Conversational Leadership gets my vote. “Leading by Accelerating Serendipty” strikes me as just an updated business model – with a new driver of change being the noise around and volume of decisions to be made. But it is still a decision to be made, and a walk around any airport bookshop will show dozens of books to help the “modern executive” do just that.

I like the idea of expanding the definition of Leadership in the first to fit more with that in the second – leaders within a company. It is not just the thought leadership (or influence, perhaps, more than leadership) that can, and are taking advantage of newer forms of push/pull and conversational communication. Leaders are there to give direction and vision – perhaps that is where I argue that MP's aren't necessarily “leaders” (without getting into a long discussion regarding representation and mandate).

Most of all though what I think needs to be explored is the concept of “followership” more than leadership. The skills, aptitude and attitude of those who follow a leader are often forgetten. What of a CEO (or MP or Courvoiser Future 500) who can effectively lead those in a traditional communication style that is loosing their followers to newer styles? (US Elections anyone?) Or, more likely in tech-based thought leadership, what of those followers who are unfamiliar, uncomfortable or even suspicious of new communication tools? How can a new leader fight against their own companies' IT policies (bans on facebook and twitter, expecting empowerment to be felt as good by the team, expecting all members of the company to adopt an online company “persona”. I think this is more than just communication change management – I think it is a truly potentially different way of leading a group / team /. company / nation.

I think (in a rambling comment) that I agree with Seth – that number 2 kinda points to number 1!

Conversational Leadership gets my vote. “Leading by Accelerating Serendipty” strikes me as just an updated business model – with a new driver of change being the noise around and volume of decisions to be made. But it is still a decision to be made, and a walk around any airport bookshop will show dozens of books to help the “modern executive” do just that.

I like the idea of expanding the definition of Leadership in the first to fit more with that in the second – leaders within a company. It is not just the thought leadership (or influence, perhaps, more than leadership) that can, and are taking advantage of newer forms of push/pull and conversational communication. Leaders are there to give direction and vision – perhaps that is where I argue that MP's aren't necessarily “leaders” (without getting into a long discussion regarding representation and mandate).

Most of all though what I think needs to be explored is the concept of “followership” more than leadership. The skills, aptitude and attitude of those who follow a leader are often forgetten. What of a CEO (or MP or Courvoiser Future 500) who can effectively lead those in a traditional communication style that is loosing their followers to newer styles? (US Elections anyone?) Or, more likely in tech-based thought leadership, what of those followers who are unfamiliar, uncomfortable or even suspicious of new communication tools? How can a new leader fight against their own companies' IT policies (bans on facebook and twitter, expecting empowerment to be felt as good by the team, expecting all members of the company to adopt an online company “persona”. I think this is more than just communication change management – I think it is a truly potentially different way of leading a group / team /. company / nation.

I think (in a rambling comment) that I agree with Seth – that number 2 kinda points to number 1!

My other 2p worth – I procrastinate for ages on 6 potential topics for my Masters – and decided to go with the one in the end that would be most fun to do. Because it's a lot of time, that's the most important thing in the end.

It puts me in mind of one of the key points for success identified in 'Good to Great' — that great leaders work out who to bring onto the bus (their key management team), and only then work out where the bus is going (what their business strategy and goals are going to be). It's about putting a great team together and then seeing where it wants to go.