Even among other topics in the social sciences leadership is unique as an academic discipline. This unique nature is reflected in the greater influence that the conditions that surrounded the origins of our leadership theories has on these theories when compared to the influence of leadership itself. Unlike other areas of academic study leadership is not a “standalone” concept or entity. The study of leadership did not begin with the discovery of leadership, as is the case with other areas of academic interest, but with interest in the outcome of leadership.
The first students of leadership were interested in determining what it was that enabled one individual to control the behavior of a larger group of individuals. It is possible that for some the interest was entirely academic. More than likely these individuals were interested in exerting the same level of control over others. They hoped that by studying the characteristics and behavior of those individuals they could replicate their success or avoid their failures.
It is no accident, then, that great man theories lie at the heart of all our leadership theories. We still call them leadership studies but DeGrosky (2011) has pointed out that the ancients who first made this their study -- individuals like Plato, Aristotle, Sun Tzu, Seneca, Lao Tzu and others -- examined the lives of the effective leaders of their time. Naturally, the first studies focused on emperors, kings and generals and the nations and armies over which they exercised their power and control. From these individuals they drew inferences as to the nature of leadership.
Many improvements have been attempted since those great man theories were first developed, but the focus on the individual was never lost, even when we moved from viewing leadership as a one-dimensional, internal and individualistic process and recognized that leadership is a relationship between individuals and not a characteristic of the solitary leader. Leadership continues to be viewed as an invention of human beings.
A systems level discussion on Organizational Leadership and World Peace written by:
© Darius A. Lecointe, Ph.D., J.D., M.A. Join in the discussion here or through dalecointe@gmail.com
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Friday, July 29, 2011
Leadership and the American Experiment
My friend Coach Judi made the following post in response to a question I posed on LinkedIn. I asked what the current debt ceiling debacle teaches us about leadership. I obtained her permission to reproduce her response below.
As a paradigm our government was designed to work as a "government of the people, by the people, for the people" per Abe Lincoln.
From an Anthropological standpoint, humans are not naturally predisposed to herding where the strongest "bulls" end up as leaders. We are social creatures but we survive by co-operation in pooling our brain power against the brute force of our enemies and the physical superiority of our prey. Our superior brainpower used in co-operation is what enables our species to not only survive but to take our place at the top of the "food chain," for the time being, that is.
Historically, humans have had Hunting and Gathering, Herding, and Agrarian (farming) cultures. Only the Agrarian succeeded and that's because it was based on co-operation. A man might be the "leader" of his family, but when the farmers came together into community, each man represented his family and each co-operated with the others for the good of the community at large. It worked, but they were a small, close community, highly-visible, responsible, and accountable. They were intelligent, had character, excellent co-operation, and communication skills so were also in full co-operation with their wives and children because working together was how they ensured survival for all.
When the "community" grew to the point where neighbors no long knew one another and such cooperation became too difficult, Democratic government was invented and designed to duplicate the co-operative community, but on a larger scale.
In theory it seemed an excellent idea. They tried to design it so that a larger "family unit" would vote for their leader to go to the community meetings and cooperate on their behalf. It didn't come off the drawing board so well, so they invented the "electoral college" as part of the checks and balances, but it became an excuse for confusion when activities needed some confusion to hide them.
The net effect was that with so much distance from the "family" which the "leaders" were supposed to represent, they realized how much power could be had with so little visibility and they fell behind the convenient cloak of "group dynamics" where a group of people can do the most awful things and no single person is accountable. So, they began to view their new power as a personal "cash cow" and the distance and group dynamics made them invisible to the "family" and all responsibility and accountability began to fade and fall by the wayside. Co-operation was lost as self-interest was born and the very same "leaders" used their power for personal gain.
