Broader-Narrower, Greater-Lesser
With 11 elements of community to build in so many possible contexts, it is helpful to clarify the terms we use to describe the exercise of leadership skill in particular cases.
How, for example, might we distinguish between Person A who builds trust in a setting and Person B who builds shared vision, shared purpose, respect, caring, and participation in another? My suggestion here is that we speak of A as demonstrating a narrower range of leadership skills than B or B as exhibiting a broader range of leadership skills than A; not better or worse, not greater or lesser, not more important or less so, but narrower or broader depending on the numbers of elements being built. What is important is that the terms narrow and broad in this suggested usage say nothing about the quality of the effort being made. Building one community element in a setting may well require greater effort than building several elements in another, so breadth should not be understood as implying anything more than scope.
Since it is common to hear individuals described as "great leaders," we will also help to keep things straight by deciding at the outset just how to distinguish instances of greater or lesser leadership, or the greater or lesser exercise of leadership skills. In this case, I think it is most useful to regard greater leadership in terms of both the breadth of leadership skills being exercised and the extent to which a particular setting features resources and opportunities for community to be created. A very fractious or disconnected group, with little history of collaboration, perhaps living or working in a larger setting that solely rewards individual accomplishment, would be an example of such a "resource-poor" setting. Attempting to build a broader array of community elements in this setting would thus evidence greater leadership than attempting to build a narrower range of elements in this setting or attempting to build a broader range of elements in a more resource-rich setting.
How, for example, might we distinguish between Person A who builds trust in a setting and Person B who builds shared vision, shared purpose, respect, caring, and participation in another? My suggestion here is that we speak of A as demonstrating a narrower range of leadership skills than B or B as exhibiting a broader range of leadership skills than A; not better or worse, not greater or lesser, not more important or less so, but narrower or broader depending on the numbers of elements being built. What is important is that the terms narrow and broad in this suggested usage say nothing about the quality of the effort being made. Building one community element in a setting may well require greater effort than building several elements in another, so breadth should not be understood as implying anything more than scope.
Since it is common to hear individuals described as "great leaders," we will also help to keep things straight by deciding at the outset just how to distinguish instances of greater or lesser leadership, or the greater or lesser exercise of leadership skills. In this case, I think it is most useful to regard greater leadership in terms of both the breadth of leadership skills being exercised and the extent to which a particular setting features resources and opportunities for community to be created. A very fractious or disconnected group, with little history of collaboration, perhaps living or working in a larger setting that solely rewards individual accomplishment, would be an example of such a "resource-poor" setting. Attempting to build a broader array of community elements in this setting would thus evidence greater leadership than attempting to build a narrower range of elements in this setting or attempting to build a broader range of elements in a more resource-rich setting.
posted by Bob Rossi at 11:16 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home