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?

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.