership means doing all three of these things, but it's a subtle and important difference. Let's look at them one by one.
- Leadership means being a prevalent individual in a group.
In primitive tribes and more species, a dominant person was a leader. Being a leader simply means having the power to reach and maintain a position in a reasonable amount of time. Contrary to definition 2, you could be a leader without getting anything done with others. The leader was the one responsible, even though the group was in a stable position where people went about their business as usual. As long as group members listened to the leader's rules, the leader did not even have to take an active part in the lives of the group, albeit to do something through them. You could also be a leader in such a group without introducing a better way as recommended by definition. 3. If you do not have to be elected, why do you have a forum for change? You have simply shut down energy; No sales were needed on how you could make life better for the group. Yes, such leaders could lead leadership teams successfully and build great memories with them, but you could strictly lead leaders without getting through group work. Marking leadership, according to this definition, is simply being at the top of the pile.
- The leader involves doing things with people.
Great leaders in history have led their groups to significant success, but the idea that leadership should be defined as doing things through people has been fully developed with modern business that is all about success. When the business has become more complex, the leadership challenge has increased in one simple order in a few "hands" to minority groups of coordinates of talented and diverse knowledge workers to build advanced machines and put people on the moon. The problem with this definition of leadership, however, is. It was the associated management. Why is it shifted from leadership to leadership? And is this a good trip? Until the late 1970s, the concepts used leadership and management, but with greater emphasis on management. For example, administrators, Blake and Mouton, developed their famous administrative system in the 1960s. At that time, it was described as a way to identify your management profile. Today, in line with the change in leadership, the name is the same (management network), but it is now located as a leadership style instrument.
We also used to talk about management style more than leadership. Managers could be either "theory X" and task oriented or "theory Y" and concern for people. A profound change in thought occurred during the revolutionary period from the latter half of 1970 through mid 1980. The cause of this turmoil was a trade show in the Japanese industry in North America. This led Pundits to claim that the United States had lost its competitive edge because US executives were too bureaucratic, manageable, unobtrusive, and unambiguous to promote innovation. Rather than updating management, was emotionally over response so that managers had rejected and replaced leadership. Since then, leaders were shown as theory Y, motivating and worried about people, but executives were saddled with all the bad qualities of managing, the theory X, uninterruptive and narrow task. Similarly, the distinction between transitions and business originality was initially launched to discern two management styles, but it was not long before it was used to separate leadership from managers, former is transformation and subsequent business.
We hurried to the rubbish board, we found out what tools were at high cost. First, we headed the corner by pointing out that you needed to be an encouraging cheerleader to be a leader, so that you could not be quiet or simply a real leader. Second, we created an inspired concept of leaders by banning executives. Third, by joining leadership in getting things through a team, we relied on leadership irrevocably by being in charge of people, thus ruling out unprecedented leadership. Yes, it's an informal leadership, but this concept is essentially the same as a formal leadership, except for their authority. As its formal counterpart, informal leadership is still making decisions and managing a group to reach a goal. In both cases, you need personal presence, organizational skills and motivation to take responsibility for being a leader.
- The leader implies a demanding state of affairs, which suggests a better way.
We have always found, intuitively, that leaders have the courage to stand up and be considered. They go against the grain, often at high risk, calling for change. We just need to look at Martin Luther King, Jr. His leadership did not rest so much on his oratorical skills – they were just icing on a cake. He was a leader primarily because he broke out and spoke against justice. He challenged position status and contributed to a better world.
But this is all the team here, if you think about what it means to score a state certificate or contribute to change, there is no need for you to be responsible for the people you are trying to influence. As a result, this third definition, when done in full, gives us a way to break a standstill in the previous two definitions. The benefit of this movement is that we get a clearer understanding of how all employees can lead, even if they have absolutely no skills or skills to take control of groups for administrative purposes, even informally. Think back about Martin Luther King, Jr. He kept moving the US government and the public as a whole to think differently about such things as bus segregation. His leadership was successful when the US Supreme Court ruled such discrimination unconstitutional. It is now obvious that he was not in the Supreme Court. He showed leadership in this group as an outsider. You could say the same thing about Jack Welch, which influenced the leadership of countless companies worldwide with his novel, such as being the first or second in the market. Again, those who followed the leadership of Jack Welch did not notify him. They were not even members of a common group.
