Leadership: More Than a Buzzword

By Gamaliel Baer

Leadership is one of those buzzwords that get used a lot but also seem to mean something different, depending on who you ask. This is partly because leadership is used as a noun or a verb. 

As a noun, leadership describes the individual or group who makes decisions. This seems to hold true even if those decision-makers are not “senior leadership” or at the executive level.

When used as a noun, leadership appears to be synonymous with management. You could also use words like decision-makers, executives, directors, commanders, and other words to describe people in charge. 

But the word leadership is also used as a verb. Using leadership as a verb appears to invite the most dialogue and debate about meaning. Without a clear definition of what leadership as a verb means, we can’t accurately assess those who claim to be doing leadership.    

It’s natural for firefighters to assess the differences between one officer and another as officers promote or transfer out. And it’s common to hear about “leadership style” when assessing two or more decision-makers, because as new ranking members take a position, they will often tell you their “leadership philosophy” or style. 

But that begs the question: How do we compare styles for something we don’t have a proper definition for? The literature on leadership contains different definitions. Debating the style of something requires that thing is defined, because style is a subset of a thing. If we can’t agree on a definition, then there’s no use in debating styles.   

Leadership Themes

In the leadership literature, several themes exist within the many definitions. One theme by John Maxwell is, “leadership is influence, nothing more, nothing less.” 

A second theme that Peter Drucker captured is, “the only definition of a leader is someone who has followers.”

A third theme, by the U.S. Navy, is, “leadership is the art of motivating a group of people to act toward a common goal.” 

A fourth theme that Daniel Goleman captured is, “leadership is about making other people better as a result of your presence, and making sure that impact lasts in your absence.”

Leadership as a Noun vs Verb

It’s important to note we use leadership in conversation as both a noun and a verb. For instance, when someone says “we will need to talk with leadership about that decision,” they’re referring to a person or group of people in a position of power (a noun). 

When someone says, “I appreciate your leadership,” they’re referring to the way in which you did an action (a verb). This is the first distinction that needs to be made when talking about leadership. 

In the case of the four themes of leadership, all four refer to an action (verb). It may seem like Drucker is talking about a noun – “someone who has followers” – but he’s inferring the person who has followers has done something to gain those followers.

Ultimately, it does us no good to debate leadership as a noun because it just means someone (or some group) who is in charge.  

The Concept of Management

The four leadership themes capture the bulk of what you’ll find in the leadership literature, but there’s a problem. None of these themes, whether they’re considered individually or combined, are distinguishable from the concept of management. 

For example: Management science engages in influence. Managers can have followers; management science includes motivating people to act toward a common goal; management can be used to make people better and ensure the impact lasts in your absence. 

These four definitions of leadership (as a verb) don’t align with each other. So if we agree there are at least four different major definitions of leadership, then we would have to agree that any debate about styles of leadership would need to begin with clarifying which definition you’re using. 

Imagine if we wanted to debate which style of “fire truck” is the best. We might argue a red one is better than a yellow one. Or perhaps we would argue whether a cab should have space for firefighters to stand up or not. 

But how would we really debate about styles if we haven’t figured out what “fire truck” we’re talking about? The “fire truck” might be an engine, tower, squad, or tanker, but we wouldn’t know until we define it.   

Leadership Framework

In Operational Intelligence for Health, Wellness, and Leadership (Baer and Schary, 2024), the leadership chapter (Chapter 5) argues leadership has a set of necessary and sufficient components. The reality is that leadership and management can be very similar, just like how an engine and a ladder truck can be very similar. 

To that end, just like how an aerial device can immediately distinguish a ladder truck from what might be a fire engine, involuntary interaction immediately distinguishes human management from what potentially may be leadership.    

Leadership requires: 

• That something is changing within the individual, otherwise the “leader” isn’t necessary. Management can involve change, but doesn’t have to. 

• Positive change, otherwise the “leader” isn’t necessary in this respect, either. Humans don’t follow ideas that will change them for the worse unless they believe there’s some net benefit – meaning the change is a net positive.

• Reducing a knowledge gap, because without reducing a knowledge gap, no change can occur within the person. 

• That change lasts in the “leader’s” absence, otherwise we can’t know for sure if the individual’s actions are only because the “leader” is watching.  

All the components listed can be done with management science. However, there’s one component that differentiates leadership from management, and that’s whether the “leader” uses voluntary or involuntary interactions. 

The component of voluntary action is as critical a component as a ladder on a fire apparatus. If the apparatus has a ladder, you know for sure it’s an aerial device. If change is occurring in an involuntary manner, then you know for sure it’s management. 

The reason is that if change in someone or some group is approached in a way that puts pressure on decision-making, that indicates the actor believes the potential follower would not voluntarily follow. 

This is the threshold of where leadership ends and management begins. Once you pass that threshold and begin engaging in pressure on a person’s decisions, the door to totalitarianism opens.

So What is Leadership?

Leadership is about helping humans to be more resilient in their human dimensions – body, mind, and soul. Or bio, psycho, social, if you prefer – which means they’re better equipped to overcome a challenge. 

But this has to occur while respecting an individual’s sovereignty by engaging in voluntary interaction. Using force, coercion, carrot-and-stick, or other psychological levers is not respecting individual sovereignty. 

When people say management is about things, and leadership is about people, that’s not quite true. You can manage people, processes, and things. But management is about the mission and what’s necessary to be done in order to complete the mission, and when the mission must be completed, voluntary engagement may not always work. 

Leadership is about developing others for the sake of those people, but doing so in a voluntary way. 

If there’s no development to the individual, and the only thing that matters is whether an organizational goal has been completed, then that means leadership isn’t human-centric, but  outcome-centric. 

Assessing the Outcome

Organizational outcomes can be accomplished by robots and computers, so if leadership is just about getting a human to do something to accomplish a goal, then the human is being treated merely as an object – a means to an end. How is that different from management?

As you debate political candidates or your new company officer or department chief, it’s worth considering whether the person is doing leadership or management. 

After the individual’s time in office, can you identify how one or more of your human dimensions were better off because of what the person taught you through voluntary interaction? 

Maybe one or more of your human dimensions improved, but only from involuntary action.

The way a person does something is their style. But style only matters if we can first figure out what kind of action is happening.