Leadership is a topic under continuous discussion in most American workplaces.  We in the US (as I’m sure it is elsewhere) are raised with an emphasis on becoming leaders, at first in our classrooms and later, in our workplaces.  It seems a bit curious then, that according to the headlines, there is a “crisis in leadership” in international and domestic politics, business, and education.

As an executive coach and an OD consultant, I often work with people who are being called to lead. In recent months, I have had several experiences with clients who are or who aspire to be leaders, and these experiences have sharpened my conviction that most people do not understand what leadership actually entails.  This, I believe, is the root of the “crisis” in leadership.

I offer the following, in hopes of reframing the conversation about leadership:

1.  Leadership is not solely about “leading” in the way we conventionally define it. Leaders are not always running out ahead of the pack, showing the way and urging people onward.  Leaders rest, appraise the current situation, and plot courses.  Leaders listen. Leaders allow themselves to be redirected by new information and new conditions. Leaders wait for right timing.  Leaders often follow.

2. Being a manager and being a leader are not synonymous.  Simply put, the manager’s job is to plan, organize and coordinate the efforts of others. The leader’s job is to choose the vision and inspire and motivate toward it.* Yes, there is overlap, but the roles are not the same.

3.  Not everyone WANTS to lead, and this is a legitimate choice. I have worked with some clients who are most satisfied and effective working in the #2 spot or on the front line. They derive the greatest satisfaction in coalescing behind the leader and pouring their energies into successful implementation.  People who do not want to be the leader ought to be allowed not to be, rather than being pressured by the notion that the leader is the most (or only) valuable role on a team.

4.  Leaders do not know everything, and the good ones refuse to pretend that they do. Leaders cannot function well without help and support. Using coaches, consultants, mentors, and trusted advisors is not a sign of weakness or deficiency, but a sign of both confidence and humility–critical components of strong leadership.

5.  Leadership is not inherently romantic. As well we should, we admire leaders with big stories and big impact (Martin Luther King, for example.) These are the people who inspire us with their bravery, vision, drive, charisma and success against all odds.  But most leaders do not operate on the world stage, and do not have these sorts of idealized personal traits or working conditions.

6.  Becoming a strong leader is not achieved by reading self help/business texts and attending leadership courses. Becoming a leader is a risky, active endeavor.  It is about trying, about succeeding and failing, and continuing to move forward in times of ambiguity, scrutiny, and opposition. It is not often about big initiatives, but about the small opportunities in daily life to lead.

7.  Leadership is not conferred by title or rank.  Most of us have been disappointed by someone with a prestigious title who could not lead. Most of us have been inspired and motivated by a colleague with a modest title.  Leaders can be anywhere, but they are not always where we expect.

So why am I suggesting that we end the leadership romance, and what might that mean?

As a society, we need to have a clear-eyed, realistic perspective of what leadership truly is and requires. If we think of leadership in romantic terms (that a leader is the big, brilliant, charismatic “savior” from whom all important advances come–or whatever other romantic notion of leadership is most appealing) we will not engage with the true work of leadership.  We will continue to push leadership on everyone, irrespective of their interest in or talent for it.  We will also overlook or diminish the considerable contributions made by strong followers.

Leadership and followership is necessarily interdependent, for there can be no strong leaders without followers.  And the work of strong followers may be diluted without the vision and drive of able leaders.

So let’s broaden the definition of and the conversation about leaders.  Let’s start by talking more about both sides of the equation:  not just the leaders, but also the followers.  Let’s not assume that followers are unimportant.  Let’s not assume everyone is, wants to, or should be a leader.

*Summary from “The Wall Street Journal Guide to Management,”  http://guides.wsj.com/management/developing-a-leadership-style/what-is-the-difference-between-management-and-leadership