Leadership appears to be a very fluid concept. I say this because over the centuries that leaders have existed, styles have changed. Although people of the 1900's were stuck on the Great Man trait theory, people in the 50s were all about traits. What worked for one generation didn't work for all generations.
Which is why I like the current approach to leadership. It accounts for this malleable relationship between people and a concept. What I like even more, is there seems to be an inherent assumption that this view of leadership will change.
Of course, that's just my personal perspective on the matter. I think it very unwise to suggest that we have all the answers because then we close the door on learning from our mistakes or from new information.
This could relate to issues that leaders of the past have had. Any leader who assumes that he or she has all the answers will ultimately meet their untimely demise. It happened to Alexander, Napoleon and the Romanovs--so what'sto stop it happening from America?
I think the American attitude toward policy and leadership, more generally, has been incubating since the 1950s, the hey-day of American nationalism. But it's this same pride that undermines American sensibility, thereby creating a chink in the armor, so to speak. Whatever happened to co-learning? Since when did America have a lock on foreign policy, internal management, economics? In fact, I think that American attitudes are partially to blame for issues we have experienced as of late. Without the humility to admit when we have made mistakes or the insight to recognize necessary changes in the system, our governing system will stagnate and eventually fall, just like every other leadership model that "had all the answers."
No comments:
Post a Comment