I find the suggested definition very effective as a succinct description of leadership.  The only element which I would add more prominently is that it should inspire and be credible, but the manifestation of this would be via the energy of the wider community so I think it is captured implicitly.   The use of the word ‘political’ is interesting, the explanation of what this refers to in part 5 makes sense, but I think it has some unhelpful connotations within large organisations so I have left it out of my definition. 

I like the concept of leadership being around issues that are ‘made to matter’ – makes a very sensible shift away from the concept that some circumstances have a preordained need for leadership while others don’t.  

My definition (very close to the above!):

Leadership is a collaborative, credible and participative practice that provides direction, inspiration, energy and critical engagement on issues that are made to matter.

I find your definition of Leadership interesting and not quite what I was expecting. My reasons being as follows: To me Leadership is very much about being the "guiding light" within an organisation that tries to keep things moving in the right direction. I would not have thought of it as being 'political' unless the organisation is a 'campaigning' one that specifically aims at dealing with political issues. I agree that it requires collaboration, participation, direction, energy and critical engagement on issues that 'matter to the organisation'.

Normally a voluntary organisation is set up with very specific aims that may or may not be achievable in the near future but are quite often an ideal that one day could be reached. Because of this the Leadership must always have this ideal in mind when making decisions and acting on behalf of the organisation.

I believe that your definition is designed to confront peoples ideas and beliefs about Leadership and to make them think about what really matters when considering the Leadership role.

I should also add that I very strongly believe that those in Leadership roles are also the major 'servants' of the organisation. By this I mean that quite often they will be expected to put aside their own particular viewpoint and work with the majority viewpoint on any given situation. To my mind, for example, the Chair of any organisation is also the 'servant' of that organisation as, after giving his or her own opinion on any particular subject, they are expected to abide by the opinion and or decision of the majority view.

I like most of the definition but feel that there needs to be individualisation both from a person perspective but also in the context of the problem. Thus there is no one style the will provide the answer(s). The self-confidence of the leader is also important even if they are quaking in their shoes!

I like your definition although it challenges my understanding that leadership requires a 'Leader' as the individual is not stressed at all in your definition. So often leadership is about the charisma of one person-but the idea of leadership being a practice, and could be practised by a group and at all levels of the organisation is really interesting.

With your definition of leadership I struggle with whom to attach the practice of leadership - does it fall to the whole organisation and if so is it s/he who shouts loudest who provides direction? 

Perhaps my preconceived ideas of leadership - that of one person guiding a team using your eight listed components as a 'menu' with which to lead effectively - are getting in the way.

Thinking along these line my definition would be;
"Leadership is a political and participative practice that provides direction, energy and critical engagement on issues that are made to matter using a collaborative approach"

While I could subscribe to the presented definition of leadership I found the lack of an individual's personality interesting, and worthy of further discussion.  I think character is critical in leadership: some people seem to have innate leadership qualities.  This is perhaps most easily seen in a charisma that seems to render others compelled to follow, for good or ill.  And a leader must have followers.  Those with this quality and therefore followers, or supporters, are more able to 'ask the wicked questions' rather than simply enhancing processes and therefore can more easily bring about dynamic change.

I would define leadership as "seeing the potential and being willing to challenge the norm in striving to reach that potential"

-Like the definition given, this includes being critical; questioning what is easily seen and already present.

-It is also participative; challenging the norm in a call to others to follow.

-There is an obvious direction, but perhaps from a more positive place, seeing the potential and trying to think outside the box in order to reach it.  This doubtless requires energy, and in order to be successful will require diverse groups to work together.

I definitely feel that your definition of leadership is something that I could sign up to although I feel that a primary attribute for all  leaders is to be inspiring. Leadership that fails to inspire makes it difficult for followers and supporters to be motivated in what they are doing and makes change more difficult to  implement.

I find it interesting that there is  no reverence an individual in the definition who drives the direction of  the organisation, but this is perhaps due to my preconceived  ideas of leadership.

