I have heard multiple people in "leadership" positions quote Gallup's statistic that 97% of people self identifying themselves as "above average" leaders. This means 97% of people consider themselves leaders with a disproportionate 3% following them. Now I can experientially testify to the majority of the 97% of people polled as being either delusional or failing to comprehending what leadership is. My inkling is to lean towards the latter. If this is true, then it leads me to ponder what the elusive word, "leadership" actually means.
A quick Google search resulted in a plethora of subjective definitions and thoughts on leadership. The one consensus I found was leadership is considered a noun. In my scouring of the web I came across a
blog that put a nuance on the term, which shifted my initial inquiry. The blog articulated, "leadership is not about your position, title, personality, traits, skills or competencies. Leadership is about being deeply connected to a purpose and vision you care about, and then working to make it happen."
My original hypothesis, supported by my very unscientific search tool, amalgamated with my experiences and opinions have led to conclude people define leadership in the ways this quote rejects. People discuss leadership in terms of position, titles, personality, traits, skills or competencies. However, these are ramifications, outcomes, and products of people's passions, purpose, and visions materializing. It is only in the materialization of someone's passion, purpose, and vision where he or she can be placed atop of the corporate ladder and afforded the title, position, and compensation (not always monetary) which gains them the attributed and coveted title "leader."
This leads me back to the Gallup stat. How can so many people misinterpret leadership, let alone label themselves as "above average." Would I be to bold to suggest fear? Fear is an antonym or something we don't readily associate with leadership. Yet, if we make leadership about position, titles, personality, traits, skills, or competencies, then there is no risk, no passion, no purpose or vision required. Fear does not enter into this equation. However, leadership is not something to be acquired, passed down, handed to, or inherent. Leadership is about compelling people to follow you. It requires you to act. To risk yourself. To stand up and declare who you are, where you stand, and what you intend to do. People want to follow people like this. Consequently, choosing this path is scary. The possibility of failure is around every corner. I wonder if this isn't the reason why so many people define leadership in terms of position, titles, personality, traits, skills, and competencies? It awards them the title without the work or risk of failure. They can be measured and even exceed, but without passion, purpose, and vision accompanied with the gumption and fortitude to bring their beliefs into reality, then I don't think we can declare them leaders.
How do you define yourself? Can you describe your passions, your purpose, and vision for your life? Are you courageously walking towards your calling? If you don't know, then you might be a victim of Gallup's poll. I know for far too long I have...
The Week's Top Links That Caught My Eye
- Apparently your reputation is everything
- The truth about where our tax dollars are spent
- Why people are drawn to simplicity over truth?
- Gender pay: lets map it out
- Body Language
- What does your sleeping position say about your relationship?
- The argument continues: What's more dangerous marijuana or alcohol?
- What would happen if more companies were like GE?
- 5 Ways to get anyone to do anything
- Always communicate the Why
- Good Friday Reflection
Welcome to San Jose