The very core of humanity is not going to change. We are still only able to survive through pooling our brainpower in co-operation. We may not have to fight off woolly mammoths and lions, but there are other animals who can bring us down, like super-bugs, and there are other enemies who would like to steal our resources, and are certainly actively attempting that even as we speak. And then there is our economy and the feeding of our "family," along with shelter (housing)... which we are now losing. And there is the defense of our nation also at stake.
Given that our species only survives by co-operation of brainpower, and the co-operation of brainpower at the core of our nation has become completely absent, we are in big trouble. What the pseudo-leaders in Washington have failed to realize is that they are also part of the Human Enterprise and there are certain rules for survival that must be adhered to or we all fall down, and they fall with us. If they think they truly are above the "Law" and they don't have to co-operate, they will learn the error of their ways, but the big concern is how much damage will be done in the meantime?
In human terms on a "natural" level Cooperation is Leadership..
http:/www.ecninstitute.com
http:/www.entrecomm.net/Blog
http://www.entrecomm.net/Forum
http://www.coachjudi.com
As a paradigm our government was designed to work as a "government of the people, by the people, for the people" per Abe Lincoln.
From an Anthropological standpoint, humans are not naturally predisposed to herding where the strongest "bulls" end up as leaders. We are social creatures but we survive by co-operation in pooling our brain power against the brute force of our enemies and the physical superiority of our prey. Our superior brainpower used in co-operation is what enables our species to not only survive but to take our place at the top of the "food chain," for the time being, that is.
Historically, humans have had Hunting and Gathering, Herding, and Agrarian (farming) cultures. Only the Agrarian succeeded and that's because it was based on co-operation. A man might be the "leader" of his family, but when the farmers came together into community, each man represented his family and each co-operated with the others for the good of the community at large. It worked, but they were a small, close community, highly-visible, responsible, and accountable. They were intelligent, had character, excellent co-operation, and communication skills so were also in full co-operation with their wives and children because working together was how they ensured survival for all.
When the "community" grew to the point where neighbors no long knew one another and such cooperation became too difficult, Democratic government was invented and designed to duplicate the co-operative community, but on a larger scale.
In theory it seemed an excellent idea. They tried to design it so that a larger "family unit" would vote for their leader to go to the community meetings and cooperate on their behalf. It didn't come off the drawing board so well, so they invented the "electoral college" as part of the checks and balances, but it became an excuse for confusion when activities needed some confusion to hide them.
The net effect was that with so much distance from the "family" which the "leaders" were supposed to represent, they realized how much power could be had with so little visibility and they fell behind the convenient cloak of "group dynamics" where a group of people can do the most awful things and no single person is accountable. So, they began to view their new power as a personal "cash cow" and the distance and group dynamics made them invisible to the "family" and all responsibility and accountability began to fade and fall by the wayside. Co-operation was lost as self-interest was born and the very same "leaders" used their power for personal gain.
The very core of humanity is not going to change. We are still only able to survive through pooling our brainpower in co-operation. We may not have to fight off woolly mammoths and lions, but there are other animals who can bring us down, like super-bugs, and there are other enemies who would like to steal our resources, and are certainly actively attempting that even as we speak. And then there is our economy and the feeding of our "family," along with shelter (housing)... which we are now losing. And there is the defense of our nation also at stake.
Given that our species only survives by co-operation of brainpower, and the co-operation of brainpower at the core of our nation has become completely absent, we are in big trouble. What the pseudo-leaders in Washington have failed to realize is that they are also part of the Human Enterprise and there are certain rules for survival that must be adhered to or we all fall down, and they fall with us. If they think they truly are above the "Law" and they don't have to co-operate, they will learn the error of their ways, but the big concern is how much damage will be done in the meantime?
In human terms on a "natural" level Cooperation is Leadership..
http:/www.ecninstitute.com
http:/www.entrecomm.net/Blog
http://www.entrecomm.net/Forum
http://www.coachjudi.com
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Made To Lead?
The first lesson we can learn from our emphasis on the history of leadership is that Leadership predates man. The effects of leadership were noticeable on the planet long before humans appeared.
