The modern epistemological project assumed that systems could be objective, thus making neutrality possible. A more pomo approach might suggest that no system, construct, ideology, etc can be neutral. Semiotically speaking, all systems are a type of language. The systems communicate more meaning than ever intended the systems creators or users.
The growing conscious that, there is no neutral system, can be very liberating. Among other things it means that there is no “right” system; just as there is no “right” language – though some languages accomplish some tasks more easily than other languages.
The understanding of leadership as influence may continue to be useful depending on one’s life and calling. It is not the primary definition that serves me in my context, though I still have some degree of influence (I think).
A metaphor I’m currently exploring is, leadership as “hub” or “matchmaker.” As matchmaker, my function is to link the people in my affective community – which may or may not be my church – with the connections they need, (God, other people, organizations, resources, ideas, nature, etc); a type of relational networking.
The evaluative criterion of “is anyone following?” is less clear given the metaphor I use. If I have served as a hub for someone to someone else in passing, they would likely never be counted as “following” me.
I might suggest that the person “out for a walk” who is present with their time/space/relationships could influence as many if not more people than the person who “leads” a clear group of followers.
Basically, if the world of relationships is like the WWW, than I see my role as leader, as being a “google.” No one connects to google for the sake of google. The searcher connects to google for the meaningful relationships google can provide. This is not a positional type of leadership; this is entirely functional, democratic, and fluid.
Peace, dwight
