HOLY MOLY, Erin, you've sparked a wonderful discussion. I've learned a lot from the exceptional cast of leaders who have chimed in on this topic.

I'd like to throw out an off-the-wall thought that dovetails with yours and Wally's references to Ms Parks, Drucker, and others.

We live in an attention-starved world where information hyper-clutter is the norm. As such, people are hungry for experiences and something they can talk about and 'Believe' in. When they find that 'something' (a compelling idea) they rally behind it whether the author of the idea wanted it or not. Great ideas are the currency of great leaders and the ideas that spread,... WIN. A leader's ideas are embodied in their words and/or their actions. They represent something (idea) that is compelling to others.

Where we get a little jaded is when we hear people espouse leadship dogma without the experience to back it up. I definitely find myself leaning in this direction from time to time. Yet, I must confess that I closely follow many thought 'Leaders' who have never led a team. In my mind they are still leaders because their ideas represent something I believe in and, by default, I am one of their followers! The metric, then, is the validity of the idea.

Using this premise, leadership doesn't necessarily require formal heirarchy. Rather, it requires an passion for an idea that resonates with others. This type of leadership fills a vacuum in many walks of life beyond formal command structures.

A single bias toward command-structure leadership obviates those leadership instances where ordinary folks lead a revolution, great thinkers shift our mental constructs or a child takes a stand for what 'Right looks like'. In each of these cases the 'Idea' is the catalyst for substantive change and followers line up in mass.

I doubt if Ghandi, Joan of Arc or a cast of other leaders spent much time honing their leadershipship skills or reviewing their organizational charts :-)

... Just a thought

Mark