When we emerged into our existed we found a world that was fully functional. Fish were schooling then the same way that they do now. Birds flew in patterns then the same way they do now. We may consider ants to be pests at our picnics but they became masters of the top soil long before we made our appearance. Chimpanzees did not need us to teach them how to coordinate group movement and to keep the peace or wage war. Leadership is a natural phenomenon not a human phenomenon. It is one of the few things we do that are independent of human ingenuity.
We really should have understood this lesson a long time ago. It should have been included in our leadership programs. Unfortunately, our leadership theories have focused on the human application of fundamental leadership theories. Beginning with the ancients who examined the effective leaders of their time and drew inferences about the nature of leadership from them, leadership studies have focused on great-man theories. (Mike DeGrosky, (2011). “Where we Came From.” Wildfire Magazine.
< http://wildfiremag.com/mag/article_24/ >).
A comprehensive treatment of leadership has never been of interest to the leadership theorists. They have never denied that leadership predated humanity but their silence on the subject has had the same effect. The unfortunate consequence of teaching leadership by studying great-man theories is that leadership and leaders are viewed as being synonymous, even after the scholars emphasize that leaders are people and leadership is a process.
The current emphasis in our leadership studies poses another problem because it overplays the importance of the role humans play in the world. For some reason we forget that there was a time when the environment functioned flawlessly without us. The environment did not need us for it to survive. If humans we were to become extinct the environment would continue to exist as it has after the dinosaurs became extinct. In addition, it negates the fact that everything humans have ever done consciously has been borrowed from nature. The need for many leadership theories is probably due to the fact that we do not yet adequately understand the principles of natural leadership.
When we emerged into our existed we found a world that was fully functional. Fish were schooling then the same way that they do now. Birds flew in patterns then the same way they do now. We may consider ants to be pests at our picnics but they became masters of the top soil long before we made our appearance. Chimpanzees did not need us to teach them how to coordinate group movement and to keep the peace or wage war. Leadership is a natural phenomenon not a human phenomenon. It is one of the few things we do that are independent of human ingenuity.
We really should have understood this lesson a long time ago. It should have been included in our leadership programs. Unfortunately, our leadership theories have focused on the human application of fundamental leadership theories. Beginning with the ancients who examined the effective leaders of their time and drew inferences about the nature of leadership from them, leadership studies have focused on great-man theories. (Mike DeGrosky, (2011). “Where we Came From.” Wildfire Magazine.
< http://wildfiremag.com/mag/article_24/ >).
A comprehensive treatment of leadership has never been of interest to the leadership theorists. They have never denied that leadership predated humanity but their silence on the subject has had the same effect. The unfortunate consequence of teaching leadership by studying great-man theories is that leadership and leaders are viewed as being synonymous, even after the scholars emphasize that leaders are people and leadership is a process.
The current emphasis in our leadership studies poses another problem because it overplays the importance of the role humans play in the world. For some reason we forget that there was a time when the environment functioned flawlessly without us. The environment did not need us for it to survive. If humans we were to become extinct the environment would continue to exist as it has after the dinosaurs became extinct. In addition, it negates the fact that everything humans have ever done consciously has been borrowed from nature. The need for many leadership theories is probably due to the fact that we do not yet adequately understand the principles of natural leadership.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Leadership comes naturally
I came late to the study of leadership but it is obvious to me that it must play a central role in the future of humanity. Certainly, we need improved leadership to improve the performance of our groups, organizations, business enterprises or clubs. We need it more in humanity because the only reason we have these organizations is because we exist as a species.
