4 ms·

Unless I'm reading the summary of the study's findings wrong, the study showed what people are selected as leaders, right? Which is super interesting but not th

Unless I'm reading the summary of the study's findings wrong, the study showed what people are selected as leaders, right? Which is super interesting but not the same as who is a good leader. The summary of the article inaccurately states, "Strong in-person leadership skills don’t necessarily translate to being a good virtual leader", which feels like a huge leap with no evidence. Unless being chosen as a leader by the group directly correlates with who is actually successful as leaders this doesn't seem like a huge takeaway. Would be very interested to see something more substantive on this front.

mannykannot 6y ago
The article is based on a study that it links to. Like just about every other study, it is done within the context of existing work, in this case 'multilevel leadership emergence theory'. While it is possible that this field is flawed to the core, I am not yet ready to assume that it is, so that, for example, there is little correlation between who gets selected for leadership and who is suited for it, without having first done some digging into the literature myself.
- khalilravanna 6y ago
  Thanks for the added insight. I guess I have two follow up questions to that. 1) Is anyone who does have the context able to weigh in? From my own digging I'm not seeing a lot of agreed upon definitions of "leadership emergency theory". I found one paper [1] which I read the abstract of. It again, like the OP, seems to talk about how "leaders emerge in teams that lack a hierarchical structure". From my experience this doesn't seem incredibly useful given all managers/leaders I've seen have been appointed by someone else. It's not some subconscious, democratic process where they're chosen by the group. 2) Kind of meta, but did the writer of the article do the research that seems necessary for this? And if not is this acceptable, given that I can only assume numerous people will take this at face value and may even make organizational changes as a result? [1] https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/LODJ-08-2012-0109/full/html https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/LODJ-08-...
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  Assuming leaders are good is a huge leap that needs justification. There's no reason to assume that, and millenia of history to the contrary. If leaders were mostly good at leading, organizations would rarely fail.

mannykannot 6y ago

The article is based on a study that it links to. Like just about every other study, it is done within the context of existing work, in this case 'multilevel leadership emergence theory'. While it is possible that this field is flawed to the core, I am not yet ready to assume that it is, so that, for example, there is little correlation between who gets selected for leadership and who is suited for it, without having first done some digging into the literature myself.

khalilravanna 6y ago
Thanks for the added insight. I guess I have two follow up questions to that. 1) Is anyone who does have the context able to weigh in? From my own digging I'm not seeing a lot of agreed upon definitions of "leadership emergency theory". I found one paper [1] which I read the abstract of. It again, like the OP, seems to talk about how "leaders emerge in teams that lack a hierarchical structure". From my experience this doesn't seem incredibly useful given all managers/leaders I've seen have been appointed by someone else. It's not some subconscious, democratic process where they're chosen by the group. 2) Kind of meta, but did the writer of the article do the research that seems necessary for this? And if not is this acceptable, given that I can only assume numerous people will take this at face value and may even make organizational changes as a result? [1] https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/LODJ-08-2012-0109/full/html https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/LODJ-08-...
srtjstjsj 6y ago
Assuming leaders are good is a huge leap that needs justification. There's no reason to assume that, and millenia of history to the contrary. If leaders were mostly good at leading, organizations would rarely fail.