Just came across this article on ‘leadership styles’ which I found to be quite insightful. In short, there are three different ‘leadership styles’, and the authors advocate for carefully navigating between the three, depending on the context.
But I’m curious how, if at all, people consider the tension of ‘leadership’ and how it might be transformed in ‘teal’ organizations, which aim to be less ‘top-down’? The very notion of ‘leadership’ can feel as though it puts too much of an emphasis on ‘being a leader’, and people can, in many cases, get wrapped up in the idea of ‘being a leader’, which can compromise the group dynamic. On the other hand, it seems to point to something important: the capacity to bring together, to give direction, and to do so without necessarily providing a specific road map, and in a way which allows for different opportunities to emerge- as this article implies.
But my question is: is there a way that this is conceptualized in more ‘integral’ or teal language, or is ‘leadership’ a good enough framing? From what I have seen, ‘leadership’ has stuck around, and is also quite common in the ‘coaching’ world’ and other parts of the ‘emergent ecosystem’. I could be wrong, but just looking to see if there are any other ways that this is framed which takes the ‘good’ parts of leadership, and tries to move past the focus of ‘being a leader’ which, in my opinion, leadership implies (unless people think otherwise)
