What is (L)eadership?
When working with clients, I often get asked to break down the difference between Leadership, leadership, Leader, and leader. While it may seem on the surface to be mere capitalization or semantics, we learn and ascribe key differences to each of these terms that it’s important to unpack.
What seems like a straightforward question actually taps into a fairly complex concept. We all have an idea of what leadership is, but it often varies from person to person. Leadership involves guiding, motivating, and sometimes pushing a group of people towards the achievement of a desired goal. The assignment of a title, like CEO or Director, often establishes a leadership role by default; however, leadership goes much deeper than simply getting a group of people to work as a cohesive unit.
Authority, power, and prominence are often associated with Leaders. That’s uppercase “L” leaders. These people may be at the head of a large company or sitting in a position of political power, but the fame that comes with their positions does not necessarily mean they possess the traits of a good leader.
Leaders do not need to have a title attached to their name. Anybody can be a leader, regardless of their rank or title. If you were to ask a hundred people on the streets what qualities they associate with good leaders you are bound to hear a few recurrent ones like vision, humility, bravery, expertise, empathy, passion, and decisiveness. The combination of these qualities produces individuals who are fit to lead, no matter what position they hold within a group of people.
The obligations and responsibilities tied to leadership posts are borne by the people who occupy them, Leaders. The manner in which these obligations and responsibilities are executed by the Leaders is what determines whether it is good leadership or bad leadership.
This is another place where uppercase “L” Leadership doesn’t always match up with lowercase “l” leadership. The Leadership of a group can’t always operate in a way that drives results, so informal leadership may pop up within the group to compensate.
Leadership as a practice has evolved over time. It doesn’t come in a “one size fits all” package. Leadership styles are distinct to each leader.
Democratic leaders value collaborative input and take it under consideration before making important decisions. In contrast, autocratic leaders make decisions without consultation. Their word is law. Leaders who prefer a hands-off approach favor the laissez-fare model. The teams they manage are expected to be self-sufficient and able to make independent decisions.
Transactional leadership is quid pro quo in nature. Transactional leaders dangle carrots in front of those they are in charge of. It’s not appropriate in every situation, but it can be an effective way of getting people to stay motivated doing tedious work.
Leaders who believe that people are diamonds in the rough waiting to be polished tend to adopt the coaching style of leadership. They are confident that they can identify and unlock hidden potential within members of their team, turning an ordinary person extraordinary.
While it is possible to work with one set style, more often than not great leaders tend to borrow ideas from different styles to come up with their own unique leadership blend.
Great leaders can shift perceptions, successfully move masses and actively motivate individuals to be the best versions of themselves. They can do all this without a title, away from the spotlight. They do so by connecting to their followers on a human level. Empathizing and figuring out what motivates them.
If you have been reading my blog you must have noticed that I do love a good movie every now and then. In the Gladiator maximus says, “What we do in life echoes in eternity.” Great leaders leave a legacy that is never forgotten, what legacy will you leave behind when you are gone?
