Re: Leadership Revisited and a Suggested Method for Improve

["Anton O. Tolman, Ph.D." <ANTON@wsh.state.wy.us>]

JD Kromkowski wrote:

> First, I think that the only thing I directly quibbled about was the use of
> the category "Inspire": which is, in my opinion and in light of Deming's
> writing, highly overrated as a quality of leadership.

Perhaps we need another moniker.  I'm not wedded to "inspire", although I
think that effective leaders do tend to generate a sense of vision and
inspiration among those they work with.  I think that most people would see
that as *one* of the essential qualities of a good leader (although even some
monster leaders are able to generate inspiration and vision).

> Second, my primary point (which I thought I made by citing Deming
> extensively) was that if we are going to have a discussion on the DEN about
> leadership, then we should begin with Deming's text....

No argument.  I think you've done a service with your recent summarization on
that topic.

> With respect to the correctness of your "factor" analysis (typology), we
> could haul out the Anderson, et al. Model for Deming (Academy of Management,
> 1995 (?) as well as the other literature out there on leadership (much
> written by Neo-Skinnerists, I understand) and see what's out there.

I'd love to see some of these other models, although I'm wary of the
Skinnerians.  I'm also not wedded to the four factors or typologies I have
described so far.  I'm willing to learn and to see what we come up with.
Frank started this thread, and I'd appreciate also hearing from him on his
view of the four factors I came up with.  I came up with those as I have
worked with my staff and as I have attempted to define for myself what *I*
consider to be the minimum (or most parsimonious) number of ways to describe
effective leaders.  True to Deming's vision, I think some of these factors
would *not* be found in the traditional management literature.

> Maybe a more productive method, would be the following:
>
> 1.  Collect D's text about Leadership. (We're almost complete here)
> 2.  Break it down into natural chunks.  Maybe smaller, maybe larger than the
> chunks you listed.

By chunks, you mean factors?  Typologies?  Or do we want to talk about
leadership models?  Compare and contrast existing ones as you point out above?

> 3.  Post individual chunks.  One chunk to a post.  One or two a day.
> 4.  Allow the DEN, to reply to you (or some designee) alone (not to DEN,
> since this would affect the results depending on the persuasive power or
> authority of the responder) with no more than 3 or 4 words (preferably one
> would) that best categorizes the principles or underlying the chunk.

Seems reasonable.

> 5.  After all chunks are processed.  Let's see what kinds of natural
> categories arise, and let's see what chunks got a meaningfully high or low
> amount of responses. (We could use a IndX/MR chart, in time order, to see if
> there was a boredom effect.)
> 6.  Then let's have a discussion about Leadership.

> I think that just goes to show that I still don't know what the DEN is -- a
> cocktail party or a colloquy.  I have no objections to the cocktail party,
> except that over the Internet, the liquor would at best only virtual and
> consequently has none of the advantageous (or disadvantages) of the real
> stuff.

As far as I can tell, the DEN is a combination of both.  I am willing to try
out this method.  What do other DENizens think?  (Frank?)

Anton Tolman, PhD, CPHQ, Psychological Services Manager &
Quality Management Coordinator, Wyoming State Hospital
P.O. Box 177, Evanston, WY  82931-0177
Anton@wsh.state.wy.us    (307) 789-3464
"All great things are done for their own sake."   -- Robert Frost
==============================================================================