Leadership Reinvented for the 21st Century
If we release the first two definitions of leadership, what's left? If leadership means nothing but promoting a better way, then we need to upgrade management to take care of everything we need to do with people. We need to say that management does not mean managing, bureaucratic or theory X, that they can be as motivating and need to be good at training, developing and strengthening people.
The importance of supporting the fact is that the power of leadership is changing from having a dominant personality to think of new ways of working, new products and better services. Firms that compete on the basis of rapid innovation are involved in the war of ideas and nobody has the monopoly of good ideas. This is revolutionary because it indicates that leadership can no longer be a group ruling. Now, leadership is a short effect of influence, factor or act, no ongoing state or role. You may still need a personality to live in the role of CEO, but leadership conceived as a good idea, for better ways can be very small and local. Every employee with a better idea can contribute to it, even if only by example, without having a personal presence to promote a managerial role. Strictly speaking, there are no longer leaders, only leadership. This view takes into account the fact that leadership is a refugee state that can change quickly from one person to another. It is an effect rather than a type of person or position. It must be such that it is shown by an outside person.
Main Features of Leaders of Rebuilt
- It does not involve directing people to do what is done.
- It ends when they boarded. It sells tickets for the trip; Managers drive a bus to their destination.
- It's an odd factor, a simple action effect, not an ongoing state of dominance.
- It is based on the introduction of a better way.
- It is possible to show the bottom up and down.
- It is possible to show external and between competitors or groups.
Thoughts Leadership – The Essence of Leadership Reinvented
Companies today require all employees to think creatively and promote new products. Promoting a better idea can be called thought leaders. In a knowledge-based environment, the latest, best concept has an impact on others to board. When a deputy developer convinces top managers to approve a new product, this person has shown a tutor at the bottom. But it is possible to show groups as well. When Microsoft develops products or services found by Apple or Google, they follow the leadership of these entrepreneurs. This is also a thought leadership.
Although the assets of great emotional information and command Martin Luther King, Jr. can help thought leaders to do their business, it is important to see that these skills are good to have additions, not an essential part of leadership meaning. Technically geeks with zero emotional intelligence and inconvenient motivational status can show thought leaders if they can demonstrate the value of ideas. This is very strong because it drives us away from the requirement to develop advanced leadership skills as a prerequisite for leadership. Strictly speaking, there are no leadership skills, only effects on talent and great content. Imagine asking Tiger Woods. after the end of the third round when he is in charge, how he developed such leadership skills. The truth is that he shows leadership by being high in the content of the profession, not by having a special set of talents called leadership skills. On the other hand, there are very specific management skills. Getting work through people further calls for advanced human and organizational skills.
Material is King
The point in the first part is that persuasive materials or materials can fall in great style or form. Having a larger personality of life can still help you become a CEO, but this is the power of style over content. If the prospective leader has enough charisma, it almost does not matter what is considered (content). However, thought leadership is convincing if it is supported by strong evidence. Having convincing skills helps but is not necessary. This means that teamwork workers can emphasize what really needs to lead: begin by developing convincing content. If your idea is good enough, it will actually sell itself. It's not what's affecting talent. The goal is that we can define leadership without indicating impact on style. It is also the fact that the opportunists get on board a good idea without discussion about anyone. So if it's possible to show leadership without being personally convincing, it may not be necessary to lead leadership.
Restructured leadership can still be demonstrated by the CEO. They just need to accept that much of what they need to be reclassified as management. They also need to spend more time to promote leadership in front line workers, thus taking a lot of leap forward. If they want to reap the full potential of all employees, CEOs and other managers need to participate and encourage employees to the fullest. Helping them see how all employees can show leadership now could make all the difference between working the ideas and going further. Because knowledge rules are outdated conception of leadership as a group of dominion is dangerously obsolete. Versatility drives specialization. It's time to bring managers back from the dead to take care of things through people, so leadership can focus on finding and introducing new directions.
Definition # 1 might still be good enough to capture what happens in small streets and primitive tribes, but it is clearly outdated in a world of ideas. Number 2 is a mess because there is absolute confusion in leadership and management. Only Definition # 3 accepts all leadership – shown by people who manage those who have either the aptitude or the ability to make decisions and externally, such as Martin Luther King, Jr. Inevitably, this definition also includes what it means to be a leading company or leading individual or team in sports. Leadership is simply a matter of showing the way. One of the many exciting features of this definition is that followers must choose to follow their own free will because forcing power and power are missing. Definition number 3 captures the essence of pure leadership.