Here is my definition of leadership: leadership is a dynamic, interactive process of creating, communicating and transforming vision into reality. As I have recently reflected on this definition, I discovered that I have focused more on the role of the leader than the process of leadership. So much of what I have been reading lately emphasizes the traits, characteristics, skills, mindset and actions of the leader rather than the process of the concept of leadership.
I began studying leadership several years ago out of a desire to become a more effective leader. When I began to formulate my leadership definition I failed to realign my thinking with my discoveries. If effective leadership involves a dynamic process then it is the process itself that is of uttermost importance, not the individual leader. Now, I do understand that the process is made up of people and relationships and communication, but maybe the role of the specific leader has been over emphasized to the detriment of understanding the process itself. A particular leader is only effective if he/she can make the process work.
There are many theorists and scholars in the area of organizational leadership that would challenge my definition of leadership, but I have found it meaningful and practical in my limited experience as an individual with some leader responsibilities. A more traditional approach to leadership provides leaders and followers; the leaders develop the vision, design the plan and share the specifics with the followers; the followers, then, take the plan and make it happen; the leader points the way and motivates the followers in order to accomplish the goals of the organization. This is pretty simplistic, but the real disconnect here is the division between the role of the leader and the role of the follower. My view of leadership blurs those lines to the place that leadership can be (and should be) a collaborative process.... so dynamic and interactive that many individuals play a leadership role from time to time. An effective leader is a facilitator of the process, not a dictator of an agenda... or a charismatic voice that inspires the masses... or a parental figurehead that guides the sheep along the narrow way.
If a positional leader (one who holds a position of responsibility within an organization) has a dream and wants to make that dream come true, he/she had better surround him/herself with talented, gifted people. And if a positional leader has a quality, qualified team, then he/she had better facilitate that team in the process of leadership. Without the skills of delegation and empowerment, the positional leader will never bring effective leadership into the organization. Now, don't get me wrong... a charismatic individual can amass a following and a coercive CEO that rules with intimidation and power can get lots of things done with efficiency and profitability, but in my opinion, the results have not been accomplished through leadership.
True leadership occurs when a dynamic process occurs. The team enters into debate, discussion and dialog about the purpose, mission and vision of the organization (or project). The team interacts and interfaces with one another as both colleagues and personal stakeholders in the issues on the table. The flow of ideas, concepts, insights, along with resistance and support result in brainstorming from all directions. When true leadership is taking place, the fly on the wall might not be aware of who the positional leader is at all. The roles of the leader and/or follower bend and shift within the dynamic nature of the process. Just some thoughts as I wrestle just a bit with my own definition.
