Good article. Clearly there is a shift taking place in the mechanisms being used to coordinate collective activity.
However, when you have to add so many adjectives and descriptive nuances to leadership, maybe you should use a different word. I mean the behaviours of 'hero' and 'host' are radically different and largely incompatible. I looked up leadership once in HBR and found over 50 different variations defined. Some of them were related to your 'hero', white knight depiction; others were describing various dysfunctional, psychopathic or criminal forms of leadership; and some described more the 'host' idea you've used above. Clearly the term leadership has become a meaningless grab bag expression for any behaviour someone wants to ascribe to it.
Nevertheless, when the term is used, my experience is that, irregardless of the adjective you put in front of it, people understand 'leadership' in terms of the person who has the answers, has control of the knowledge, resources and power to get what they want, and the ability to coerce the compliance of others. As a result I have just dropped the leadership term wrt host-like behaviours and now use the stewardship term instead. Then people understand I'm talking about something quite different. This particularly important in collaborations and partnerships because people need to take their leadership caps off. I tell them they need to behave like owners and stewards.
On Oct 24, 2014 Chris Wilson wrote:
Good article. Clearly there is a shift taking place in the mechanisms being used to coordinate collective activity.
However, when you have to add so many adjectives and descriptive nuances to leadership, maybe you should use a different word. I mean the behaviours of 'hero' and 'host' are radically different and largely incompatible. I looked up leadership once in HBR and found over 50 different variations defined. Some of them were related to your 'hero', white knight depiction; others were describing various dysfunctional, psychopathic or criminal forms of leadership; and some described more the 'host' idea you've used above. Clearly the term leadership has become a meaningless grab bag expression for any behaviour someone wants to ascribe to it.
Nevertheless, when the term is used, my experience is that, irregardless of the adjective you put in front of it, people understand 'leadership' in terms of the person who has the answers, has control of the knowledge, resources and power to get what they want, and the ability to coerce the compliance of others. As a result I have just dropped the leadership term wrt host-like behaviours and now use the stewardship term instead. Then people understand I'm talking about something quite different. This particularly important in collaborations and partnerships because people need to take their leadership caps off. I tell them they need to behave like owners and stewards.