1. a leader is at the front
   
2. a leader is at the top
   

I think that captures my most basic understanding of what leadership is. I think further definition is helpful, and is also contested and in many ways political (as in people putting forward how they think leadership should be). In fact talking about what leadership should be is probably the more valuable conversation.

Overall I agree with the definition of leadership, however I feel that in point 1, where it says "People involved in leadership ask how they can improve the practice, not refine their personal competencies" perhaps misses the point that this personal growth is inevitable when working with a so-called 'radical' practice. To refine personal competencies would not the primary reason for entering into this way of working, but will, I believe, be a secondary outcome. Would this point be a way of striking a difference between 'leadership' and 'management'? A quick google search of management courses shows me that modules which centre on communication sometimes use the word 'influence' - a euphemism for persuasive tactics, rather than looking at the bigger structure.

Especially for those in a charity structure, leadership is often linked to governance - and a chain of command through members / board / senior management team  / managers / staff & volunteers. That might embed a top down approach to leadership in an organisation by default which could make a more holistic view of leadership harder to govern.

I wonder if management is a collaborative, political and participative practice too? Good managers also provide direction, energy and critical engagement on important issues. 

As well as my thoughts on how your definition could apply equally to management, I wonder whether your definition is actually trying to pin down "good" leadership. There are leadership styles that are not collaborative or participative - and although I could argue they would not be examples of good leadership, they are certainly examples of leadership.

I therefore propose something much simpler: The use of power to achieve goals.

Hi Everyone, 

Apologies for joining in late! I have worked in large commercial organisation and now a small local charity so have seen 'leadership' and 'management' of different styles and driven by very different forces. The definition given is I feel a good one and something that most people could engage with. I am personally a big believer in looking at the idea and purpose as providing the leadership for an organisation, opposed to a single individual leader. However I do think that having a leader to drive change, improvement and ideas is crucial. No change or improvement in an organisation of any size is possible without people working together. It also requires everyone to buy the same 'big idea' at least to some degree. 

I was previously involved in a big 'change management' programme where the management team instigated the programme and we 'recruited' people of all backgrounds and positions to be involved in designing and implementing it. The idea was sound but in reality, in that situation, the management team resented what they felt was some of their power being taken away from them through delegation. I also felt that there was not enough commitment to ensuring the whole organisation reflected the values and ideas identified in that example. 

I would therefore add the requirements for leadership to be inspiring, persuasive and engaging. I think change and improvement are also important elements of leadership.

I like your definition - and the idea about the practice being around an issue rather than merely what an individual may do or indeed traits they may have is interesting

I think for me I would like to add something more specifically around 'growth' - prioritising one's own personal development as a leader and providing conditions under which others can grow - good leaders see the potential for greatness in others (sorry can't remember who this is a quote from but I can't claim it as mine!) and then enable them to develop their leadership potential

so my definition would be that 'leadership is a collaborative, energetic practice which enables growth and change in those involved in order to provide sustainable direction and critical engagement on issues that matter'

i think this would also help to ensure that the direction is future focused - hence using the word 'sustainable'

It is thought provoking because it isn't necessarily the traditional way of describing leadership [eg providing guidance, support, letting ideas flow]

The collaborative aspect didn't come to me instantly but makes huge sense.

If anything is missing from the above definition maybe it is the reviewing aspect - so my definition might be

Leadership is a collaborative practice that provides direction, energy and engagement on key issues and ensures that there is buy in to the practice.

Leadership is a collaborative, political and participative practice that provides direction, energy and critical engagement on issues that are made to matter.

I also find it somehow helpful to think of leadership as something that is trying to do itself out of a job, or perhaps I mean something that becomes so embedded within our organisations that we cease to notice it's existence.  Somehow, to me, leadership is something that becomes inherent in all of us when there is a strong unifying component of our work.  Whether this be organisational mission or something different it's about 'glue' again that keeps us collaborating, participating, practising and engaging.  When these things stop happening, or we perceive them to, that's when we feel frustrated, challenged and even angry with leadership and turn it into something about individuals.

