A New Definition of Leadership
The word “leadership” is notoriously difficult to define with any consensus—it means different things to different people.
For me, it means responsibility. To some of my colleagues, leadership is conditional and a reflection of who you are. My co-author, Jeff Eggers, has the Bass Handbook of Leadership on his bookshelf at home. He doesn’t carry it around because it’s about 5 pounds. Yet, for him, it acts as something of a source book for those studying leadership, and it claims that “often a two-day meeting to discuss leadership has started with a day of argument over the definition.”
A main concern with leadership has to do with how we generally define leadership, or how we think of it.
The Mythology Surrounding Leadership
Most people define leadership as a process—meaning it describes the actions and effects of the leader. Other times, people speak in causal and process terms: a person’s “leadership” style consisted of traits A, B, and C, and their “leadership” achieved results X, Y, and Z. In this popular usage, the word leadership is shorthand for what the leader does.
For years, humans have searched for the secret of leadership by studying why certain leaders achieve enviable results where others do not. People believe—wrongly—that what happened in one's leadership instance can be replicated in another.
The True Meaning of Leadership
Our book, Leaders: Myth and Reality, offers a new definition for leadership. Namely, we argue that leadership is less a process enacted by the leader, and rather the emergent product of a system that includes leaders, followers, and their specific context. This new paradigm allows us to attribute causality to a wider array of factors. Moreover, it allows leadership to become contextual, wherein what “works” in one instance may not work in another.
Most interesting, this reframed definition of leadership allows for the idea that followers are responsible for the emergence of a leader. It also gives followers more agency to hold that leader accountable for their behavior. In short, leadership is hinged on the relationship between a given leader, their followers and a particular set of circumstances.
This piece was adapted from the answer to "What does leadership mean to you?" that was asked during a recent Quora Session I hosted along with my co-authors, Jeff Eggers and Jason Mangone. It has been previously published on Forbes.
Leaders: Myth and Reality
The best-selling author of Team of Teams exposes the mythology of leadership by profiling leaders whose real stories defy their legends.
Assistant Professor, Greensboro Technical Community College
5 年I do not get it, I follow you and appreciate the articles you post, I also follow several other leader/leader trainers and there are so many aspects of leadership. With so many of you out there and all this great information why is it that Stanford published the other year that the vast majority of employees would rather see their boss fired rather than receive an increase in remuneration from their employer? Where is the disconnect between what all of you trainers are espousing and what reality is for a majority of the employees out there?
Chief Financial Director at Child, Youth & Families Department
5 年Stan, I admire your innovative approach to defining leadership and believe?the true value comes from expanding on the "process" and "traits" components of leadership, rather than replacing them. In terms of process, Berlo's model of communication includes four components: SENDER (leader), MESSAGE (mission, vision, objective), CHANNEL (how the message is communicated), and RECEIVER (followers). NOISE is anything that interferes with a message being received as intended. (A recent example?of this is the "noise" the Democrats are creating in response to Donald Trump's message about The Wall.)?Assuming?all four components?have been properly designed, noise at any stage of the process?makes a leader less effective. If Berlo's model is modified to be circular(the receiver?is constantly providing feedback to the sender) rather than linear, I think it accomplishes the same thing you are suggesting without abandoning the process component of leadership. In regards to leadership traits, in The Art of War, Sun Tzu characterized leadership as a mix of five traits: Intelligence, Credibility, Humaneness, Courage, and Discipline. While the list of possible traits is endless, a leader lacking in any of these?core?five will be less effective.
Program Manager
5 年Certainly don’t disagree with the concept. I do wonder if what’s being offered as a “new” definition of leadership is fully accurate though. Situational leadership has been around for some time and I would submit that good leaders often apply situational leadership approaches/styles more often than not. Call it what you want, “contextualizing leadership, situational, etc.” I think it all hovers around the same concept. Just my opinion.
Senior Supervisory Investigator
5 年Wonderful book. It is the absolute perfect follow up to Team if Teams. Have you ever considered a companion to these books for leaders to use to facilitate discussions with subordinate leaders and peers?