My definition of leadership is the ones ability to lead the

My definition of leadership is the one’s ability to lead the group of people. Or one’s ability to carry a group of people to attain a common goal.

The leadership is the process not result. Process means which is going on. No leader can say that he has learned all the skills of leadership and can lead whatever challenges he can face. It will be wrong. Leadership is constant learning that is why it is a process not result.

Leadership has to be good because all the subordinates’ behavior depends on the leader. If a leader is good in nature, supportive, cheerful the subordinates will be cheerful, supportive and working environment will be good. But if the leader is not following integrity then the leaders will not follow and there will corruption in the work culture. Hence it is very important for the leader to be good because team members are following you.

Some leaders are born leaders while some learn by experience. Born leaders also need the experience to control the team. It does not mean that the leaders are born with experience. For an example, there is a conflict between team members, how to solve that it does not affect the team spirit and moral. It comes with experience. While if you talk about the leadership learning then when an employee goes to an organization to lead a team and when the leader gets a task to accomplish then initially he struggles but with time when the pressure of accomplishment comes then his/her ability of leadership is brushed up. Leadership is an art and it can be learned. There is no any thumb rule that leaders are born only and leadership cannot be learned.

Question:

1. Why do you think the leadership definition above? Is it reasonable to expect you to have a clear definition of leadership already? Do you think your definition will change as a result?

2. What trends are you seeing in these definitions? Did your definitions fit in? Or do you think there\'s good reason why your definition was an outlier

Solution

1. The leadership definition has got to do some work on. According to me leadership is not a process, it\'s an intangible product. Products improve too, over time. You get hold of the product, you control that, you can move the organization. Some are born with the product (viz. silver spoon), some acquire it. Manpower is nothing, just a resource, similar to knowledge, that help you achieve your organizational and personal goals.

You can\'t have a clear definition of leadership. It\'s usability changes as per scenario. As rightly mentioned leadership needs to deal with manpower. But there are ruthless leaders such as Hitler, Steve Jobs, who had something else- courage, knowledge. I don\'t follow Marrisa Mayer, I follow steve jobs. Barely a few articles have been published about their manpower handling capabilities. But as compared to Marrisa, Jobs is known for his knowledge, vision and problem solving abilities. So, people managers are available in numerous quantity, visionaries are , but few.

Hence, I think my definition will also change, when leadership changes from being a product to something else- be it a process, as defined in the question.
2. The definition portrays leadershop as a process- dependent on manpower, and an art of handling them. I think, when technology takes over manpower leadership will be vision and ideas. The definition may be prevalant in a people driven organization not in a machine driven one.

Yes my definition does fit in, machine and manpower, knowledge are all product, you can control -voluntarily or involuntarily. My definition is definitely not an outlier, because as cited above, it is based on recent leaders and the ones yet to come with rise in technology.