Are you a leader or a leader?

In Part I, I felt like it was very important for the authors to make the distinction between the definitions of leaders used throughout the book. The first definition the book gives for a leader is “a person who has been elected, selected, or hired to assume the responsibility for a group working towards change.” The second definition “refers to any person who actively engages with others to accomplish change.” In my mind, I see at the second definition as being the more compelling of the two because it encapsulates that leadership is something that everyone can hold. This idea of a leader is one I never considered and it is very enlightening to me.

I see now that person does not have to be a top official, or something of that nature, to be considered a leader. A person can be a leader if they work with others to bring about a change regardless of how small that change is. Exercising civic duties is an example of this. Say a person is unhappy with the crime in their neighborhood. This person can write a letter to a positional leader that represents the community in which this neighborhood exists. In my opinion this person is a leader in his or her own right because he or she to the initiative to make a change that will benefit those in the neighborhood, and potentially beyond the neighborhood.

Personally, I would like to take a leadership role by being civically active, but I usually end up with the attitude that I cannot make a difference because the issues I would like to address are “larger than me.” I think that many people think this way, and although I many know it’s unhealthy to think this way, it is easier to just give up. I guess that is why it is so empowering to know that become a leader is something that everyone is capable of. If more people thought of themselves as leaders based on this definition, I believe this mindset would give them the confidence to propel them over the obstacle that restrain them.