I think a lot of the discussion in comments describes the "how" to be a good (people) leader rather than define "what" is a good leader. From a sociological point of view however, isn't the most broad definition of "leadership" simply the ability to get a bunch of people to do what is best for the collective (or more cynically the corporation/country), rather than what is best for the individual?
Or taking the logical inverse position, can one be considered a good leader if they cannot inspire that kind of decision-making?
I do think there is some truth around all people managers wanting to be considered good leaders... and very few of them actually conforming to that definition. But that's a different topic.
Or taking the logical inverse position, can one be considered a good leader if they cannot inspire that kind of decision-making?
I do think there is some truth around all people managers wanting to be considered good leaders... and very few of them actually conforming to that definition. But that's a different topic.