I wasn’t sure whether or not to publish this entry or to just leave it all unsaid. But it’s my space, my blog, and please just be reminded of my disclaimer to the right. If you don’t want to read the post… please don’t.
Houston, we have a problem. It’s one thing to have work to do
in order accomplish a goal. It’s another thing altogether when you are
trying to help work through a problem that won’t talk. It’s like taking
your car to the dealer and asking him to fix it, but just telling him
to fix it without leaving him the keys, telling him what’s wrong, or
giving him permission to fix the problem.
We saw expressed Dave Rahn’s 3 types of leadership. When these three
types of leaders work together you have a powerful thing. (Business
types call this synergy) When you have these three types of leaders
going in different directions with different motivations, you have a
unique ability to do nothing, at best. The former is world changing,
the latter is world damaging.
- Positional leadership: I am a leader because I’ve been elected to the position.
- Task leadership: These are the worker bees. They lead by action alone.
- Leaders of influence: These are often leaders who sometimes hold positions and sometimes are workers, but are highly influential.
All that to say, it’s time to focus on something else.
Most Commented Posts
- BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
- « DVC Review
- » Great Clip from Little Britain
- BROWSE / IN hmm... thoughts
- « The Cliffhanger Completed
- » Great Clip from Little Britain
COMMENTS / 2 COMMENTS
Gman added these words on May 23 06 at 1:49 pmCouldn’t one of Influence be the most effective because they are both 1+2=3?
Almost sounds like Maxwell’s Becoming a Person of Influence?
adam added these words on May 25 06 at 2:47 pmYep, very similar. The thought came through in the research behind the book “Contagious Faith.”
The idea as a leader is to get 1, 2, and 3 going in the same direction.
The example Rahn gives is the 12 kids smoking across the street from the high school. There is a leader to that group. He is influential to those other 11 kids in a way that neither 1 nor 2 are. The goal in Rahn’s theory isn’t to remove that #3 kid but to develop that #3 kid to influence his group for Christ. Make sense?
SPEAK / ADD YOUR COMMENT
Comments are moderated.













