Nathan and Jim Johnson define leadership as responsibility for accomplishing something with others, where you're ultimately accountable. Jim adds that a leader has a vision others will follow. Neither ties leadership to being a good person.
What is leadership, Nathan? So I think leadership has mostly an objective, qualitative definition. A lot of people tend to put some sort of morality around it that drives me absolutely crazy. Leadership, from my perspective, is essentially a person who's in charge of accomplishing something, and they have to involve other people to do it. They have a team of people to do it, and they are the one who is ultimately responsible for the accomplishment of that thing. And so that is trying to make it as basic of a definition as possible. I don't care who says it. You'll see it on LinkedIn all the time. Like, if you micromanage your people, you're a dictator, not a leader. No, you're a leader. You're just a leader who's a dictator. Okay? So quit trying to. It's just a huge pet peeve. Quit trying to put all this. You're a leader, not a leader. Like, if you can be a terrible leader in a leadership role, you're still a leader. You're just not a very good one. One. Or you can be a really nasty human being who's in a leadership position. You're still a leader. You're just a leader who's a nasty human being.
Yeah, I would say a leader is a person that has a vision that he can get other people on board for to follow him.
