Mountains of books have been written about leadership. Seminars and lectures on the subject abound. Articles listing X things a good leader never does, and X things to always do if one wants to be a leader. But is it all a bunch of theory with no real substance?
A recent conversation got me to wondering about this. A friend is a died in the wool supporter of Obama. He stated that he feels Obama is one of the world’s great leaders. Now I don’t share that opinion, so I began to wonder about how one person can view someone as a great leader and another, seeing the same facts, views him/her as a total failure, much less a great leader.
You and most of your peers can view your boss as a great leader, but the employee that just got disciplined or fired probably doesn’t share that opinion. So, is leadership really just in the eye of the beholder?
Put ten people in a room and ask them to state the one most important trait that a great leader must have and you will likely get ten different words. Courage, vision, tenacity, energy, fairness, morals, and the list can become endless. And each trait applies to varying degrees to any given situation. Hitler was a great leader. But, no one would say he was moral, ethical, or treated his followers fairly. So, what is the one thing that all leaders must have to be a leader? Followers. Without those there is no leadership.
So, is our endless search for defining leadership really just a search for ways to attract followers? Can a person become a leader without any intention to be one? Can personality, and rhetoric, or job expertise cause one to become a leader? Can a vacuum of leadership cause a person to “fall” into that role without seeking it? Doesn’t job title and the power that comes with that automatically make one a leader? Does power make one a great leader? Of course not, but a leader just the same.
Perhaps our search for defining words for leadership is really a search for what potential followers wish to see in their leaders. Is leadership really just based on giving people some of what is most important to them? Whether your desire is gay rights, a ban on abortion, border control, or a strong military you are likely to view an elected official that promotes that issue as a great leader. So, then one could make a strong argument that leadership is in the eye of the beholder and that eye is largely controlled by self-interest.
Good points, Massimo and often the case.
Yes Ken… Hitler was Time magazine’s “Man of The Year” in 1938… so… it seems reasonable to conclude that for TRUE LEADERSHIP (not a two-bit one) is not enough knowing what to do, pursuing your objectives, and showing the way forward … Why? Because in my view a thorough framework for leadership requires much more than a superficial look at some features. It demands a deeper analysis OF HOW LEADERSHIP IS APPLIED, BOTH ON A POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE LIGHT.
I’ve always thought that TRUE LEADERSHIP has ideals. People like that, don’t let their pragmatism (also important) kill the dream, and the persons they want to be.
If I had to describe True Leadership (my view) in a few words, I would say that a True Leader understands the need that others can’t see, even when the whole process of society (or any group) is unconscious or distorted, and takes the opposite direction, changes the context, changes the rules of the game, and creates a new inclusive paradigm of exponential innovation, IN THE MENTALITY OF THE PEOPLE. Why did I say “Innovation”? Because “Innovation” of thought, in the minds of people, (of course not to the detriment of the others) is the main tool of mankind to evolve, to make the “nest” comfortable.
As for me, True leadership means bringing out the best in people, not the worst. It means leading to human progress, not human regression. it means being a catalyst FOR GOOD.
I don’t know what else to say, Ken. Thank you for your article. Thank you Dennis.