For centuries, at least in Western traditions, leadership was regarded to be very much about a figure of authority at the best making all of the critical decisions and telling usually his subordinates what to do. This is sometimes known as a command-and-control construction and if you represent the decision-making amounts and obligations on a graph, it will generally be pyramidal in shape with the main individual on very top. Now, this arrangement is arguably based mostly on a mix of Faith, civil jurisdiction and military requirement.

communicating with influence

The idea being that the construction itself strengthens the notion that some individuals are more significant than others and become more so the higher up the pyramid structure they advance. That is because in all three of the aforementioned communicating with influence, it is important for people at the top to continuously reinforce the belief that firstly they are quite literally the boss and second that their role is crucial in the construction and its affiliated functioning. Now, it is well known that this model does not fit easily with other societies around the world in all instances.

By way of instance, in the case of the Aboriginal populations, there always has been more emphasis on community involvement and collectivism instead of absolutism. Today, in most western-culture business structures, there is called matrix management meaning that responsibility and authority are shared between allowed classes which do not necessarily have some sense of hierarchical superiority or inferiority views each other. If you draw this type of arrangement on paper, what you typically get are overlapping circles with the maximum points of overlap being where tactical leadership engages.

But, matrix management brings with it its own challenges. Arguably, among the greatest is that it can be difficult to get Decisions made when everything requires consensus or voting and debate. Worse, if there is a problem or a challenge, it can be tricky to establish just who’s responsible for resolving it and studying any related lessons from it for the long run.

That is because roles and responsibilities are normally far more ambiguously defined in matrix direction than in traditional hierarchical structures. It is worth noting that, to take only two examples, you likely will still see hierarchical structures in organisations like the military and emergency services. In a catastrophe, somebody should make a decision quickly rather than call together pseudo-convention to talk about the options and ask for a show of hands.

On the other hand, hierarchical structures can promote elitism and a propensity to shirk responsibility by escalating to another layer in the business for settlement. That may create a certain level of a semi requisite civilization and that is something that is rightly anathema concerning First Nations development.