The method you use now is terrific – Socratic – drawing self-generated, from abstract thought to personal experience, definitions of leadership into practical, concrete examples of action and its effects at work. What a great way to get people thinking in useful ways about what leadership at work really is – forcing them not just to navel-gaze about it, but to put it to work – really great! I wish I could have an opportunity to observe what happens in these classes!

Thanks – thoughtful and thought-provoking stuff here.

Now I offer them a selection of definitions from thoughtful people and tell them to pick any or all that they find helpful. I share Drucker’s idea that the only thing we can say for sure about leaders is that they have followers.

Then we move on to defining what leaders do. The exercise involves identifying a time when they experienced effective leadership. Work groups develop lists of what great leaders DO, based on their experience.

Whenever someone resorts to an abstract concept, others ask, “What did that leader do that gets you to describe him/her that way?”

Your use of these two terms together is instructive. I would agree that I sometimes feel as though I recognize the one in much the same way as the other.

You made my day – thanks!

I like your distinction between moral influence and morals. Another way to view moral influence is as an operating social environment in which people collaborate. In that context, the “objectively discoverable morality” you refer to might be the organizational culture that provides the best outcome.

This strikes me as an excellent goal for management to bend its efforts toward.

Those are just some thoughts springing into view from your comment – as you always do, you’ve provided a lot to think about – thanks!

I appreciate very much your visit and your thought-provoking take on this. I linked over to your sites (which is to be encouraged) – “The Death of Leadership” – that’s good! I look forward to more learning more about what you mean by it.

As for me, I am generally not a fan of the concept of individual leadership – I think it does considerably more damage than good – at least to the intended beneficiaries, which are organizations, their shareholders, and their employees – and particularly as promoted by the modern leadership movement and as sought after by their market.

I see far more productive use in bosses seeing themselves as managers rather than leaders. Moreover, I see leadership as something that transcends individuals – especially those at the top – and which is best managed – not expressed – by managers.

Please continue your visits so we can discuss this further (I have also subscribed to your site).

Thanks again for your visit!

Thanks for stopping by with your kind words – and, as always, for your excellent work and writing!

Leadership is moral influence. That is to say, it is not defined as influencing the morals of people (though it may do that), but it is defined as the influence of others in a way that conforms with universal and objectively discoverable morality.

And you’re right that there are some things that are different about leaders. The personal challenge facing all of us, though, is figuring out what leadership means to us. What our personal leadership style is.

A guy asked me three years ago what he ought to do, or start doing, to become a great leader. I didn’t know how to respond for a moment, then out of nowhere I said maybe it’s not about what we ought to START doing. Maybe to be a good leader you just have to figure out what we should STOP doing. Maybe some of us need to get out of our own way.

With my wife Jacqueline Moore I wrote ‘The Seven Failings of Really Useless Leaders’ as a stab at this idea. Anyhow, good luck with this conversation. I look forward to hearing more over the next few days.

Where do you stand on this, Jim? You kept your opinions out of the post pretty well, I’d say.

Take care
Steven

Regards,
Nina