Recognising Leadership?

The Nobel Prize is one of the world's most recognised and esteemed honours. Since 1901 it has been awarded for achievements in a limited number of categories: physics, medicine or physiology, chemistry, literature, and for peace. There are certainly many other categories of human endeavour that are worthy of worldwide recognition, including leadership. Would it now be an appropriate time to see great practices of leadership acknowledged?

The very act of establishing the award criteria might have at least one positive benefit. It could help drive toward a consensus on the definition of leadership. As it stands now, well-intentioned people often talk past each other when using the term. To some, leadership is equivalent to a position of power and authority, while to others it signifies an influence process. For a start we might consider James MacGregor Burns' notion of "transforming leadership," which he described in his groundbreaking 1978 book, Leadership.

Burns saw transformational leadership as more than brute application of power or mere charisma. Transforming leadership takes place when leaders engage in such a way that both leaders and followers are moved to high levels of motivation and morality. In that process followers are converted into leaders, and leaders can become moral agents.

We might also consider the late Joseph Rost's definition from his 1991 book, Leadership for the 21st Century, in which he argued that leadership is an influence relationship between leaders and followers who aim for change reflects their mutual purposes. In both definitions leaders are those who motivate others, who harness human capacity for change.

It is possible to have mixed feelings about the prospect of a leadership award because there is always a suspicion that the winners might be chosen more due to their notoriety rather than their true leadership excellence. By exalting great singular public figures we ordinary people tend to distance ourselves from the practice of leadership. That is unfortunate when the potential for leadership rests in every person.

Some of our favourite leaders will never appear on the front page, nor will books be written about them. They have names that would only be recognised by those they inspired, but they were magnificent examples nonetheless.

Most of the popular approaches to leadership emphasize one person--the leader--and pay scant attention to myriad others who work in relative obscurity to accomplish great things. One person can make a difference, but they rarely do so alone. At its best leadership is a willing partnership.

It is often said that if you lead and "they" don't follow then it really isn't leadership. If we accept this principle then the Nobel Prize for Leadership could not be awarded to one person. Leadership is a team effort and should be recognised as such.

Recognising Leadership?