Do leaders lead?
June 7, 2008 by Miki Saxon
Post from Leadership Turn Image credit: Jonas B
Argh, it’s making me crazy. I am sick and tired of seeing the word ‘leader’ in conjunction with a name just because that person is in front of the line or at the top of the heap. That does not make them a leader.
Just last week I wrote about temporary leaders and last fall I ranted on that the L word was used and abused.
At that time, Rhett Laubach cited John Maxwell’s definition of leadership—influence, but there must be more than that, whether positive or negative, to the mantle of leader.
I think that ‘leader’ and ‘leadership’ are thrown around much too freely.
What do you think?
Miki, leaders are just that…leaders. They are ones who influence others, motivate teams and get people to (otherwise) do things that they would normally NOT do. Good or bad. I don’t think I fully understand what it is that you want leaders to represent. Anyone who is in the forefront is a leader, albeit a not-so-good one maybe. We can’t change how a person leads or even convince them that they’re not even that good. But, if they are out front, they made it there somehow, right? If they weren’t effective at what they did, just how did they get to where they are? Leaders are leaders are leaders…
Hi Bridget, Nope. Leaders are leaders and they may do everything you say, but they don’t have to be out front or up top to do those things. Furthermore, the ability to manage up and get promoted doesn’t prove that they can do those things. The Peter Principle exists and, IMHO, leadership isn’t positional.
Absolutely, the word “leader” is used too often for people who are not leaders. They may be bosses or high profile people, but title and position do not make a person a leader.
Right on, Casey, my point exactly!