I have been studying leadership for three semesters now. Time and time again I face the question of how to define leadership. In a traditional sense, leadership is the ability to lead a group of people in the accomplishment of a common goal. It’s often associated with a position of power and authority, or at the very least, being in charge of something. But the more I study great leaders, the more I question this definition’s ability to define leadership thoroughly. Through my own studies, experiences, and peer discussions, I have come to the conclusion that there is another dimension of true leadership that is continually ignored. This dimension adequately explains why people like Rosa Parks, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, even Martin Luther (the Protestant guy, not MLK) were considered inspirational leaders when they held little or no formal authority or power. It is quite the opposite in each of these cases actually, as they were the subjects of much controversy, targeted hate, and accusations of malevolence.
Why, then, if these people were looked down upon in their day by the powers of authority, do we hold them in such high regard as leaders now? How have we determined them to be leaders if they do not fit the traditional definition of leadership? I believe the answer is twofold.
Terrah Holly Writes 