What Is Leadership?

What exactly is this thing we call leadership? According to Dictionary.com, leadership refers to “the position or function of a leader,” “a person who guides or directs a group,” “the ability to lead,” or “an act of leading.” On this account, it seems that a “leader” is a person who “leads” others, while the term “leadership” simply describes the ability or function as such. But many would argue that such definitions fail to convey what leadership actually is.

Leadership is one of these subjects that, in recent years, has enjoyed a surge in popularity. If you visit the business section of your local bookstore, you'll find the number of books written on leadership is quite intimidating. And if you browse through a few of them, you'll find that the so-called experts don't even agree on the specifics of what leadership is! But more often than not, and despite varying terminology, they do generally agree that leadership is something very much akin to influence. This may explain why author John C. Maxwell, in his book The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership, says that “leadership is influence—nothing more, nothing less.” On this view, leading a person is synonymous with influencing them. Whether a leader leads (influences) one person or millions, they are still embodying leadership, albeit on different levels.

But isn't Maxwell's definition a little extreme? Isn't equating leadership with influence an unjustified oversimplification? I don't believe so. One reason is because a distinction can be made between a “leader” and a “position of leadership.” Very often, leaders tend to be associated with the latter. In other words, if a person holds a position or title which provides them with authority over others, people often assume they are a leader. But this is fallacious. It's true that a person in a “position of leadership” may very well be a leader, but it's also true that regardless of a person's position or title, if they have no real influence with people, they won't have any followers. It's also true that a person could have no position or title at all, and yet have an enormous amount of influence with their peers.

When I was in high school I worked in the meat department at a local grocery store. My boss was the manager of the department. As my manager, he held a position of authority over me, but did this make him a leader? If leadership is based on position, it would seem that it did. But did his position alone ensure that he had the ability to lead? Would his managerial role guarantee that I, or anyone else under his authority, would follow him? Would his position guarantee his influence with me and others? Of course one could argue that his position did make him a leader because, after all, he did have authority over me. Thus, I had to do what he said, and if I didn't, my job would be at stake. But such objections miss the point. Authority and power do not embody the essence of leadership any more than a mere “position of leadership” does. Does a criminal display “an act of leadership” when he forces a citizen to hand over his wallet at gunpoint? This leads us to an additional observation.

True leadership can only exist in an environment rooted in voluntarism. Leadership cannot be mandated, nor can it involve force or coercion. True influence can only be granted to a leader on a voluntary basis. In other words, a leader's followers must follow him willingly. While it's true that a person can be “influenced” to do something via threats or intimidation, no one in their right mind would call such a thing leadership. Thus, I believe Maxwell is justified in defining leadership as influence, but it's worth noting that such influence can only be obtained by voluntary consent. Influence on the basis of coercion is not leadership, but manipulation.