The relationship between leaders and followers in the post industrial era

Mao Zedong proclaiming the establishment of the People's Republic of China in The People's Republic of China was founded on a land that was ravaged by a century of foreign invasion and civil wars. Both urban and rural communities, as well as both agriculture and industry, experienced significant growth between — Execution and harsh conditions in labor camps resulted in millions of deaths under Mao. The country went through a transformation whereby means of production were transferred from private to public entities, and through nationalization of industry inthe state controlled the economy in a similar fashion to the economy of the Soviet Union.

June 17, Drath's stated purpose of his book, namely, to: He states that the terrible "persistent central idea" that "leadership is something leaders possess as an individual attribute and, therefore, leadership is given by, created by, leaders.

And that this confusion of leadership as a process only being done exclusively by the leader is wrong, and not the future of leadership as relationship -- I AGREE!

However, it seems the Author forgets or gives-up on his central thesis of "leadership as relationship" when he states, on page 13, in the first of his central three "principles," "Personal Dominance," that: This is the very problem he states he will "lead" us away from This "principle" of "leadership" only begs the question: If leadership is a relationship like you proposehow is it that the Leader can be the one who "possess" leadership!?

History of the People's Republic of China (–) - Wikipedia

And other questions like: If followers are convinced of some 'truth' about a Leader's "leadership" then you are stating the leader is the one doing "leadership" not the follower!

How is this a relationship if you clearly state the Leaders do "leadership? Karl's leadership of Zoffner Piano Company As early asPeter Selznick, in Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation, writes, "Leadership is not equivalent to office-holding or high prestige or authority or decision-making.

In Leadership for the Twenty-First CenturyJoseph Rost discusses leadership as a process shared equally between leader and followers.

Having been a student of Rost, I believe Rost's key thesis is actually that there needs to be a "post-industrial school of leadership" Rost, p. Where leadership is conceived of as an influence relationship, and de-focused away from the leader as possessing leadership -- where this book is unfortunately focused.

Two stars for a great concept! Rost had it in !A third entity perspective of relationship-based leadership is offered in views of charisma as a social relationship between leaders and followers (Howell and Shamir, , Jermier, , Kark and Shamir, , Klein and House, , Shamir, , Weierter, ).

Although leadership is certainly a form of power, it is not demarcated by power over people – rather, it is a power with people that exists as a reciprocal relationship between a . The Relationship Between Leaders and Followers in the Post-Industrial Era PAGES 3. WORDS View Full Essay.

More essays like this: Not sure what I'd do without @Kibin - Alfredo Alvarez, student @ Miami University. Exactly what I needed. - Jenna Kraig, student @ . In order to erase the distance being created through this increasing gap of connection between leaders and followers leaders need to get to know their followers.

Spending time with followers is now more crucial today than it was when leaders had a span of control of five to seven employees.

Rost's book has almost , content ripe pages, and the Author distills it to: "a process shared equally between leaders and followers." This doesn't even start to explain Rost's thesis. Having been a student of Rost, I believe Rost's key thesis is actually that there needs to be a "post .

The Social Gospel’s role in the Progressive Era was amplified by the close connection between the Social Gospel and the emergence of professional social science in the late nineteenth century.

During the last three decades of the nineteenth century, economics, political science, and sociology all emerged in American universities as the result.