One thing I have found from my brief review is that leadership theories tend to focus more on the qualities of leaders or on the structural organizational form through which leadership is exercised rather than on leadership itself. This emphasis accounts for the fact that many will find it difficult to see leadership as a function of the individual rather than as a function of the group. This focus is also the reason that leadership is views as involving the ability to get others to behave in certain ways rather than simply as the characteristic that facilitates collective action. The former defines leadership as a uniquely human characteristic since only we have the ability to persuade. Yet, it is obvious that there is some level of leadership that exists among animal species. This is what Mark van Vugt had to say about that:
We should be able to learn something from that pedigree that will be of greater benefit to us than the multiplicity of theories to which we have been exposed. Many of those theories only have relevance to a small set of leadership situations. We need ideas with general applicability.
One thing we all seem to agree on is that there is a genetic component to leadership. As a friend of mine noted, leaders are born and they receive their practical skills on the job; a combination of being born and being made. If leadership is genetic then it must be in each organism’s genes and the definition of leadership as the characteristic that facilitates collective action is the most useful. For every species participates in some level of collective action. The characteristics that define each species constitute this type of collective action.
I can think of two interesting example in which such collective behavior by a species is explicitly noted. The first comes from the wise man and ancient Hebrew king Solomon who wrote:
The second is more recent. When Neil Armstrong stepped out of his Lunar Exploration Module to become the first man on the moon his made reference to collective action by humanity: “This is one small step for (a) man; one giant leap for mankind.”
All four of these examples -- ants, conies, locusts, humans -- have one characteristic in common. They focus on the concept of leadership rather than on the characteristics of an identified leader. Solomon takes the time to point out that the locusts go forth by bands even if they have no king. They act as a collective unit without any visible organizational or leadership structure. This is the ultimate in effective seamless leadership. If we wish to gain the full benefits of leadership we would do well to study what we can learn from leadership as it is practiced in its natural context.
1. van Vugt, M. (June 14, 2008). "Follow Me." New Scientist, 42 - 45.
One thing I have found from my brief review is that leadership theories tend to focus more on the qualities of leaders or on the structural organizational form through which leadership is exercised rather than on leadership itself. This emphasis accounts for the fact that many will find it difficult to see leadership as a function of the individual rather than as a function of the group. This focus is also the reason that leadership is views as involving the ability to get others to behave in certain ways rather than simply as the characteristic that facilitates collective action. The former defines leadership as a uniquely human characteristic since only we have the ability to persuade. Yet, it is obvious that there is some level of leadership that exists among animal species. This is what Mark van Vugt had to say about that:
The foraging patterns of many insects, the schooling of fish and the flying patterns of birds all suggest that species lacking complex cognitive capacities can nevertheless display leadership and followership – perhaps using the simple rule "follow the one who moves first". Our closest animal relatives, chimpanzees, also use leadership to coordinate group movement and to keep the peace or wage war. (1)
We should be able to learn something from that pedigree that will be of greater benefit to us than the multiplicity of theories to which we have been exposed. Many of those theories only have relevance to a small set of leadership situations. We need ideas with general applicability.
One thing we all seem to agree on is that there is a genetic component to leadership. As a friend of mine noted, leaders are born and they receive their practical skills on the job; a combination of being born and being made. If leadership is genetic then it must be in each organism’s genes and the definition of leadership as the characteristic that facilitates collective action is the most useful. For every species participates in some level of collective action. The characteristics that define each species constitute this type of collective action.
I can think of two interesting example in which such collective behavior by a species is explicitly noted. The first comes from the wise man and ancient Hebrew king Solomon who wrote:
The ants are a people not strong, yet they prepare their meat in the summer; The conies are but a feeble folk, yet make they their houses in the rocks; The locusts have no king, yet go they forth all of them by bands. (Proverbs 30:25-27).
The second is more recent. When Neil Armstrong stepped out of his Lunar Exploration Module to become the first man on the moon his made reference to collective action by humanity: “This is one small step for (a) man; one giant leap for mankind.”
All four of these examples -- ants, conies, locusts, humans -- have one characteristic in common. They focus on the concept of leadership rather than on the characteristics of an identified leader. Solomon takes the time to point out that the locusts go forth by bands even if they have no king. They act as a collective unit without any visible organizational or leadership structure. This is the ultimate in effective seamless leadership. If we wish to gain the full benefits of leadership we would do well to study what we can learn from leadership as it is practiced in its natural context.
