Believe it or not, there are three kinds of leadership that have nothing to do with being in charge of people. Maybe we need a new definition of leadership, one that is broader than occupying a formal role with authority over people.
Leadership Defined
When you think about the meaning of leadership, you’re likely to ask yourself what kind of person does it take to be in charge of a team of people. This question presupposes what is at issue, that you must be in charge of a team to be a leader. Let’s ask a different question: What is the function or purpose of leadership? Surely the purpose or function of leadership is to gain the commitment of people to a course of action, goal or vision. This idea says nothing about being a certain type of person or of having authority over others. Leadership that serves this function or purpose can be an occasional impact rather than an ongoing role.
Three Kinds of Leadership
The following 3 kinds of leadership share a critical feature: you don’t have to be in charge of a team to show any of these kinds of leadership. Also, it is about showing leadership, not about being a leader.
- Advocating a new direction
- Leading by example
- Engaging leadership
1. Advocating a New Direction
The most familiar instance of leadership that advocates a new direction or a better way is the leadership of Martin Luther King, Jr. He had a leadership impact on millions of people by passionately advocating for better treatment of African Americans. His leadership influenced the general public and various levels of the US government. It had nothing to do with getting things done through a team of people. His leadership did not amount to being in charge of a team; it was a one-off impact on people, one that can still be felt today. This kind of leadership can also be shown by innovators when they convince their bosses to adopt a new product or service. We can call this bottom-up leadership, which again does not involve being in charge of those who follow: the senior management team.
2. Leading by Example
Anyone can lead by example without being in a formal authority role. Front-line employees or customer service staff who work more efficiently, with greater energy, creativity or flair, can set an example for their colleagues, even without intending to have a leadership impact on them. Moreover, leading by example is not limited to individuals. Whole countries can lead by example, say by developing novel energy sources that influence other countries to follow their example. Often, we follow the example set by others without even being aware of it. This is the basis of the old saying “actions speak louder than words.” That is, people often follow what we do (our example) more readily than what we say. Leading by example works whenever it gains the commitment of people to a new way of working, direction or vision.
3. Engaging Leadership
Engaging leadership asks people engaging questions of the form “What do you think?” or “What do you want?” to encourage them to think differently. This way of leading can serve the purpose of gaining the commitment of people to a course of action, goal or vision. Engaging questions make use of what is called a ‘pull’ style of influence. Advocating a better way is based on a ‘push’ style of influence.
What is Engaging Leadership?
Engaging leadership is a step beyond what we have traditionally called participative or democratic leadership. These older styles of leadership are passively open to the input of others. Engaging leadership is more proactive because it actively draw ideas out of others with engaging questions.
Many organizations recognize the importance of partnerships today. We need to show leadership to many people over whom we have no formal authority because they work in partner organizations. Sometimes we can sell our own vision of what needs to be done to influence prospective partners. But we will often win more commitment from them if we can foster shared ownership by facilitating the ‘co-creation’ of solutions. The goal, as with all leadership, is to gain the commitment of people to a course of action, goal or vision. This is where engaging leadership can be more powerful than other styles, especially when the target group of followers does not report to us.
By asking engaging questions of the form “What do you think would be a solution you could accept?” Or, “What do you want? What are your top priorities and how can we help you meet them?” When your prospective partners run out of suggestions you can ask: “How do you feel that X would work for you?” This is still an engaging question but one where you make a suggestion in the form of a question, one that helps to foster a sense of inclusion and engagement with your partners in any resulting plan or decision. Shared ownership generally creates greater commitment to a course of action, goal or vision than advocacy which can leave partners with a ‘not invented here’ feeling.
Conclusion
We need to move away from the idea that leadership means being in charge of people. This outdated notion is too static in an increasingly fast changing, dynamic world. New directions are today more knowledge driven than authority based. We therefore need to look to a wider range of sources for new directions, new forms of leadership in effect. More and more people are clamoring to be heard, to have their say in deciding new directions. The idea of leadership as a heroic individual providing direction to everyone else is obsolete in an era where much more emphasis needs to be placed on shared ownership of plans and decisions.
You could argue that the 3 kinds of leadership listed here are peripheral, that most instances of leadership do in fact entail being in charge of a team. However, it can be argued that such role occupants are managers by virtue of their role although they can SHOW leadership as needed. Also, the point of the 3 leadership styles discussed here is simply that we can’t define leadership in terms of being in charge of a team of people, if it is possible to show leadership in any other way. Hence, the need for a broader definition, which can be achieved by focusing on the purpose or function of leadership instead of starting with the assumption that it means being a certain type of person or a role occupant.
See also: Leadership, Not a Role