At this point, you’re bound to be thinking that timeshare salespeople and insane strong men are extreme examples. However, this is exactly my point. These two examples are certainly outliers, but they’re still valid.

And because they’re valid, the Maxwell definition is invalid. It is simple, but it is weak.

The challenge then, is to create a strong definition that is equally simple. This definition should incorporate Maxwell’s thinking on leadership, yet eliminate the extreme outliers of leadership. It should be as simple as Maxwell’s, but it should be able to withstand the criticisms we just explored.

It should be this:

Leadership is the process of influencing others to work toward a mutually desired vision.

Leaders, then, recruit and influence followers to work together to make a share vision reality. This definition it not as simple as Maxwell’s, but it is simple. It does incorporate the emphasis on influence that inspired Maxwell’s infamous maxim. Furthermore, it stands strong against our previously discovered criticisms. It locks out salespeople and tyrants.

Salespeople are not leaders in our mind, nor in this definition. They certainly influence. However their goal is not to influence customers to work. Salespeople influence prospects to become customers, to pay for said product or service. However, buying isn’t working. (And isn’t the reason we buy money for things that we don’t want to work for them).

Whatismore, our definition makes it possible to give Hitler the title he deserves: bad leader. Certainly, Hitler possessed a talent for rallying people to work. He was a charismatic leader, an icon. I’m told there was even a Hitler action figure. However, the future vision they worked for was not the one that most expected. At some point, even Hitler’s followers realized that he was not taking them where they thought they we going.

We can use this definition to eliminate non-leader influencers (unless they follow you, or work toward the vision you cast). We can use this definition to discriminate between good and bad leaders (are followers working toward a future they actually desire?).

Leadership is the process of influencing others to work toward a mutually desired vision.

With the simple addition of a few words, we’ve made Maxwell’s motto stronger and expanded our conceptualization of leadership.

Shortly after any political or corporate scandal, the talk on the media immediately shifts to a discussion on bad leadership. Indeed, Jeffrey Skilling was a bad leader of Enron. This brings on a never-ending debate about how we distinguishing between good leaders and bad leaders. In our mind, we can easily cite good leaders from bad leaders. If you can’t, I’ll provide a helpful comparison:

Martin Luther King Jr. versus Hitler

It’s not hard to come to the conclusion that MLK was a good leader and Hitler was a bad leader.

Unless you’re using Maxwell’s definition of leadership.

If leadership is influence, then good leaders are very influential and bad leaders are not. But here’s where it gets messy. If you’re not good at influencing people, then you’re also not a leader. So under the Maxwell description: there are no bad leaders.

Yet there stands Hitler in contrast to MLK or Ghandi or George Washington. Clearly Hitler was a bad leader, but the popular definition presents us from labeling him as such. We need a more expanding definition. One that allows us to block out salespeople and insane strong men from being classified as good leaders.

There’s more to leadership than influence.

A few years ago, I was invited to a special presentation. I was offered a three-night, all expenses paid vacation in the Caribbean. The only stipulation was that on Day Three of the vacation, I had to listen to a special presentation about the resort I was staying at.

I declined. As I’m sure you would too.

We decline these almost too good to be true offers because we know what happens during the special presentation. We have to sit and listen to a pitch for time-shares. The presenters will try to convince us to shell out several thousands dollars for the right to stay one week a year at the resort we just previewed.

Their job is to influence us to pay for a time-share. In fact, all salespeople have the same job description: influence. Sales is a process of influencing prospective customers to become customers.

Let’s examine some simple Logic:

• Major Premise: “Leadership is influence.”
• Minor Premise: Salespeople influence others.
• Conclusion: Salespeople are leaders.

But are they? Very few people would agree with this conclusion. More often than not, salespeople are not leaders. So there must be an error somewhere in our syllogism.

Indeed there is: our major premise.

We’re forced to conclude that salespeople are leaders unless we change our major premise. Unless we add something to our definition that screens them out, we have to let them in.