What could be a different definition of leadership that is still builds on current management literature but adds to it and makes it whole – integral?
We realized that leadership conversations take place in three contexts – one is in academic class rooms – where leadership is discussed as different from management and it is defined in terms of traits, styles, context, approaches – but all from an academic view point – to understand what leadership is and to create a foundation. But very rarely one becomes a leader by reading books and attending presentations and seeing pointpoint slides differentiating one leader from the other. It is not knowing about leadership that helps develop leaders but applying them in a context – in a project, in a community, in crisis. When we apply and find what works and what doesn’t in producing results, one begins to internalize and create ones own belief in leadership models and frameworks. We also begin to believe in certain approaches that worked for us and assume that they will work for everybody else – that is how many leadership development programs are designed – based on how it worked for them.
Related Questions
- What could be a different definition of leadership that is still builds on current management literature but adds to it and makes it whole – integral?
- Is leadership just a fashionable name for management or are the skills of leadership distinctly different?
- What is the definition of reward management according to different authors?
