Thank you for your detailed reply. You're helping me alter my paradigm of the definition of "Leadership", so please bear with me. I did review "a network perspective", and I particularly appreciate Patty Anklam's assertion that a leader is a "network builder". You then explain that the leader (whomever or whatever that role means) doesn't so much manage as influences the networking action. I suppose the leader can affect the metabolism through cultivation of a sense of purpose and buy in. That is represented by the upper nodes on the concept web above, correct?

You have me thinking of Plato and his Allegory of the Cave in connection to a networked organization. Is that too tired of a Western model to hold up to your fresher model that harnesses the potential of technology and collective intelligence? If the network is not in balance, how does the "network builder" initiate change and self-governance without reverting to a traditional leader (openly or covertly)? Otherwise, mutiny could occur in a network of ignorance rather than intelligence. It's a bit of a conundrum that I'm wrestling with in the networked organization model. Am I completely off track here? Thank you in advance.