I agree with your definition of leadership as collaborative and participative, it gives a complete shift from defining leadership as a set of personality characters. I was always very surprised that the literature that offers the guide to a good leadership focuses on the personal skills of the leader rather then the concept that you proposed.  Looking at the definition for the first time,I find "political" term as a description of leadership bit "uneasy" for me, perhaps it is about negative connotations with this term?

I strongly agree that a good leadership is about providing energy and direction. 

I would as well add there emotional aspect of leadership: how do you feel? I believe that emotional intelligence contributes highly to a good leadership.

My definition would be: 

Leadership is collaborative, participative practice that provides positive energy, critical engagement on issues that are made to matter but as well to bring positive change and innovation.

First let me summarise what I take away from your discussion:

Leadership deals in uncertainty; leaders enable or oblige people to face up to uncertainty/risk as it bears upon the organisation and its cause.

You say that leadership is relevant in the voluntary sector because leaders maintain the vision or focus of the organisation against countervailing forces, which tend to dissipate this vision: growing big, partnership working, dependency on external funders, unfavourable climates of opinion, and the melting pot of modern communications. The voluntary organisation needs these forces to get stuff done, but each of them also ‘wears down’ or chips away at the core imperative or the organisation.

So far, so good. My uneasiness is with talking about ‘leadership’ as an abstract entity, like solvency or liberalism or something. We only get our ideas of leadership from our encounters with people who function as ‘leaders’ whether or not that is implied by their job title. Some jobs lend themselves much more to a leadership role than others. So I guess leadership is something that manifests partly out of the expectations placed upon the person by their role, and partly out of the aspirations of the person to take hold of their role and use it to good effect. Whether that process is best described as a ‘practice’ I am not sure, but I think it is much more than just personal characteristics of an individual. It is interpersonal and relational, it happens in that space.

I think leadership is about responsibility, but responsibility for what? Workers at the coalface are often very responsible without being leaders. Same goes for many managers.

The person or people who carry the responsibility for the core purpose of the organisation are the ones who are usually seen as leaders. So here I agree with your concept that leadership maintains the focus against countervailing forces (which the organisation nevertheless needs to achieve its purpose).

Regarding your 8 components, I certainly recognise 3, 4, 5 and 6 as elements of leadership as I have experienced it. Not sure the collaborative and the critical have always been evident, but I don’t really dispute these as belonging in the skillset of a leader. I do have some trouble with your idea that issues are ‘made to matter’ rather than inherently existing: do you mean our funding crisis doesn’t inherently exist??!! However I guess you are saying we make our funding –er- shortfall matter because of the aspiration to do certain things…?

I like the thought of defining Leadership as a process, and not restricting it as a personal trait - reflecting that it can be employed by anyone and not bound by personality traits or position. 

I wonder if we can be stricter about pulling it apart from Management though, as I feel one could easily describe Management using similar words like collaborative, political, participative (the first half of the sentence). Also I would not associate Leadership with 'political' - it needs to be free from such executional constraints.

In my view, leadership needs to be motivating, having a vision and taking the people alongside in achieving that vision, and empowering them to develop leadership skills on the way. It also is the practice to raising issues and empowering others to solve them. 

So to change your definition a little bit, I would define Leadership as follows:

‘Leadership is the practice of identifying issues that matter and providing vision, inspiration, energy, critical engagement and empowerment to solve them.' 

There are aspects of this definition that I find refreshing, such as the focus on it being a collaborative practice. In my experience I have seen people with great 'Leadership Skills' who have not been able to lead their team through change because they have not had the teams collaborative backing. 

The emphasis on political, however, seems to suggest that leadership can only take place if you are working towards government agendas or public affairs. Although a large proportion of voluntary organisations have strategies that link to public affairs it is not necessarily concurrent. 

On the whole I agree with the definition.  Leadership needs to be collaborative for it to work effectively and can be an issue getting staff on board.  I'm not so sure about the political aspect, but that could just be the way I work and think, although in the sector we are heavily focused on the political agenda; mainly challenging.  Leadership does have to provide direction and energy for staff to feel empowered to engage.

