Igapäevapraktikad (avalikes) organisatsioonides juhipositsioonide täitmisel ei jäta suurt ruumi kahtlusteks: juhtida võib igaüks. Jääb mulje, et domineeriv kriteerium on senise tööga hakkamasaamine – küllap siis tuleb ka juhtimisega toime. Kuidas muidu seletada suurt hulka juhte ilma igasuguse juhtimisalase ettevalmistuseta?

Siinviidatud tekst võib huvi pakkuda väga paljudele alates juhtimise eest palka vastu võtvatest või selliste positsioonide poole püüdlejatest, kuni juhtimisega puutumuses olevate distsipliinide õpetamisega seotud inimesteni. Lisaks veel need uudishimulikud, keda huvitab sotsiaalsete süsteemide toimimine või mõne eesmärgi poole liikumine viisil, et see on seotud ka teiste inimeste või inimgruppidega.

Ja tegemist on väga kasuliku ülevaatega traditsioonilise juhtimise mõttekäikude ületamiseks.

Kontekstiks:

In many societies and especially Western ones, cultural knowledge tacitly assigns leadership to certain endeavors (e.g., solving other’s problems; making decisions) and people (white men, those with institutional authority). To seed change, leadership development must surface unspoken rules and teach new ones.

Kui kõik on juhid, siis ei ole ju keegi juht:

Certainly, a new way of thinking about leadership has taken hold. To our point, an internet search of “anyone can lead” yields hundreds of results, suggesting how people without obvious social power can enact leadership in their everyday lives. But surely leadership educators also have heard the wise crack, “If everyone is a leader, then no one is a leader.”

Autorid lubavad:

In this essay we review literatures of social inclusion, complexity, and adaptive leadership relevant to the community context.

Kogukonnajuhtimisest:

Likewise, we concur with Ricketts and Ladewig (2008: 138) in that “community leadership is not so much a situation or style of leadership, as it is a context under which leadership operates. Consequently, this context does not lend itself to just one leadership tradition”

Kogukonnajuhtimine ja ärijuhtimine:

Schweigert (2007: 329) posits this aspect as what distinguishes community leadership from commercial relations: Through pursuit of the common good, community leadership seeks mutuality based on “values that transcend individual self-interest alone. Leaders are thus distinct from vendors, as followers are distinct from buyers.”

Relatsioonilisest juhtimisest mööda ei saa:

Similarly, relational leadership points to the messiness of human interaction and the uncertainties of highly complex systems (Uhl-Bien, 2006). If leadership emerges in networks of human interaction, then solving problems and reducing uncertainty are no longer germane. Instead, the dynamics by which leadership emerges and is exercised become key (Uhl-Bien, 2006).

Koostegemine:

Notably, none of the community leadership orientations obviously include co-production as a central activity of leadership. Within leadership studies, the concept of co-production is mostly marshaled in the context of interaction, as in “demonstrating how actors utilize objects and verbal resources in the co-production of leadership” (Arvedsen and Hassert, 2020: 546).

Traditsioonilisest vaatest:

Considering leaders voicing a traditional stance, the greatest threat to consistent involvement is the disconnect between what they understand they are to do (persuade other people to sacrifice so the system can be maintained for the better) and what they actually accomplish (piloting solo, sacrificing self, failing to steer inevitable social change for the greater good).

Mitte piirideta, vaid asjakohaste kohandatavate piiridega:

To our point, recognizing that community leadership can be many things allows persons to reflect on their assumptions, invent new possibilities, understand if not embrace others’ perspectives, and act for community improvement.

Lind, C. J., & Ekwerike, O. (2022). Orientations toward community leadership. Leadership. https://doi.org/10.1177/17427150221085134