leadership at the bottom

Leadership in organizations is typically associated with those at the top, such as CEOs, COOs, CFOs, CIOs, and the like, or those in middle-management supervisory roles. And in some companies, the people at the top truly are crucial to the organization's well-being. Consider the case of Apple and Steve Jobs. With Jobs at the helm, Apple flourished. When he left in the early 1990s, Apple quickly lost its way and its ability to make money. Jobs came back and Apple's innovative ideas soared. Still, without creative and smart people around him, even Steve Jobs wouldn't be able to keep Apple on the cutting edge of new communication technology.

In Chapter 9, Eisenberg et al. fall into this leaders-at-or-near-the-top trap as well, drawing a distinction between leaders/managers/supervisors and employees (aren't managers, supervisors, Presidents, etc., employees of the organization, too?). I suspect that leadership in the bottom levels of the organization may be as important (or even more important) than leadership at the top. At SJSU, for instance, the university went through several years of interim and temporary presidents and managed to muddle along just fine. But what would happen without department chairs? The university would come to a standstill. Even worse would be no office managers (administrative staff). It's not just the tasks department chairs and office staff complete, it's also the support they provide, goals they set, and ways they motivate others to complete their tasks.

Maybe it's time to take a closer look at leadership communication outside the upper echelons of organizations and study how those taking care of the day-to-day organizing tasks lead the way.

~ Professor Cyborg