How is the Leadership Theory As the airline industry?

The basic model of aviation never changes. We have some superficial variety, ranging from expensive frills, no-frills airline but still move a large number of people from one airport to another at a rate that has not changed for about 50 years. Why not aircraft that are only big enough to take one person that can land at hand, is controlled by the computer and whip target to 10 times the speed of sound? Now that would be a different model.

Similarly, the theory of leadership has always been about what it means and necessary to achieve and maintain a position of authority over a group of people. We have some very different conceptions of leadership - those offered by Haifetz, Jim Collins, servant leadership, command and control, to name a few, but all share a focus on the person responsible. In a nutshell, the theory of traditional leadership is fascinated by the chief executive officer and all it takes to be one.

Because we do not question this basic model? A non-positional inclination says that leadership is not merely point the way, either explicitly or by example to promote a new direction, regardless of whether you have people reporting to you or not.

Suppose you're a fan of Heifetz. One might object to my view along the following lines: Sure, leaders need a vision of a better future, but they can also sit down with his followers a Heifetz and help them work through the options to reach that better future. Leadership can be the vision and facilitation, in other words. But, in taking this line, you are showing your interest in understanding the whole person of the leader. For me there are no leaders'' only'' disparate acts of leadership.

Consider this analogy: how to define a whale. I want to understand what differentiates the whales from all other mammals. By contrast, theorists of traditional leadership are only marginally interested in this question. They are avid whale watchers. So when I say that the characteristics x, y, z differentiate whales from other mammals, we argue that whales are eating too interesting, mating and sleeping habits. I shrug my shoulders at this, because these behaviors do not differ from other mammals. But I can do this because they are not very interested in whales themselves.

Using this analogy Heifetz, for example, I would say that helping people to work with no problems distinguishes leaders from managers or coaches OD consultants. The only thing that all leaders have in common is promoting a new direction. Martin Luther King was driving like an outsider when he protested against segregation on buses. He was promoting new attitudes toward the world at large, challenging the status quo. He had no authority position. Showing the way is also what someone does lead by example. So do not market leading companies and leading personalities of the sport especially competitive events and, of course, those who demonstrate leadership in bottom-up. Also, if you can promote a new direction as an outsider, not even knowing your followers not to mention sitting with them in a way that facilitates, then this behavior can not be a necessary factor of differentiation.

If one accepts the traditional model of leadership, which naturally wants to understand the whole person of the leader: the origins, development, character, style, etc. For me, there are common features throughout the great diversity of people who are in top executive positions. The quest to understand these people is painful because it is so desperate. They simply have too little in common. The move to recognize all situational or contextual factors is defensive. It allows us to keep alive the belief that there are still some universal yet-to-be-discovered through all the leading position.

A new model says that leadership can be viewed by anyone because it could be a simple, once-in-a-lifetime action. It emphatically does not mean that anyone can be a CEO. I only say that each of us has any idea how to do something that is better than what his colleagues are doing. Regardless of how small-scale and local, such action may be, is still defined as successful leadership to convince people to change direction.

Traditionalists are fascinated with the chief executive for good reason. They want heroes who can see as role models in their own search for self-improvement. There's nothing wrong with trying to be like our role models, but the role of CEO is too complex to be brought under the leadership label. CEOs show some 'leadership from time to time but much of what they do is really just good management .......