1. van Vugt, M. (June 14, 2008). "Follow Me." New Scientist, 42 - 45.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Born To Lead
Some people believe that leaders are born not made. It comes as no surprise that there are other people who believe the exact opposite; that humans are made not born. In part, the reason for this dichotomy is because humans find it difficult to agree on anything.
Recently, I read an article in Psychology Today in which the author Ronald Riggio wrote: “Studies using identical twins estimate that leadership is about one-third born (due to genetic factors) and two-thirds made. Yet, many leaders say the exact opposite – believing leaders are mostly born.” (1) I guess the debate will continue into the future. I want to look at another side of the debate.
One of the reasons for the difference of opinion is because humans have this uncanny knack of ignoring what we know intuitively when we get into academic discussions. When people are considering whether leaders are born or made they instinctively restrict the idea of being born a leader to being born with the innate ability to provide effective leadership under all conditions. Anyone who is born without that innate ability would have to be made into a leader. If the studies that Riggio cited are to be believed it is obvious that whatever abilities one is born with have to be nurtured and developed. This is not only true of leadership.
There are two reasons why one attends a leadership program: to discover whether one was born as a leader or to be made into a leader. The philosophy behind all leadership programs is that leaders are made. Since these programs are run by humans one has to wonder where they got their ideas concerning leadership if they were not born as leaders.
But this is not the angle I wish to explore here. Instead of focusing on leadership I think the question asks us to focus on the difference between being born and being made. Humans are born not made. The lesson is not that only some humans are born as leaders and that it is our task to sniff them out by exposing them to a battery of leadership principles that will ignite the leadership that lays dormant within them. The lesson is that only organisms that are born can be leaders. The obverse to this is that all humans are leaders by virtue of the fact that they are born.
The truth of this is seen in the fact that leadership can not only be seen in humans; it is also evident in all non-human species where existence is a function of "birth." We find leaders among fish, among birds, among chimpanzees, among lions, among ants. Every organism has leadership qualities and exercises those qualities whenever nature requires that it be exercised.
Only among humans is leadership fraught with so much inefficiency. This is not because leaders among non-human species are always effective. Nature has a mechanism in all non-human species for moving ineffective leaders out of the way. Observations of this have been made among gorillas, for example. If the leader of the pack cannot maintain his position he will be replaced. Only among humans is an ineffective leader able to maintain his position. In some cases leadership is a function of seniority, or leaders remain in position for a time fixed regardless of performance. This is not the natural way of providing leadership.
I hasten to say that the answer is not to change our leadership and organizational structure so that ineffective leaders can be removed more easily. That is the negative approach to leadership inefficiency. Besides, our assessment that a leader may be ineffective may be wrong. Because we are humans we often stumble. It is no surprise that leaders often stumble in their leadership. Replacing a ‘bad’ leader is no guarantee that she will be replaced by a more effective leader.
The answer to our leadership problems is to recognize that leadership is a natural phenomenon. We must base our practice of leadership on the principles of leadership that are on display in the world to which belong. The first lesson we will learn from nature is that leadership is not a function of the individual; it is a function of the group. Being a leader means nothing unless there is a group to be led.
Several years ago I heard a story about three boy scouts who were sitting around a camp fire. Suddenly, one of the scouts one of the boys got up and began to walk into the woods. The narrator concluded: If the two other boy scouts also got up and followed him into the woods we have a leader, otherwise all we have is a boy scout taking a walk.
