What Is Leadership? Part II

This is the second post in a series on leadership. If you have not read the first post, I encourage you to do so before continuing.

In the previous post we explored the essence of leadership, which can be summarized as follows: Leadership is influence exercised on the basis of voluntary consent. This summary provides us with a working definition for leadership, but while this definition encapsulates leadership in its most fundamental form, there is still more to consider. Our next step will be identifying and explaining the things that must exist in order for leadership to exist. In short, we will attempt to answer the question: What (if anything) does leadership presuppose?

One thing that leadership must clearly presuppose is an acting agent, the leader himself. Obviously the notion of leadership cannot exist apart from a leader. Nor can it exist in the absence of potential followers. Without people to influence, there can be no leadership. None of this is very surprising. But it helps set the stage for a more important question: How does a leader exercise his influence?

Leaders exercise their influence through their actions. That is, through the things they say and the things they do. Put differently, leaders influence others by example of character (which is revealed through the things they say and do). Yet some actions are more conducive to leadership than others. It is always better to take personal responsibility, for instance, than it is to blame others. How, then, do leaders know which actions are more leadership-friendly? Do they possess a kind of natural knowledge of “what to do” in order to lead, or must they learn such things?

Many people believe that a person's leadership ability is tied to some inborn personality trait. But while it may be true that some of us have what seems to be a natural ability to lead, it would be wrong to assume that, without such natural abilities, a person cannot be a leader. Some people possess a great natural aptitude for mathematics. But if a person should lack such a mathematical aptitude, does this mean they cannot learn mathematics? Of course not. Leadership itself is something that, though characteristics of it may be possessed naturally, can nonetheless be learned. It is a skill that can be acquired by anyone—provided, of course, they are willing to learn and apply themselves. For the most part, leaders don't “just know” what to do in order to lead, they must learn such things from those leaders who have preceded them. In other words, before a person may become a leader, they must first become a student of leadership. In order to lead others, they must first lead themselves, so to speak. Thus, it seems that leadership must also presuppose a certain amount of personal development. As the saying goes “leaders are not born—they are made.”

Another thing that leadership presupposes is goal directedness. That is, leadership is always directed toward some end or goal. By definition, a leader leads or influences in a specific direction or toward a specified end, without which, leadership cannot exist in the first place. As discussed above, leaders exercise influence (lead) by virtue of their actions, which in turn, produce results. But these results are only intelligible because they are directed toward a specific goal or purpose. This explains why leadership is said to be results-focused. Whether a leader is leading a community of people, or attempting to influence a single person, their actions must necessarily be directed toward a specific result. What influence can a person have if it is not directed toward something?