Problem:
There's a body of literature devoted to a concept called "SUBSTITUTES FOR LEADERSHIP". Basically, the idea is that organizations can develop a set of structural characteristics and cultivate characteristics in their members such that actual "leadership" on the part of particular individuals is either unnecessary or, in some cases, actually undermined. There are three sets, briefly:
Characteristics of Subordinates: Ability and experience, Need for independence, professional orientation, and Indifference towards rewards
Characteristics of Tasks: Routineness, Availability of feedback, and Intrinsic satisfaction
Characteristics of Organization: Formalization, Group cohesion, Inflexibility, and Rigid reward structure
Are leaders always really necessary, or can we make things work OK even if we don't have them? What sorts of situations might be helped by cultivating such a "substitute leadership" environment? Are there situations where this might be a bad thing? What about you personally - do you want a leader, or would you prefer essentially to be your own leader? It's one way to make organizations less political - but is it worth it?