1. Riggio, Ronald. (2010) “Are Leaders Born or Made? Why The Question Itself is Dangerous.” Psychology Today Blog: Cutting-Edge Leadership. < http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201012/are-leaders-born-or-made-why-the-question-itself-is-dangerous. > [Accessed July 18, 2011]. Citing Arvey, R. D., Rotundo, M., Johnson, W., Zhang, Z., & McGue, M. (2006). The determinants of leadership role occupancy: Genetic and personality factors. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 1-20; Arvey, R. D., Zhang, Z., Avolio, B. J., & Kreuger, R.F. (2007). Developmental and genetic determinants of leadership role occupancy among women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 693-706.
Recently, I read an article in Psychology Today in which the author Ronald Riggio wrote: “Studies using identical twins estimate that leadership is about one-third born (due to genetic factors) and two-thirds made. Yet, many leaders say the exact opposite – believing leaders are mostly born.” (1) I guess the debate will continue into the future. I want to look at another side of the debate.
One of the reasons for the difference of opinion is because humans have this uncanny knack of ignoring what we know intuitively when we get into academic discussions. When people are considering whether leaders are born or made they instinctively restrict the idea of being born a leader to being born with the innate ability to provide effective leadership under all conditions. Anyone who is born without that innate ability would have to be made into a leader. If the studies that Riggio cited are to be believed it is obvious that whatever abilities one is born with have to be nurtured and developed. This is not only true of leadership.
There are two reasons why one attends a leadership program: to discover whether one was born as a leader or to be made into a leader. The philosophy behind all leadership programs is that leaders are made. Since these programs are run by humans one has to wonder where they got their ideas concerning leadership if they were not born as leaders.
But this is not the angle I wish to explore here. Instead of focusing on leadership I think the question asks us to focus on the difference between being born and being made. Humans are born not made. The lesson is not that only some humans are born as leaders and that it is our task to sniff them out by exposing them to a battery of leadership principles that will ignite the leadership that lays dormant within them. The lesson is that only organisms that are born can be leaders. The obverse to this is that all humans are leaders by virtue of the fact that they are born.
The truth of this is seen in the fact that leadership can not only be seen in humans; it is also evident in all non-human species where existence is a function of "birth." We find leaders among fish, among birds, among chimpanzees, among lions, among ants. Every organism has leadership qualities and exercises those qualities whenever nature requires that it be exercised.
Only among humans is leadership fraught with so much inefficiency. This is not because leaders among non-human species are always effective. Nature has a mechanism in all non-human species for moving ineffective leaders out of the way. Observations of this have been made among gorillas, for example. If the leader of the pack cannot maintain his position he will be replaced. Only among humans is an ineffective leader able to maintain his position. In some cases leadership is a function of seniority, or leaders remain in position for a time fixed regardless of performance. This is not the natural way of providing leadership.
I hasten to say that the answer is not to change our leadership and organizational structure so that ineffective leaders can be removed more easily. That is the negative approach to leadership inefficiency. Besides, our assessment that a leader may be ineffective may be wrong. Because we are humans we often stumble. It is no surprise that leaders often stumble in their leadership. Replacing a ‘bad’ leader is no guarantee that she will be replaced by a more effective leader.
The answer to our leadership problems is to recognize that leadership is a natural phenomenon. We must base our practice of leadership on the principles of leadership that are on display in the world to which belong. The first lesson we will learn from nature is that leadership is not a function of the individual; it is a function of the group. Being a leader means nothing unless there is a group to be led.
Several years ago I heard a story about three boy scouts who were sitting around a camp fire. Suddenly, one of the scouts one of the boys got up and began to walk into the woods. The narrator concluded: If the two other boy scouts also got up and followed him into the woods we have a leader, otherwise all we have is a boy scout taking a walk.
1. Riggio, Ronald. (2010) “Are Leaders Born or Made? Why The Question Itself is Dangerous.” Psychology Today Blog: Cutting-Edge Leadership. < http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201012/are-leaders-born-or-made-why-the-question-itself-is-dangerous. > [Accessed July 18, 2011]. Citing Arvey, R. D., Rotundo, M., Johnson, W., Zhang, Z., & McGue, M. (2006). The determinants of leadership role occupancy: Genetic and personality factors. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 1-20; Arvey, R. D., Zhang, Z., Avolio, B. J., & Kreuger, R.F. (2007). Developmental and genetic determinants of leadership role occupancy among women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 693-706.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
To the Moon . . . and Beyond?
