The Meaning of Leadership

There are numerous perceptions that people hold regarding the meaning of leadership.  In one very understated and cliché sense, we’re taught that projects are managed while people are led.  While this is true, it is unfortunately too often the sole basis on which corporate training programs are structured.

Even well developed management training programs that do a good job of defining and describing the attributes of effective leadership can be brilliantly illustrative in terms of content while failing to establish the appropriate context, i.e., the complexion, qualities, and virtues that superior leaders tend to share and the manner in which these traits are revealed.  In fact, most of the training I’ve received in business and as a manager has focused on the mechanics of the job – employee performance development and management, coaching, team development, training, etc., etc.   While the few true leadership components have done an admirable job of listing the performance actions and attributes that make managers successful, none have addressed the personal qualities and characteristics that make certain individuals exceptional leaders.

What is “Leadership” anyway?  Wikipedia defines leadership as “the ability of an individual to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organizations of which they are members.”  Reducing this to its core, leadership is influence.  Therefore, it stands to reason that influence becomes the true test of a person’s leadership.

Ironically, the ability to influence others, either in an organization or in the political arena, ultimately doesn’t depend on an individual’s title or position of authority.  Far too often, those in positions of “authority” confuse their ability to inflict their will on others (where authorized by their position or title) as a “right” of leadership.  This is frequently the case with new managers and those whose motivation for leadership is primarily based on a desire for authority in the form of personal control and power.  Such relationships may command respect in a superficial sense, but are void of trust and respect.  They are based solely on fear rather than empowerment and personal ownership, and offer no provision for alignment of ideas or ideals.

In this self-centric mindset, the emphasis on success is internal.  The success of both subordinate individuals and the team is viewed by the manager as being dependent upon his or her personal success.  These managers tend to believe that in order to validate their own value to the organization they must make themselves essential to the success of the team.  I see this in teams that are largely dysfunctional when the leader is absent.  Decisions cannot be made without the manager’s consent.  Personal ownership and accountability has been stifled.  There is little or no basis of trust in the competence and discretion of the team members.  This type of manager hordes power, controls rather than leads, and lacks the self confidence to allow subordinates or the entire team to excel in his absence.  They make the success of their team completely dependent upon their presence and participation.

I suggest that just the opposite is true of superior leaders – that the true measure of success for a leader is not how necessary he is to the team, but in fact how unnecessary he is.   This might sound radical and counter-intuitive, so let me explain.  Simply put, if a leader has truly done his job, the people who work for him should be able to function autonomously for an extended period of time without the necessity of his direct supervision.  They should all be aligned both individually and collectively with the organizational vision and goals.  They should each have a strong sense of personal ownership and accountability, both to their leader and to each other.  They should exhibit integrity and self-discipline.  They should be enthusiastic and self-motivated.  And finally, they should have a balanced sense of selflessness (teamwork) and drive for personal achievement.  This is the very essence of a high performing team, and the best managers and strongest leaders, in effect, actually make themselves less and less relevant as their teams become more and more self-sufficient.

The ability to influence others is a powerful and awesome responsibility.  Effective, superior leadership, under which individual and team performance is developed and cultivated to its highest potential, requires uncommon, illusive, and perhaps innate personal qualities.

Next Post:  The Qualities of a Superior Leader