I started from the revolutions in the Mediterranean, a subject on which there is much to be said and on which other, more prepared, they have written and write better than I can. What interested me, however, was to make a nice red circle around something else, which is itself a revolution. A revolution that before being political or economic, and social and cultural.
That something is difficult to define but easy to spot. Andrea Vitullo, in his essay Leadershit - Scrap the mystique of leadership and make room in the world, called it a play on words - exactly - leadershit. This definition may seem provocative (and perhaps a bit it is) but has the advantage of clarification is what the author thinks the old way of being a leader: dung.
The leadershit, writes essentially Vitullo, is an attitude that rejects the top-mystical, titanic and decisions, all drenched in sticky narcissism, to a new way to organize knowledge and (therefore) the power. Enough with the model leader / follower, just with ghe I think it is time to think about it from us to take full responsibility and engaging in first person (and I agree with those who have claimed that attitude to the movement Five Star and would do well, other political forces, to study these new forms of participation without hastily dismiss as anti-politics).
But this attitude, this way of looking at the world, not from an arbitrary decision. Comes from the observation of a phenomenon taking place gradually, over many years. Have you noticed that, in addition to mid-season, there are more leaders than once? How many times have you heard saying that the university or by the parties does not go out a good leadership? Have you noticed that certain forces, such as Pd, burn a leader in every election (and in Italy, including municipal, provincial, regional, European and policies we have at least an election year)? Have you ever thought about why? We could easily answer: because they are inept.
Ok, but because they are inept? Could it be because the world has changed so quickly that it was objectively difficult for men and women grew again with Carousel, being inside this mutation? Could it be that the Internet, blogs, youtube, social networks, mobile phones have not only changed the way people communicate, but the very idea of ourselves in the world? Could it be that everything that is not interactive (ie, two-way and participative) seems old, outdated, unattractive? Could it be that, therefore, we do not want nor can we be more simple follower? It will not be that without followers, the old idea of leadership turns out to be terribly inappropriate to our times? 
That something is difficult to define but easy to spot. Andrea Vitullo, in his essay Leadershit - Scrap the mystique of leadership and make room in the world, called it a play on words - exactly - leadershit. This definition may seem provocative (and perhaps a bit it is) but has the advantage of clarification is what the author thinks the old way of being a leader: dung.
The leadershit, writes essentially Vitullo, is an attitude that rejects the top-mystical, titanic and decisions, all drenched in sticky narcissism, to a new way to organize knowledge and (therefore) the power. Enough with the model leader / follower, just with ghe I think it is time to think about it from us to take full responsibility and engaging in first person (and I agree with those who have claimed that attitude to the movement Five Star and would do well, other political forces, to study these new forms of participation without hastily dismiss as anti-politics).
But this attitude, this way of looking at the world, not from an arbitrary decision. Comes from the observation of a phenomenon taking place gradually, over many years. Have you noticed that, in addition to mid-season, there are more leaders than once? How many times have you heard saying that the university or by the parties does not go out a good leadership? Have you noticed that certain forces, such as Pd, burn a leader in every election (and in Italy, including municipal, provincial, regional, European and policies we have at least an election year)? Have you ever thought about why? We could easily answer: because they are inept.
Ok, but because they are inept? Could it be because the world has changed so quickly that it was objectively difficult for men and women grew again with Carousel, being inside this mutation? Could it be that the Internet, blogs, youtube, social networks, mobile phones have not only changed the way people communicate, but the very idea of ourselves in the world? Could it be that everything that is not interactive (ie, two-way and participative) seems old, outdated, unattractive? Could it be that, therefore, we do not want nor can we be more simple follower? It will not be that without followers, the old idea of leadership turns out to be terribly inappropriate to our times?
No comments:
Post a Comment