The term ‘leadership’ has acquired a pseudo-mystical vagueness in recent years, with it bandied about in the same circles where words like ‘dynamic’, ‘paradigm’, and ‘synthesis’ are used, often with the same lack of specificity and mysterious connotations. It is clearly something to be desired, however anything more specific than that is difficult to gather from the ways in which this seemingly unambiguous word is used. Sometimes it is implied to be something that anyone is capable of obtaining, while other times there does seem to be some sort of divide between the leaders and the led. Very rarely is it implied to be something born of natural talent, but it is assumed to be something learnable, through various seminars and classes, which are doubtlessly ‘dynamic’. This seems ultimately harmless, of course - perhaps people are benefiting, perhaps not, but at the very least, no real harm can be done. However, a cloud of questions still surround the word - what does it actually mean, why is it’s modern definition so confusing, and what does it tell us about ‘buzzwords’ in general?

Leadership seems easy enough to define; it is the ability to lead others. What precisely this entails is not quite as obvious but it is still seemingly simple. It is a blend of introvertedness, charisma, force of personality, and persuasive ideas. It requires a personality that attracts people, as  well as the willingness and power to do something with the attention of those people. It is absurdly easy to find examples of this quality throughout history. Many of them are revered, such as Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, George Washington, or Jesus, just to throw out a few examples. These people are more revered for their actions, however, than their leadership abilities in particular. Some historical names who possessed a lot of leadership were much more debateable figures, whom the majority would be much slower to call ‘good’, such as Napoleon or Andrew Jackson, both of whom attracted large, loyal groups of followers and used them to conquer most of Europe and make such questionable policy decisions as the Trail of Tears, respectively. Some of the best leaders, however, are widely (and justifiably) considered evil - Adolf Hitler is the shining example of this. The man was an incredible orator who inspired people and gave a downtrodden nation a plan, and was possibly the person I’ve listed so far with the most ability to influence large numbers of people. Of course, his goals and the plan he convinced people to follow were unconscionable and horrific. This does demonstrate, however, some aspects of leadership. It is a neutral quality, not inherently positive or negative. It is also somewhat context-based; Martin Luther King Jr. would not have risen to national prominence had Civil Rights been better enforced and recognized, and George Washington would have just been an unsuccessful British officer without the American Revolution. These examples also demonstrate the power of leaders, however. The reason so many leaders are recorded in history is that they are major forces that shaped that history (as well as the fact that it is easier to record the names of the leaders than the many, many, followers). In a way, this last fact especially explains our modern obsession with leadership - whatever we think it is.

In modern terminology, ‘leadership’ has become a poorly defined term that has lost much of its meaning and become a positive but nebulous term. It is clearly supposed to be some sort of desirable quality involved with working and communicating with others. Groups like DECA or TSA (the Technology Student Association) deal ‘leadership’ to students; perhaps on the part of the first this makes some modicum of sense, but in the case of the second, an organization dedicated to science and engineering education, it seems more incongruous. It begins to resemble problem solving skills rather than anything involving the ability to direct others. Young people are also exhorted in many situations and by many people, often of the variety to which motivational speakers belong,  to be ‘leaders’ rather than ‘followers’. The difficulty with the idea of everyone being a leader is that not everyone can lead; some need to follow behind and execute the leaders’ ideas. Man never could have reached the moon if everyone working on the space program decided to chase their first inclination on what would work best. In addition, what is often meant by ‘leadership’ is not so much leading others as leading oneself; self confidence, creativity, and courage. This makes it an excellent example of a buzzword, although examples of buzzwords are not something difficult to find in modern times.

Leadership, like many buzzwords, does technically mean something but has been distorted into a blurry version of its actual meaning. Words like ‘upcycling’ or ‘higher order thinking’ are also examples - there is an actual definition for the words, but when they are used it is often entirely unclear what exactly is meant. It would be much more difficult for me to define these things, however, as they started their word careers as buzzwords. Leadership, on the other hand, displays what trendiness can cause. It can take something meaningful and make it meaningless, and that can be dangerous. This phenomenon does not only apply to words; it can also apply to problems that are co-opted by people who want to make them trendy for whatever (usually marketing) reason. Take gluten-free products, for example; a substance that is entirely harmless to most people but extremely dangerous to some has become something to be avoided, regardless of having Celiac disease, which has led to which products are actually entirely gluten free becoming a dangerously fine line for those whom it actually matters for. Schools are often also targeted by buzzword-salesmen; they are sold programs that teach learning tools to increase ‘literacy’ or ‘higher level thinking’ that are not really effective or used. The same has happened to leadership. What was once a specific term that applied to certain people but not others and meant something definite has lost both of those qualities.
Leadership is like a tragic play, telling us its own story as to allow us to avoid leading other words or ideas to the semi-ruinous fate of buzzwordification. Once a concrete concept of personal charisma and the ability to direct subordinates, it has become a corporate and educational mish-mash of murky meanings. It cries out to us; “Let not others follow me!”, or at least it would were it a sentient being. Perhaps, moving forward, that warning will bring about at least a new innovation in which it is made a clear goal to create the impact of reducing buzzwordification.
Or, maybe, we can use words to mean what they really mean.