My definition

Leadership enables collaboration and participation too all, to provide a direction of focus to help achieve goals and aspirations.

Overall I like the definition but think the use of the word practice loses something about the reality of leadership in an organisation - tit sounds like something you do, not a way of being.  I agree it is not about personalities but I feel it is more about an approach, supported by practice.  Including the word political is not helpful to me, in the context that we work in, however I do understand the inclusion once you see the definition.  Based on this thinking my own definition is 'Leadership is an approach that provides direction, critical engagement and energy supporting collaborative, participatory and inclusive practice'

I don't like that people want one name to follow but in old-fashioned organisational structures (or in entirely absent structures!) looking to one person who seems to know what they're doing is a very human thing to do. Its a great idea and I'd say I broadly hold to it in practice, but it comes unstuck a little in reducing the role of the individual too much. 

I think the biggest risk, if an organisation were to wholly accept your definition and employ it throughout, is that outside of a small close-knit group I suspect you'll see a degree of diffused responsibility, whereby everyone feels like everyone else is doing something, but no one is doing all that much.

However, given adequate project management structures in place e.g. a version of Prince2 where the group roles are more stressed, it might be very successful indeed.

I find the above definition very useful; succinctly and clearly defining the main characteristics of leadership in the context of the voluntary sector.

The only thing I would add is to address the fact that leadership is fluid and can change. I believe a strong leader should be able to assess their leadership technique and the effect this is having on the organisation and the key issues they are trying to address; thus re-defining their leadership aims and technique as a result of this.

I think the definition of leadership provided is as good a definition as any. However, I would argue that leadership means different things to different people, thus making an exact definition extremely hard to pin-point. This is highlighted by the vast variety of comments on this thread. 

If I were to develop my own definition of leadership, I think I would involved something around charisma and the ability to inspire others. This is perhaps touched upon under the components of 'energy' and 'making issues matter'.

I might also add that I see good leadership as flexible, with different approaches required for different audiences and different situations

I find the definition offered to be quite different to the contemporary view about leadership.  Our understanding of leadership has moved on from a view of a dynamic individual such as a great military leader to recognising leadership is about a range of abilities and aptitudes.

However whilst I find the majority of the definition to be suitable I find that the suggestion that 'leadership is a collaborative, political and participative practice' requires an individual to be in an environment where these aspects are enabled.  Not every organisation will operate in that way, often determined by the organisations culture.  However leadership can still take place where that is not the case, and may not always be about participation, sometimes it can be about making the right, but difficult choice in a challenging situation.

In my view the definition could be improved by recognising leadership is also about choice, it is both the choices that an individual (the potential leader) makes, but it also the choice of other individuals (followers) to engage with a leader.

Having read some of the other replies I find that my response differs a little. Under the definitions given I don't struggle with the concept of politics being part of leadership. This maybe because I have worked for organisations who do actively and effectively engage with politicians.

I really struggled with the phrase "issues that are made to matter". To me it sounds a touch controlling. We are all aware of how different things matter to different people and we all have different passions and areas we wish to see changed. I struggle to see how a leader could "make" something matter to someone.

Therefore my definition of leadership would be the same as above but would end "critical engagement on issues that matter to the wider community"

I like the sentiment and vision around leadership being this collaborative and participatory movement- but i struggle to see how the democratic nature of this can work alongside the idea that the only issues that matter are those that are 'made to matter'. If everyone has the agency to champion their own issues, it seems like there may be too many agendas being pursued at one time?

That's just me playing devil's advocate!

I think this definition certainly provides the basis for what leadership means.  To me, leadership is about allowing everyone in your workforce to input into a common goal, which inevitably will sit with the cause of the organisation.  It's about being flexible, collaborative and being given the space to 'try it out' and not then made to feel bad should it not work out or go so well.  It's about having the freedom to challenge without judgement. As I have heard many times "There is no change without change"  A leading organisation will be open to new ideas and was of working from the people who are actually out there doing the job on the ground.  If nothing ever changes, then the organisation becomes stagnant and can lose its way. 

