How do you define leadership?

Leaders develop other leaders. I used to think leadership was best defined as the ability to inspire others to do what they otherwise would not be willing to do.  After the last five years of study I've changed my mind. Now I would define it as the ability to be who they otherwise would not be capable of being. Leadership is developing others, achievements are nothing but a welcome byproduct of doing so. Once we fully understand that leadership is about them, not us, our perspective changes and we can actually become a Soldiers first, mission always kind of Army.

Sir,

I've come across this very thread a dozen times at least and each time, left it be thinking it is not my place to comment on it. However, I believe I have an answer to your question. It is an assessment of what leadership often is in many cases and what it should be.

Leadership is an umbrella term that encompasses thousands of different types of "leaders". It is comprised of people who for whatever reason have stepped up to the plate and have decided to take responsibility for accomplishment of a task through utilization of a team.

But there should be more to leadership than that. Many leaders in my limited experience are focused solely on accomplishment of the goal at hand. And to say that the goal at hand should not be the central focus is wrong, but to say it should be the only focus is equally wrong.

Leadership, in its truest form, is being able to motivate your subordinates to perform the goal at hand. It is also being the one who holds the career for which the death knell rings when failure should be at hand. Because leaders that is what leadership is; it is being the person to blame when failure is at hand and the person who points to his men for whom gratitude should be given to when success is at hand.

Leadership is knowing that you are the least important person on the team (whether it be Military or Private Sector), because the team can function without you. You can not function without the team. And it is for that reason that you should always place their welfare first, because they are the people who allow you to do your job. They assist you in accomplishment of your goals or completion of your mission which is why a good leader should never forget that the welfare of their subordinates should always come first.

Leadership as I see it,  is the ability to inspire.    Whatever that cause may be,  when you make a person feel welcome and part of something you bigger,  you have instilled pride and improved a person or unit.    And this does not end with active service.  We all know Veterans in need and it is up to figure some way out to help.    I plan on continuing to set a good example by my work in the community.   Things like Typhoon Yolanda,   homeless veterans and support of other veterans who are aging.

I see it at the VA all the time.   We can all be nice to veterans past and present and to exemplify the characteristics we want our kids to have.

I'll follow anybody who is willing to chew the same dirt as me.  

Sir, respectfully I define Leadership by being the example, enlarging your subordinate's duties, challenging the comfort zone, and the ultimate ingredient is transparency for a Leader. Providing grace for lessons learned, pushing towards endurance and consistently developing junior subordinates by showing a passion for serving others. This starts from the top and down to the private. Leaders grow Leaders and protect their future, weed out the individuals who want to be served.

Sir,

I think both are reasonable definitions. It depends on the circumstance. Sometimes I need my guys to become stakeholders in a mission, sometimes I just need them to get it done.

Either way,  I owe it to my men to be the follower to my leaders I expect them to be for me. Which would be my definition I guess.

To me besides all the philosophies, definitions, beliefs, etc...the one thing that makes you a leader is FOLLOWERS.  You can have all the training, character, skills, traits you want; if you turn around and there's no one behind you, you are NOT a leader.

Leadership is the ability to be fair to the extent that you do the right thing for the right reasons that serve in the interest of the mission and those whom you lead.  You use your position of authority and station to improve the well being of Soldiers while adhering to the Army Values.  You mentor the junior leaders of today to be the senior leaders of tomorrow and the hardest environment in the Army to do this is in the Reserves where training time is limited, civilian obligations are a reality, family time is impacted and career advancement is a challenge.  No where else do I see these realities being more challenged than the TPU and DIMA programs.  

The Army textbook answer, which I think encapsulates the concept well is that “An Army leader is anyone who by virtue of assumed role or assigned responsibility inspires and influences people to accomplish organizational goals. Army leaders motivate people both inside and outside the chain of command to pursue actions, focus thinking, and shape decisions for the greater good of the organization.” FM 6-22, para. 1-2. However, sometimes, the “organizational goals” can be nebulous, especially at the higher rungs of leadership where leaders are expected to derive those goals from national priorities. It is especially at that stage that leaders need a vision nested in history, philosophy, and strategic thinking. This discussion reminds me of War College.