Two terrible ways of thinking about leadership

Are you a leader? Yes or no? What a question. What is your instinctive response? And - perhaps more interestingly - what are your beliefs about leadership that inform that response? 

I want to propose two ways of thinking about what a leader is that are pretty common but very unhelpful. And one way of thinking about leadership that is less common but vastly more helpful.

Leadership as an ELEVATED POSITION

This is Leadership as a status you achieve - so you are going about your life and you are not a leader and then at some point someone appoints you or anoints you to an elevated position of leader. Your leadership status is confirmed - in a similar way to if you won an Oscar or got knighted - it is now public knowledge that you have this position.

In this view there are (of course) a limited number of these leadership positions so if you want one you need to be better than the other people who also want one. Without an elevated position you can’t lead. So Leadership is inherently competitive and involves quite a lot of waiting. But also - elevation is relative so in any room you are or you are not a leader depending on who else is around and how elevated they are. So you need to pay close (almost constant) attention to where you are in the pecking order to know if you are a leader or not - since you’re only a leader if you are in charge. But if you are in charge, you don't need to do anything in particular or behave in any particular way to be a leader. Because leadership is nothing more than an elevated position. This is pretty common way of thinking about what leadership is and i'm suggesting its terrible. It encourages leaders who are bureaucratic, political, and status driven without particularly shaping helpful Leadership behaviours.

Leadership as IDENTITY

Leadership is something you identify as - you have an internal felt sense of being a leader. And it's something others identify in you - it's a recognisable trait like “Ali is a real leader” or “I just don't see Joe as a leader”.

In this way of thinking being a leader is a bit like being an adult or an artist. You have to believe you are one and other people have to agree. It’s clear when someone defiantly is - but hard to articulate how they would get there if they aren’t - and it leaves a lot of grey area about exactly who is and who isn’t. Which can lead to a lot of self doubt - "am I really a leader?". It does see leadership as more than just an elevated status - which is good - but has its own problems. Leadership as identity relies quite heavily on some kind of shared prototype of what a leader looks like. But do all leaders look the same? And are the leaders of yesterday a perfect expression of what we need in leaders tomorrow? Anyone who doesn’t fit the mould might write themselves off or get written off by others. And this might get us predictable and banal leaders who are following a “leadership script” rather than the exciting diversity and wide representation that would enrich our world - where leaders improvise and innovate beyond the mould. As well as giving “safe” leaders, Leadership as identity actively incentivises overconfidence - “fake it till you make it”. But wouldn’t we rather have leaders with a bit more humility and sensitivity and a bit less bluster and entitlement?

So, are you a leader? 

Leadership as elevated position or leadership as identity both assume this is a yes or no question that can be answered absolutely. And they both make leadership all about you. Not about what you are doing or how you are influencing those around you. It's uncollaborative leadership at a time when the world is desperate for the opposite.

So what is the promised alternative perspective?

Leadership as ORIENTATION

I want to suggest that leadership is better thought of not as an elevated position or an identity but as an orientation. A stance that we can all take to any situation we find ourselves in, whatever our position, and whether or not we feel ready to declare ourselves as a leader. It's taking responsibility as an active collaborative participant in your arena, using your influence to bring about something you care about. 

It’s not exclusive - we want to find our teams brimming with Leadership - and it's not binary, we can all take little leadership steps - or grasp hold of leadership moments - without an identity transplant or a promotion ceremony.

And when we see Leadership as an orientation, it means encouraging leadership in those around us - because we are not clamouring for limited status or anxious about our identity - we are attempting to contribute and that’s going to take everyone’s leadership.

And Leadership as an orientation includes the healthy aspects of the other two ways of looking. In any given situation you need to actively orientate yourself towards Leadership.

And as you practice this orientation it's like a muscle we exercise - it becomes our habit  - we feel more like a leader and people start to recognise us as such. Leadership then becomes part of our identity. And in a healthy culture this will lead us to positions in which we are given more bureaucratic authority. But the status and the identity aren't the Leadership. The Leadership is continually orientating ourselves to the work using our influence positively.

The word leadership has roots in the old-English lædan (”to guide, or to bring forth”) and its close Indo-European Germanic relative laidjan (“to travel”). So leadership really is our ongoing orientation to bringing forth good things and the willingness to travel the road towards the things we care about.