My concern is that an organisation will consider itself good at encouraging leadership when actually it is just a tick box exercise i.e. engaging with your team to create a list of KPI's when in reality, the KPI's have already been set by higher management and there is no room for manoeuvre.   

I like how participative, critical practice is emphasised. This actually has some resonance with how new approaches to ways of working are being implemented in my organisation right now, and feels familiar. If I was to offer a critique it would be around the notions of issues not pre-existing leadership (which slightly contradicts the elsewhere-stated idea that leadership merely brings existing ideas into prominence) the raising of issues, and how collaborative and participatory this act actually is in practice. Organisational hierarchies can be very entrenched and the disconnect within them significant. 

Leadership is defined as an energetic practice of momentum, but I would suggest it also requires resource and support for those involved, particularly at an early stage. Perhaps this could be acknowledged and discussed more? 

My final point would be around individual personalities, characteristics and competencies. Though I like that leadership here is framed in terms of an on-going collective pursuit, in which individual characteristics are downplayed, we should perhaps still acknowledge their place in making effective leadership happen and how we all might contribute in this regard.   

The definition is comprehensive and defies the conventional definitions of leadership. Leadership in a conventional sense is associated with charismatic, military leaders. The definition articulated in the course looks more collaborative and seems to be underpinned by group leadership. It is challenging in the voluntary sector where often there is a dominant leader with followers and not necessarily active group members. The only additional word I would add to the definition is sustainability. In other words the articulated approach to leadership would lead to sustainable outcomes to the issues identified in the long run

On the whole the definition of leadership as, "collaborative, political and participative practice provides direction, energy and critical engagement" is on the whole a sound argument and in essentials an appropriate definition.  Personally, leadership is a cultivated culture which promotes collaborative and energetic participation which fosters an atmosphere which actively seeks critical evaluation.  The word which seems out of place in this definition is 'political' as it implies a relation with a particular political angle whether that be with a large 'P' for a relation with government policy or small 'p' of politics within an organisation.  Any organisation whether that be not for profit or corporate should seek objectively within leadership to allow openness and a range of opinions.

My own definition of leadership would look something like this:
Leadership is an atmosphere of openness and active listening, with a cultivated inclusive culture which leads by example creating vision and direction.

While I agree with this in the main I would add in collective and focus. Without the collective there is nothing to lead on and focus steers the direction and provides

Hi Owen,

Your definition of leadership is very thoughtful, and includes dimensions that I wouldn't immediately consider as leadership. Initially I thought of a leader as an individual (s) in an organisation as opposed to the practical/operational sense of the definition (collaborative group of bodies at multiple levels in the organisation working together to deliver the same goal).

I wouldn't explicitly use the term political; my reasoning being it suggests that there are divisions in an organisation and its staff, and their competing views challenge one another problematizing the values of the organisation (i.e different parties in government!). I would suggest changing the term to 'cultural', thus showing an awareness of different values and beliefs. A key aspect of Leadership is impartiality and acceptance, and encouraging a diverse range of people, I argue, leads to a happier and healthier workforce.

I find your definition effective and concise and agree that collaboration and participation are key aspects of leadership. I have included that the practice should also be creative and responsive, as innovative approaches and timing of decisions are often key to driving an organisation forward in its’ mission. Within some organisations using the word political can suggest that conflict is necessary in order to make every decision, and although I agree conflict is useful to drive an organisation forward, I don’t feel this is always helpful so have left this out of my own definition.  

My definition is: “Leadership is a collaborative, creative, responsive and participative practice that provides direction, energy and critical engagement on issues that are made to matter.” 

Love it - I should base my practise on these words - I especially like collabortive and participative

This definition resonates with me in terms of my experiences. Whilst we all may have come across leaders who have to make big, 'lonely' decisions, where the buck stops here, in reality it is a collaborate process. Even if at the end of the day if that lone decision decisions has to be made it was almost certainly a collaborative process that allowed that point to be reached.

In reality leadership must be political as in engages with different individuals, groups, values and need and desires. It is only through a political process that all this could be brought together. This then leads to the participative practice. For me this participative element an important part of the definition and in this context is new to me. It makes a lot of sense in my mind. All of this providing energy and direction.