It was in July, 1969 that Neil Armstrong became the first man to walk on to the surface of the moon. An estimated 500 million around the globe watched as he stepped off the ladder of the Lunar Exploration Module and utter his now famous words: “That’s one small step for (a) man; one giant leap for mankind.” Everyone seemed to think that this was a significant moment in human history and Armstrong’s words seemed to echo that sentiment.
There was one small problem; no one heard him say “a man.” After much background debate the newspapers reported what they and everyone else had heard, even though it was obvious what he had meant to say. It could not have been both a small step and a giant leap for the same individual, man and mankind being synonymous. For his part, Armstrong said he had been misquoted.
There was so much debate and confusion over the difference between what he said and what he meant to say that we never had the chance to consider the meaning and significance of his message. Not just the literal meaning of his words but the much deeper meaning of his message.
Most people agree that the purpose of the statement was to link the action of one man with the monumental achievement of humanity, but our scholars and academicians never made any attempt, as far as I can tell, to help us understand what it should mean for us as a species. It is almost as if they were happy to be diverted by the confusion over the apparent flub.
Today, anyone with a connection to the internet can view a clip of that historic moment. They can watch as Armstrong takes several more “small” steps on the moon that day, along with Buzz Aldrin who joined him on the surface of the moon. “One small step by a man” is easy to grasp, but in what way did humanity make a giant leap? What does it mean for a group of several billion people to make a giant leap? Are there other leaps we should have been making since that historic day? Have we made any of those leaps?
More importantly, what about leadership? The Apollo 11 mission was a NASA undertaking that was executed under the leadership of the President of the United States and the many administrators at NASA. Who is providing the leadership to humanity as we make these leaps? Whose responsibility is it to ensure that we make those leaps? What relationship is there between the exercise of leadership in humanity and the exercise of leadership in our groups and organizations?
These and other questions were not addressed forty-two years ago. As we move into another era of space exploration with the suspension of the successful shuttle program maybe it is time to begin exploring the answers.
There was one small problem; no one heard him say “a man.” After much background debate the newspapers reported what they and everyone else had heard, even though it was obvious what he had meant to say. It could not have been both a small step and a giant leap for the same individual, man and mankind being synonymous. For his part, Armstrong said he had been misquoted.
There was so much debate and confusion over the difference between what he said and what he meant to say that we never had the chance to consider the meaning and significance of his message. Not just the literal meaning of his words but the much deeper meaning of his message.
Most people agree that the purpose of the statement was to link the action of one man with the monumental achievement of humanity, but our scholars and academicians never made any attempt, as far as I can tell, to help us understand what it should mean for us as a species. It is almost as if they were happy to be diverted by the confusion over the apparent flub.
Today, anyone with a connection to the internet can view a clip of that historic moment. They can watch as Armstrong takes several more “small” steps on the moon that day, along with Buzz Aldrin who joined him on the surface of the moon. “One small step by a man” is easy to grasp, but in what way did humanity make a giant leap? What does it mean for a group of several billion people to make a giant leap? Are there other leaps we should have been making since that historic day? Have we made any of those leaps?
More importantly, what about leadership? The Apollo 11 mission was a NASA undertaking that was executed under the leadership of the President of the United States and the many administrators at NASA. Who is providing the leadership to humanity as we make these leaps? Whose responsibility is it to ensure that we make those leaps? What relationship is there between the exercise of leadership in humanity and the exercise of leadership in our groups and organizations?
These and other questions were not addressed forty-two years ago. As we move into another era of space exploration with the suspension of the successful shuttle program maybe it is time to begin exploring the answers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)