I should probably start by explaining what I mean by “Leadership” (big L) versus “leadership” (little l). Big “L” Leaders are the people who are in formal positions of authority (Leaders in a company, a political party, etc.). They're expected to lead because that's what their job title says they do. Small “l” leaders lead regardless of their job titles or positions. They lead by example and step up when things need to be done. While they may not be recognized as the positional Leader, they demonstrate leadership qualities or characteristics.
It’s not always the big names, or the ones that have been appointed “Leader” that take the lead. Little “l” leadership happens when somebody believes passionately about something and wants to make a difference. Anybody can take the lead by being the first on to dance, the first to speak up, the first to take action. One of the interesting paradoxes of leadership is that vulnerability can bring power – and being first often makes us feel vulnerable.
We often focus on the “Great Leaders” in history when we study leadership, such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Charles de Gaulle, and Margaret Thatcher. But what about the everyday leaders who have made a difference? Examples that come to mind are Terry Fox, Mother Theresa, and Rosa Parks. Whether it was a conscious decision or not, these people had the courage to lead – to be vulnerable while exerting their power to make a difference in the world.
John Quincy Adams once said, “If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.” I wonder how many of our corporate and political Leaders inspire us in this way. I would guess that it’s the little “l” leaders that more often have this kind of impact on our lives.
I by no means wish to diminish the credibility of big “L” Leaders, or to imply that there is no need for formal Leaders. However, there has been a lot of talk lately about an impending “leadership deficit,” because baby boomers are expected to retire in large numbers in the coming years (if they can afford to). Calling it a leadership deficit diminishes the contribution of others in the organization who don’t necessarily have a formal title. I would argue that leadership is not necessarily “out in front,” but all around us. Perhaps the current Leaders need to get out of the way and let others give it a try.
Maybe this significant demographic shift that we are currently experiencing will bring with it a new leadership paradigm in which leadership is shared and distributed throughout our human systems. This might require a shift in cultural consciousness from needs and inability to contribution and participation. In other words, we will need to ask ourselves what talents, skills, and abilities do people contribute and how can we support them to contribute even more. How can we invite people to participate in a meaningful way to engage their minds and their hearts, so that we all of the capacity to lead, whether we’re big “L” or little “l” leaders?