I cannot agree "that issues do not pre-exist leadership" Leadership make issues matter because it brings certain things to prominence but that does not mean the issue did not exist previously.

For me leadership is listening, engaging testing deciding and sharing/doing all of which requires others to participate with the leadership. It need not be an individual but could be a team.

The description is technical and word-led and contains no reference to human relationships which are the fundamental element to successful leadership.

I quite like this definition, and unlike a few other posts below I really agree with the political part of it. For me there is something missing about authenticity, and the activities of leadership having a good or authentic fit with the things you are trying to do as an organisation. Things that feel like they are superficial, or tick box exercises to satisfy some kind of organisational image or cheap political points scoring can cause a lot of problems within staff teams and are quite often the opposite of inspirational. So I would add in something like the following:

‘Leadership is a collaborative, political and participative practice that provides authentic direction, energy and critical engagement on issues that are made to matter.’

Rose

The words that stood out to me in this definition were ‘collaborative’, ‘energy’ and ‘engagement’. I feel these are three key terms to describe leadership. 

‘Political’ is not a term I would have associated with leadership before (despite the fact that our country is lead by politicians!!). I feel this may be mainly due to the image that our politicians have portrayed in the recent months putting a more negative feeling around the word. When working as a leadership team, I feel that appropriately and constructively challenging others sparking a healthy debate is important, as this shows there is trust between individuals and allows space for ideas/actions to be appropriately tested to increase their effectiveness, and reduce the likelihood of negativity or lack of buy in from members of the organisation. 

My definition of leadership would be:

“Leadership is a collaborative, influential practice that drives energy and purpose within an organisation, engaging stakeholders and providing a direction to be followed.” 

Your definition of leadership is interesting, as it has many dimensions to it. I agree that it is collaborative, participative and provides direction, however stating that leadership is political is not always viewed in that context. Leadership does not always way with people's values, beliefs and commitment, there are occasions when those element are not considered. Good leadership requires the sixth dimension working together to address key matters. 

My critique of the definition: 'Leadership is a collaborative, political and participative practice that provides direction, energy and critical engagement on issues that are made to matter'.

I am writing this the day after the election, and there is a lot of talk of leadership (and failed leadership) in the air. Much of that sees leadership as the characteristic (or not) of an individual.  I like the collective dimension of this definition but what I like best about it is that it says not just 'issues that matter' but 'issues that ARE MADE TO matter'.  For that reason - because of the bringing-into-being-ness of leadership - I wonder about including the word 'creative'. I was, at first, going to take issue with the word 'provides', which seems to imply a one way street and then I realised that I was falling back in to seeing leadership as invested in a particular person.  If one sees it as a shared practice then that verb 'provides' also perhaps implies a sense of the 'harnessing' of energy and critical engagement.  Nonetheless, given that presumably, even in a situation where leadership is a practice, there are those around who are engaged not in it but in other practices, I think I would slightly amend this definition to read as follows: 

'Leadership is a collaborative, creative, political and participative practice that produces direction, energy and critical engagement on issues that are made to matter'.

I would agree with the statements of leadership and the definition of it. I would agree that good leadership requires us to be critical but to also be willing to have our own ideas put under a microscope by our fellow leaders regardless as to whither they are a paid employee or a volunteer. I have seen many a professional become defensive when questioned by someone who maybe does not have the same educational qualification or experience as themselves. For me another aspect of leadership is transparency, from all when participating in discussion and to also be active in debates, to not become defensive of their idea or project but to remain objective in relation to the aims and objectives of the organisation rather than their personal aims and objectives of what they wish to receive out of volunteering. 

My description of leadership would be; a coming together of like minded people who wish to achieve the same goal for the benefit of the community or organisation they wish to serve where they aspire as a team, not individually, to  uphold to the values and principles of the organsiation and its work. They also aspire as a team of people to work in collaboration with direction, energy, engagement and with credibility and responsibility to the issues that matter.