Leadership for a New Era Discussion Forum

Post a new thread

Use the Discussions area to participate in and track threads of interest. (help)

Ordered by:

Showing 3 threads

Fostering Collaborative Organizations and Networks for Social Change

Jul 23 2010, 3:05 PM EDT by

Thread started: Jul 18 2010, 12:27 PM EDT Watch

Thanks Kendra for posting. (I framed a question for your post...feel free to edit it if you like). I so agree with you about the importance of understanding collaborative leadership using a system framework. A systems perspective focuses attention on the dynamics of what is happening within and outside organizations. An interesting issue to focus on is how collaborative activity is occurring within bureaucratic organizations? I think Patti's post speaks to this issue as well when she talks about informal and formal networks. I think there is a really interesting question you raise: How much bureaucratic involvement dampens the effectiveness of collaborative activity and where is the threshold of top-down control that still enables collaborative activity to thrive? So much network leadership is practiced within and across organizations whose leadership operates with a bureaucratic mindset, and it's often experienced as a real challenge. How do we keep pushing the threshold so that collaboration has more space to develop within and across organizations?

Do you find this valuable?

Keyword tags:

Post reply

Show Last Reply

Last Reply:
RE: Fostering Collaborative Organizations and Networks for Social Change
By: , Jul 23 2010, 3:05 PM EDT

I found this forum through my networking and I'm beginning to understand it a bit more. It sounds like many of you are doing research on this topic. I encourage you to look at the Tutor/Mentor Connection, which I started in Chicago in 1993, as a model that might be duplicated. Its aim is to connect a constantly expanding universe of stakeholders into on-going learning from a web based body of knowledge, including sites like this, so that more people understand where and why volunteer-based tutor/mentor programs are needed, what programs are already operating, how they differ from each other, what it takes to make them work, and what leaders from business, faith groups, politics, etc. could do to make more good programs available to kids in high poverty neighborhoods.

That's a mouthful, but if you visit this strategy map, and browse our web sites, you can see what I'm describing. http://tinyurl.com/tmc-strategy-map

One book that illustrates this type of leadership is The Spider and the Starfish, which talks about the strength of de-centralized organizations. It also describes companies like eBey who have created technology platforms for millions of owners to use for their own purpose.

Thus, as you look at the T/MC and the sites we link to, think of a platform that connects thousand of owners to each other, and provides a blueprint and a map showing where to get involved, how long to get involved, and who should be getting involved. The platform itself is constantly being upgraded as others pitch in to help.

At http://tutormentorconnection.ning.com/group/ohatsmetrics you can read about a documentation system, intended to show actions that have been repeated over many years to build this network of purpose. You'll also see a call for help from others who share the same goals.

Do you find this valuable?

Gradymcg

refining the model of collective leadership

Jul 19 2010, 8:26 AM EDT by amacgillivray

Thread started: Mar 16 2010, 10:33 AM EDT Watch

I think Debra makes a good case for the limits of leader development, which is an expression of the increasingly anachronistic "heroic" model of leadership, and a equally good case for the power of leadership development, which taps into the wisdom and energy of the collective and focuses more directly on impact. It also makes a nice contribution by articulating the model underlying leader development, and mapping the elements of an alternative emphasis on leadership development. What remains to be done, from my point of view, is to create a new model that makes cause/result connections as explicit as the old model, while incorporating--or acknowledging--elements like those Debra points to. The Center for Creative Leadership offers one way of thinking about such a model by positing three outcomes of leadership--direction, alignment, and commitment. What I like about this model is that it leaves entirely open how one gets there and who is involved. It focuses only on results. But the model stops short of specifying community- or system-level impact, which Debra stresses. I'm thinking it would be worth exploring how to integrate these two approaches.

2 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you?

Keyword tags:

Post reply

Show Last Reply

Last Reply:
RE: Intentionality
By: amacgillivray, Jul 19 2010, 8:26 AM EDT

Hi Grady; good to see your smiling face as the last pre-trip online image.

I've never been one for carving things up, except for the value of the dialogue and common context sometimes needed through such carving. I tend to go to the academic literature to see the latest on what is being said there. I think the emphasis some academics put on these things has to do with "branding" and niche as much as substantive differences.

I've not mapped out the differences, but if I were to try to do this seriously, I would probably consider a couple of axes, which I'll name power and predictability for now.

I'll use "transformational" leadership as an example for power, though--in my view--it doesn't really fit what we are talking about here. Some people consider the transformational leadership paradigm as a way of distributing leadership, but it really is in the hands of someone with power to orchestrate this. So this sits relatively close to centralized power. Whereas "distributed" (though somewhat quietly and between the lines) recognizes that the ultimate form of distributed leadership is the total disappearance of the leader-follower paradigm.

I'm not sure predictability is a great axis, but just to play with it... Traditional leadership models often assume a lot of predictability. I would have to dig back into literature to see which of these makes that assumption (which is perfectly valid for some work, but does one need "collective" leadership for such work except perhaps for buy-in?) Some of these new models--such as complex and relational--acknowledge the unpredictability of much of our work. Of these two spectra, probably the unpredictable end is even more controversial than the give-away-power end.

I'll wave as we fly somewhere near Boston (unless we go over the pole).

Do you find this valuable?

nataliallc

New Generation of Nonprofit Leaders

Jan 20 2010, 7:09 PM EST by nataliallc

JavaScript must be enabled in order for you to contribute to this site.
To start contributing, enable JavaScript by changing your browser options, then try again.

Home