Leadership Cannot Be Imposed
All too often, the word "leader" is used to describe a mere manager. That's not a leader in any real sense. Being anointed as a "leader" by upper management does not make you one. Leadership cannot be imposed. A person in that position claiming they're a leader is spouting puffery—a source of ridicule (often quiet because they're in a position of power).
Leaders don't call themselves "leaders." They lead simply by being themselves.
Leadership is a personality trait. You cannot train a person to be a leader. The notion of a "leadership seminar" is a snake-oil rebranding of management training.
Teams confer leadership. It emerges when someone behaves in an inspiring way. A true leader does not have "followers" in the conventional sense. Mindlessly obeying or mimicking someone is cult behavior. Being forced to follow or obey is bullying, not leadership.
Leaders set examples, not impose ways of working. They make sacrifices, not require them. They inspire, not demand. They don't require respect; they're respected. Force and leadership cannot coexist. A power dynamic is a bully's tool, not a leader's.
So, I find that whole "leadership" framing to be disengenuous at best. I wish we'd drop it altogether.
Solid. A leader isn’t a leader without followers, but followers by force is slavery…or employment.
I worked in an organization that did this. Found the annointing very confusing.
One related term, superior, also often used, I learned, in Latin is just above. Look in medical text books, superior is closer to head , inferior closer to feet. So it is borrowed for org charts.
Wonder if any etymology for "leader" that helps to explain all this weird language absurdity 😆.