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.
This is an interesting perspective, but Maxwell’s definition is that “Leadership is influence; nothing more, nothing less.” That being said, I personally don’t see the necessity to add to it or revise it. If one sticks to the simple definition that leadership is influence, it’s plain and simple. . .and it works no matter how one looks at it!
Stephen, This is the final post in a series. The first three posts explore the lacking areas of Maxwell definition further and explain why we need to revise and add to it. The problem with Maxwell’s quote is that it doesn’t work no matter how one looks at it.
David,
I think your series is interesting. I appreciate the passion you approached the argument with. You came to a conclusion I fully agree with: good leadership is rooted in benefiting people.
However, I still agree with Maxwell even after your elaborate argument. First of all, he has said and written quite a bit more than just the quote that you based this series on. He has written over 40 other books and given countless speeches further teaching and explaining leadership. Much of what he writes and says about leadership agree with the points that you make above. I believe he is less wrong than you might think just by focusing on that one quote.
Leadership is complex. Maxwell’s statement is simplified. Good leadership is much more complex than Maxwell’s statement and so is bad leadership. I can fully agree with Maxwell and you at the same time. I don’t see any reason to juxtapose many great leadership writers for the sake of argument. I think your definition is correct and so is the one by Maxwell, or those by Peters, or Bennis, or Goldsmith or any number of others.
Instead, since there is no shortage of bad leadership, I choose to promote anyone fighting against it. I don’t credit the simplicity of Maxwell definition as the cause of bad leadership any more than I think very complex definitions cause bad leadership. Therefore, I try to fight bad leadership by promoting those fighting it instead of correcting them. There will be some degree of error or some exception to every definition and your way of saying something may appeal to some people. I’m confident Maxwell’s way of saying it has appealed to millions.
Mike…
Mike,
Great reply and thanks for the comment. I agree that Maxwell has expounded on this concept in his numerous talks, however I’ve also heard him proclaim the simple definition from stage and never expound upon it. That worries me.
You’re absolutely right though, you can agree with my description and his since mine is merely a strengthening of the foundation he laid.
Thanks for joining the debate.
Hi Mike and David!
Great discussion and insights. I’m not sure I’d take on John Maxwell, but I think David raises an interesting question. Whenever I teach a class on leadership, I always ask my class if results/influence are all that matter and I’ve never been disappointed by the lively discussion it generates.
The bottom line, there are good leaders and bad leaders (what a revelation?), and leaders, either good or bad, do influence people. I would even say a successful salesperson is a leader, regardless if they are ethical or not. By saying salespeople are not leaders, one can then ask, what about the organization supporting it?
Take Starbucks for example. Is the CEO of Starbucks a leader? All he is doing is providing the framework to sell coffee? Obviously (I think), he is a leader. If we agree that the CEO is a leader, and all he does is help sell coffee, than what about the Baristas (the salespeople)? Can’t they be leaders too?
David, if I’m reading the posts right, it seems like your underlying question is, what makes for an ethical leader? That is not such an easy question to answer, although I think Maxwell has proven that he knows the difference between one that has ethics and one that doesn’t. “What makes a good leader?” has been debated for a long time. And the answer is always illusive. For example, David, I understand where you are coming from, but even your additional words to Maxwell’s definition leaves room for debate. What is a “mutually desired vision?” In the case of the Nazi party, they had a mutually desired vision… to become the Third Reich. So… even this definition isn’t complete, if we are talking about a “true” (from my perspective) leader.
Mike you’re certainly right when you say this is a complex issue. I believe that until we all (everyone, every race, every country, every political system, every religion, every businessman, every organization) can come up with a common framework of “right behavior”, we will always be debating what defines a true leader.
While I know we won’t ever get everyone on the same page, it is by teaching, refining and discussing the qualities of a leader that will get more leaders (influencers) to think about their underlying motives for their behavior. Maxwell has obviously been very successful at this.
Thanks for letting me chime in…
Great discussion!
John
John,
Great thoughts. You are correct. My point is that ethics does play some role in leadership. Maxwell is obvious a proponent of ethical leadership, as such, we need to add some more to our description than just influence…otherwise we negate the role of ethics.
I’m loving the discussion this series generated.
David,
Great to see that some of the folks I Tweeted regarding this article have stopped by to weigh in. Keep up the discussion. Also, think about joining the LeadChange group on LinkedIn. Mike Henry facilitates the group. They are a group of folks bent on top-quality leadership!
Steve
Forgot to mention that I have added you to my blog roll at stephen-combs.com!
Your web site is superb I will have to read it all, thank you for the diversion from my coursework!