Leading is mostly about getting others to adopt your goals and point of view. As such, a visionary science-fiction writer with a popular following is de facto a technology leader. For the better or worse...
-
Interesting definition of leadership. In a lot of contexts, completely wrong. Eg., a University leader who succeeded in this would be a total disaster. Such a person is largely in a service position: how can they amplify other people's visions?
I've literally watched really bad University leaders who have this model. They think it's about getting others to do what they want, not about asking others what they want, and figuring out how to help them get it (or how to set even better goals, and achieve them).
-
-
Sounds like mentorship or coaching to me. Leadership as I see it does set directions and values and does achieve well-defined goals. Maybe universities have no need of leaders in that sense?
-
Leadership as "setting directions, values, providing inspiration" does not require a hierarchical structure at all. Anyone can lead. Some scifi writers are in fact powerful leaders in that sense. And of course, so is Disney. One of the most powerful entity in the world
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.