Thursday, February 3, 2011

#34 / Leadership

A few comments and thoughts:
  • It is not unusual for a person to be called a political "leader" simply because that person happens to be holding an official position. Query whether this is the best use of an important word.
  • Are political "leaders" who "lead" by commissioning polls to find out what people are currently thinking, and who then advocate for exactly those same things, really "leading" the people? I'd argue not!
  • Angela Davis, under the headline, "When The People Lead, The Leaders Will Follow," thinks "leadership" comes from organizing in the community, and not from either designated "official" leaders, or from self-promoting "charismatic" leaders. Click on the link to hear her talk about leadership, answering the question, "How Does Change Happen?"
I have found, in my personal experience, that there is a good measure of truth in the "interlocking" nature of leadership, as is suggested by the image at the top of this posting. In other words, "leadership" is not an "individual" phenomenon, but a phenomenon in which the "group" and the "individual" are both playing essential roles.

The representation of "leadership" as a series of stand alone heads at Mount Rushmore gives us the wrong impression about the kind of leadership this nation has had - and that it needs now, more than ever!

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thanks for your comment!