Definitions of Leadership

"What is your definition of leadership?"  A difficult question if I ever heard one-you might as well ask me what the meaning of life is.  I hate such seemingly rhetorical questions, because it's impossible to come up with a single correct answer.  Many have certainly tried, but as I found out in class last week, those definitions changed drastically in a matter of years.  Which one is right?  The answer-quite possibly none of them, but it's just as likely that all of them are right too.  I wouldn't be able to pick one out-who am I to judge, after all?  However, I did have to come up with my own definition of leadership, and eventually I decided that leadership is the ability to oversee, support, and be supported by a group of people working towards a common goal.  At least it was easier than picking an existing definition.


I should explain my exact meaning.  When I think of leaders (people), all of the obvious choices run through my head-Martin Luther King, Ronald Reagan, the Dalai Lama, etc.  What do all these people (and many more) have in common?  They all represented a group of people with common interests, hopes, and goals.  MLK lead African-Americans on the path to greater civil rights, Ronald Reagan was elected by the people of the United States to lead the country, and the Dalai Lama advocates for a group of like-minded, spirituality-based Tibetans.  All were heads of a very large group of people, guiding them towards common interests.  Thus, my definition of being a leader is people who are able to do exactly that.


However, being a leader is not quite the same thing as leadership in general.  I want to distinguish between people who actually do so and people who only have the ability-having the ability does not make one a leader.  While that trait is great and admirable, I don't think a leader is a leader unless they are recognized as such.  As bad as it sounds, I think it follows logic-without recognition, one can say he is anything he wants to be, and he'll be both right and wrong.  If you ask me, my definitions are as follows-leadership is the physical act of leading, while leaders are people who act on the act of leading.


Looking back on the first day of class, I now find that my definition is very similar to that from the 1930s-"Leadership is a process in which the activities of many are organized to move in a specific direction by one".  This definition is closest with mine in that it emphasizes the process-the act of guiding, nurturing, and leading-rather than influence or relationships, as is present in definitions from other decades.  I think this revelation is kind of interesting-maybe I'm just old fashioned?  But then again, as I've said before, I don't think there's one single correct definition.