The same newsletter features Claire Reinelt's article, "How is network leadership different from organizational leadership." She shares a chart from the Monitor Institute that breaks it down like so:
| Organizational Leadership | Network Leadership |
| Position, authority | Role, behavior |
| Individual | Collective |
| Control | Facilitation |
| Directive | Emergent |
| Transactional | Relational, connected |
| Top-down | Bottom-up |
| Action-oriented | Process-oriented |
- Network leadership emerges and dissolves in accordance with its environment (emergent facilitation).
- Organizational leadership sustains itself with a force distinct from its environment (directive control).
1 comment:
I'd like to offer a few modifications . . .
Network Leadership isn't about 'role, behavior' it's more 'behavior, role'. In a more fluid situation, competence and good ideas rise to the top, and role is an afterthought, if thought of at all.
From "collective" to "clustered" around competencies (see above)
Network Leadership isn't "bottom up", it's "middle-out". Most of the time the people with the best 'perspective' are ones that interact heavily with both 'front line' and 'back office' where they know who's doing what. They are on the one hand the 'brokers' that grease the wheels and on the others the buffers between the 'front-line' and 'back office'.
I'd also suggest changing 'facilitated' to 'negotiated'. First off, you can't have 'facilitated' and 'emergent' together. Secondly, facilitated implies some centralized command like as in OL. Thirdly, facilitation is also less of a mess than the complex negotiations going on in network leadership.
And finally OL I'd say is "goal oriented" where NL is "action oriented" and "process oriented". The aim of NL is to increase the bonds between its members (process kind-of) while producing (action) some result. The important part is the bonding, not the action or the result.
Hope this isn't stepping on your toes any.
Post a Comment