Recently, a colleague I’ve known for many years asked me a question about the difference between a leader as a person and leadership as an activity. She’d attended a series I facilitated many years ago and still remembered that distinction.

She was trying to tackle a thorny challenge at work and wanted to explore the implications of viewing her actions from each of these two lenses. Based on her interest, I thought it might be useful for my readers. I’ve seen many people who had doubts about their leadership step up confidently after getting clear on this important distinction. What follows is an excerpt from my book, Why Not Lead?

There are numerous definitions of leadership among the myriad of books and articles written on the topic. If you go to the management section of any bookstore you may be overwhelmed by the number of books that have “leader” or “leadership” in their title. Many definitions of leadership focus on the “leader” as an individual and on the personal qualities that he/she is seen as possessing. I find it more helpful to focus on “leadership” as an activity which can be engaged in by different kinds of people in different roles, not only by people with formal status, title or position. There are a couple of reasons why I find it more helpful to view leadership this way.

First, it’s a more accurate depiction of what actually occurs. There are many kinds of leadership exercised on a day-to-day basis: virtually all leadership involves a network of people working together, either deliberately or coincidentally. People often slip in and out of identified leadership roles, depending on the situation or context. There is also slow, sustained leadership over time, where the individual actions of potentially thousands of people combine to constitute the work of leadership. Think of any social movement. While many of us can identify Martin Luther King as a key leader of the Civil Rights Movement, do you know the names of any of the other critical leaders during the peak years of that movement? There were hundreds of individuals who played a significant role and yet many of us have never heard of them, yet we are well aware of the result of that collective activity that we call a movement.

Another example of collective leadership that might be closer to home is a pair of mothers with disabled children. These women exercise leadership aimed at improving care in their local hospital using the “good cop, bad cop” approach. One of them usually takes the role of the demanding, “unreasonable” advocate for the needs of children with significant medical issues; the other acts very cooperative and reasonable. Together they operate as a team. Depending on the activity in which they are engaged, one or the other will take the lead. By focusing on the activity rather than on the individual, many effective leadership combinations can be created.

Another reason why I prefer to focus on leadership as an activity is that people who are relatively new to leadership roles can become discouraged when too much attention is placed on personal qualities or traits. We often start our leadership journey feeling tentative and unsure of ourselves, caring deeply about a person or a cause but not at all confident in our ability to make a difference. This tentativeness will mean we’re less inclined to step forward, even on issues that matter to us. Our inner dialogue might go like this: “Who me? A leader? You must be kidding!” And yet many people take on leadership roles not because they want to be a leader, but because they feel called to exercise leadership toward something they care about. If they had the choice, they’d rather let someone else do it. Any model of leadership that creates obstacles to addressing a situation that you care about is problematic.

As Peter Block writes, “the belief that the power lies ‘up there’ is a way of ensuring our own helplessness, all for the relief of an imagined moment of safety.”

This “imagined moment of safety” is our fantasy that someone else “up there” or “out there” is better qualified to take action on matters that we care about. Focusing on leadership as an activity puts the emphasis where it should be–on the work we need to engage in to bring about our vision. It opens up all sorts of possibilities for how the work might be organized. It doesn’t preclude actions by individuals but it also allows for shared leadership, leadership over long periods of time, rotating leadership, imperfect leadership, and so on. Also, a focus on leadership as an activity, a journey, is more forgiving: You can take some steps, learn from them, try again...rather than feeling like you have to get it perfect all the time.

What do you think is helpful about making a distinction between a leader as a person and leadership as an activity? Please write your answer in the Comments below.

P.S. If you like this blog post, sign up for my newsletter, right here. You’ll receive monthly updates on new posts and upcoming events. Also consider forwarding this to a friend and inviting them to sign up.