Someone once said that there are as many definitions of leadership as there are of love. Most definitions floating around are without any thread of similarity except for the word leadership, conveying nothing precise. For some it is a concept, for some it is an attribute, and for others it is a way of doing things. Ultimately, one has to agree that the similarity with love is not only on the numerous definitions, but also on the vagueness of the concept itself. We know leadership when we see it, but ask us to define it, we start fumbling. However, having a commonly accepted definition is important to get your organisation on the same page.
In the past 50 years, there have been more than 65 broad classifications of leadership. Probably the least popular among them might be the one centred around the position theme, that is, leadership is the result of a position or designation that a person adorns. It is good that it is not well-accepted because it misses all key points about the purpose and hallmarks of effective leadership. After examining great many definitions I have come to the conclusion that there are three broad themes defining leadership — as an act, property and process.
Leadership is an act: This centres around the fact that leadership is defined by what a leader does, which in most cases is his responsibility or what he is trying to achieve. Leadership guru John Maxwell sums up his definition as “leadership is influence — nothing more, nothing less”. This moves beyond the designation that defines a leader, towards his ability to influence others — both those who would consider themselves followers, and those outside that circle.
Indirectly, it also builds in leadership character, since without maintaining integrity and trustworthiness, the capability to influence will disappear. The US Air Force relies on a similar definition of leadership. According to it, leadership is the art of influencing and directing people in such a way that it will win their obedience, confidence, respect and loyal cooperation in achieving common objectives.
Leadership is a property: As per this theme, leadership is a set of qualities attributed to those who are perceived to successfully employ them while achieving certain objectives. People who rely on this theme agree that it involves certain actions and objectives, but for them more important are beliefs, values, ethics, character, charisma, knowledge and skills that help in accomplishing those objectives. For example, Warren Bennis’ leadership definition focuses on the capability of the leader: “Leadership is a function of knowing yourself, having a vision that is well communicated, building trust among colleagues and taking effective action to realise your own leadership potential.”
Leadership is a process: Many contemporary definitions often reject the idea that leadership revolves around the leader’s ability, behaviour, style or charisma. Today, scholars like Joseph Rost discuss the basic nature of leadership in terms of the ‘interaction’ among the people involved in the process: both leaders and followers. Thus, leadership is not the work of a single person. Rather, it can be defined as a collaborative endeavour among group members. It is a dynamic, relational process involving interactions among leaders, members and sometimes outside constituencies. Therefore, the essence of leadership is not the leader, but the relationship. Leadership thinkers Dorwin Cartwright and Alvin Zander agree with this definition. “Leadership is about moving the group toward its goals by improving the quality of interactions among the members, building the cohesiveness of the group and making resources available to the group. In principle, leadership may be performed by one or many members of the group,” they say.
Ultimately, whichever way you define leadership, someone else may do it differently. However, it still remains important that before your organisation or group can move forward, you must come up with a way of thinking about leadership that everyone can agree upon.
In the past 50 years, there have been more than 65 broad classifications of leadership. Probably the least popular among them might be the one centred around the position theme, that is, leadership is the result of a position or designation that a person adorns. It is good that it is not well-accepted because it misses all key points about the purpose and hallmarks of effective leadership. After examining great many definitions I have come to the conclusion that there are three broad themes defining leadership — as an act, property and process.
Leadership is an act: This centres around the fact that leadership is defined by what a leader does, which in most cases is his responsibility or what he is trying to achieve. Leadership guru John Maxwell sums up his definition as “leadership is influence — nothing more, nothing less”. This moves beyond the designation that defines a leader, towards his ability to influence others — both those who would consider themselves followers, and those outside that circle.
Indirectly, it also builds in leadership character, since without maintaining integrity and trustworthiness, the capability to influence will disappear. The US Air Force relies on a similar definition of leadership. According to it, leadership is the art of influencing and directing people in such a way that it will win their obedience, confidence, respect and loyal cooperation in achieving common objectives.
Leadership is a property: As per this theme, leadership is a set of qualities attributed to those who are perceived to successfully employ them while achieving certain objectives. People who rely on this theme agree that it involves certain actions and objectives, but for them more important are beliefs, values, ethics, character, charisma, knowledge and skills that help in accomplishing those objectives. For example, Warren Bennis’ leadership definition focuses on the capability of the leader: “Leadership is a function of knowing yourself, having a vision that is well communicated, building trust among colleagues and taking effective action to realise your own leadership potential.”
Leadership is a process: Many contemporary definitions often reject the idea that leadership revolves around the leader’s ability, behaviour, style or charisma. Today, scholars like Joseph Rost discuss the basic nature of leadership in terms of the ‘interaction’ among the people involved in the process: both leaders and followers. Thus, leadership is not the work of a single person. Rather, it can be defined as a collaborative endeavour among group members. It is a dynamic, relational process involving interactions among leaders, members and sometimes outside constituencies. Therefore, the essence of leadership is not the leader, but the relationship. Leadership thinkers Dorwin Cartwright and Alvin Zander agree with this definition. “Leadership is about moving the group toward its goals by improving the quality of interactions among the members, building the cohesiveness of the group and making resources available to the group. In principle, leadership may be performed by one or many members of the group,” they say.
Ultimately, whichever way you define leadership, someone else may do it differently. However, it still remains important that before your organisation or group can move forward, you must come up with a way of thinking about leadership that everyone can agree upon.