Contrasting to Prior Leadership Frameworks and Models
LEADS+ Development Model intersects with several other existing
frameworks relevant to leadership development. However, most of these
frameworks do not explicitly articulate the growth of a leader in
multiple roles nor stratify their progression by the types of work they
might do (e.g., within themselves, in relation to small teams, with
regards to other organisations and groups, and finally in achieving
systems changes or results). For instance, Heifetz’s adaptive leadership
suggests that a given leader should change and adapt to their
context35, but assumes that leader is at a specific
stage within variable contexts and does not provide the insight around
how one’s roles change over time.
Meanwhile, meta-leadership framework36–38 (developed
by McNulty, Marcus and their other colleagues from Harvard) speaks to
the need for leaders who can bridge multiple worlds and work together,
especially in times of crisis. The meta-leadership framework was first
developed from studying various emergency situations (e.g., Boston
Marathon Bombing, Hurricane response) and is highly resonant with our
complexity-based leadership phenotype. However, meta-leadership does not
speak to the versatility of an individual to switch between various
types of engagement or leadership and followership in varying contexts,
nor does it compare meta-leadership with other stages of development
that a leader might encounter on their professional development journey.
Numerous other leadership frameworks have multiple levels (e.g. Collins’
Good to Great five leaders levels39) or loosely
describe various stages a leader may experience though their lives (e.g.
Joiner & Joseph’s Leadership Agility40), but few
models tend to pull together the various aspects of development into a
model that expects one to manifest competencies in various domains
differently.