A person, who dons the leadership role, does so in the context of what he thinks is his mission to achieve through a group effort. He could be doing this all the time in different groups. In one, he may be a leader, a right hand man to a leader in another and a bit role player in a third one, depending on the circumstances, his own value systems and the existence of leadership or absence of it in the milieu. Thus, much of it could be situational and discretionary, because in some situations, one may choose to remain on the sidelines, either since the issues involved are not considered to be that critical to him or may be, because he is convinced that the matters are in safe hands. The groups may be social groups, a small team of diverse professionals coming together as a task force, a stable organizational entity going through its `cash cow' phase or an organization going through the throes of visible change which is crucial for its survival.
The
challenges before the leader may very well be more complex
in a social setting as compared to a corporate setting.
One reason why there may be greater complications in
the social role is that most of the members may have
widely varying views on what needs to be done, how much
needs to be done, who should do it and who all will
pose for the photograph. This may very well be because
of the widely different background of the members. Time
and forum required to create consensus may pose serious
problems. Any monetary reward or punishment system is
unlikely to be in place to help the leader. |
