This is an interesting point that has been emerging quite a bit, lately – the idea that we recognize leadership after the fact. I don’t fully buy into the fact of the assertion, nor the value – even if it were true, what would we do with that information? How do we prepare for something that we cannot predict or produce beforehand, but can only identify by unearthing its consequences afterward?

You’re right about the communication issue. To some extent, maybe even usually, it’s not really a problem as long as we all do manage to follow each other. But the concern here is also that the laxity opens the door for the words to actually change meaning – for example, for the definition of leadership to take on elements of the definition of heroism. Sometimes this causes us to lose the thread of each others’ conversation even while we think we’re still on track.

Thanks for stopping in with this, Lee – it likely calls for more thinking and elaboration – thanks!

“Bloated adjectives” – that’s a pretty descriptive phrase!

Here’s another: “craving independence and, at the same time, wishing to have a mythical-like ‘leader’ to adore and follow”

Bingo. But if we want to be professional and effective managers, we ought to start by being responsible, mature adults.

Your last point is right on the money, as well – that these attributes may, and often do, partake of one another does not make them equate one to the other.

As usual, your comment seems more effective to me than the post!

Thanks for stopping in with this, Steve.

My effort here was to pick away at just one aspect of the overwrought depictions of individual leadership. I only hope I am beginning to figure out how to more effectively do that.

Thanks for stopping in, Fred.

I like Fred’s notion of the words blurring.

The idea of attaching bloated adjectives to all aspects of leadership–thus inducing the “leader as super-hero” portrait–is both inaccurate and self-defeating. I’m always fascinated by the human condition craving independence and, at the same time, wishing to have a mythical-like ‘leader’ to adore and follow.

The examples at work and in government are endless that show the situation nature of one’s performance as well as the ‘popularity’ swings once the person’s mortality is revealed. Yet we somehow still want to go down that same path again and again, regardless of the research and even the experiences we have with this.

A hero will, indeed, most likely display some form of leadership in order to receive the ‘heroic’ designation. Leaders may do something heroic but earn the ‘leader’ title by purposeful participation in, and orchestration of, an effort over time.

Another well-written and thought-provoking post, Jim.