Why it’s time we became more precise about what we call leadership
Leadership is one of the most overused — and under-examined — words in modern organisations and society.
We use it as a blanket.
A label.
A title.
A shortcut.
We call people “leaders” because they hold office, wear rank, sit at the top of a hierarchy, command attention, or occupy positions of power.
Yet increasingly, we are coming to recognise something uncomfortable:
many people who hold leadership titles do not necessarily demonstrate leadership.
And that should give us pause.
Because when behaviour, impact, and accountability tell a very different story to the title being used, the issue isn’t semantics — it’s risk exposure.
So, I want to explore a simple, but uncomfortable question:
When we use the word leadership, what are we actually describing?
Leadership, Like Trust, Is Not a Blanket Attribute
I often think about leadership the same way I think about trust.
Trust is deeply personal and highly specific.
We don’t trust people in general — we trust them to do particular things, based on what we’ve observed, experienced, and learned over time.
I might trust someone to lead a complex conversation.
I might trust someone to act with integrity under pressure.
I might trust someone to deliver consistently in their area of expertise.
But I wouldn’t assume that trust automatically transfers to every situation, every decision, or every domain.
Doing so sets people up to fail — and sets trust up to break.
Leadership works the same way.
Leadership is not a global trait.
It is situational, earned, and observable.
And when we stop treating leadership as a label and start examining the mix, we see people — and risk — far more clearly.
Leadership, Served Neat
At its purest, leadership has a distinct character.
It includes:
- Accountability that is personal and owned
- Service before self
- Moral courage, especially when it costs something
- Responsibility with real consequence
- Care for people, not just outcomes
- A deep respect for how things are done, not just what is achieved
This is leadership served neat.
No title required.
No applause needed.
No performance.
And importantly — it is not common.
The Leadership Cocktail: When the Mix Matters
In real life, leadership is rarely served neat.
Every sector, system, and environment adds its own mixers — some enhancing, some numbing, and some completely overpowering what leadership is meant to be.
This is where clarity matters.
Instead of asking:
“Is this person a leader?”
A better question is:
“What’s in their leadership glass?”
How much of what we’re seeing is leadership — and how much is dilution?
Politics: When the Spirit Is Overpowered
Politics is one of the clearest examples of leadership dilution.
The mix often includes:
- Agenda
- Power preservation
- Political warfare
- Narrative control
- Strategic compromise
- Deflection and weaponisation
- Loyalty tests
- “It’s not personal — it’s just politics”
At some point, accountability becomes conditional — if it shows up at all.
Service gives way to self-interest and polling.
Responsibility is abstracted into “the system”.
When the dominant ingredients become control, ego, dominance, and the accumulation of political points, leadership isn’t diluted — it’s displaced.
And this is where many people quietly struggle, myself included.
Because when the spirit of leadership is no longer detectable, continuing to call it leadership feels intellectually dishonest.
Power is not leadership.
Visibility is not leadership.
Winning is not leadership.
Corporate Leadership: When Performance Masks Dilution
Corporate environments present one of the most subtle — and therefore most dangerous — forms of leadership dilution.
Unlike politics, where the mix is often loud and visible, corporate dilution is frequently polished, professional, and well-articulated.
The mix here often includes:
- Performance metrics and KPIs
- Shareholder and market pressure
- Reputation and brand management
- Legal protection and compliance framing
- Incentives tied to short-term outcomes
- Leadership language without leadership practice
On the surface, everything can look aligned.
Values are articulated.
Purpose statements are published.
Leadership programs are rolled out.
And yet, when pressure rises, a familiar pattern often emerges.
People are prioritised — until they become inconvenient.
Values are upheld — until they slow things down.
Accountability is expected — until it is required and tested.
In these environments, leadership is rarely absent — but it is often conditional.
The dilution happens not through overt dominance, but through:
- Avoidance
- Diffusion of responsibility
- Decision-making by committee
- Silence in the face of poor behaviour
- The quiet outsourcing of accountability to process
This is where leadership becomes performative.
It sounds right.
It looks right.
But it doesn’t always hold when it matters most.
And this is why corporate leadership can be so confusing for people inside organisations.
Because the language says one thing — while the lived experience says another.
When the dominant ingredients become protection, optics, incentives, and risk aversion, leadership isn’t removed — but softened to the point where courage, consequence, and care struggle to surface.
And when that happens, trust erodes quietly, engagement declines, and risk accumulates beneath the surface — often unnoticed until it becomes unavoidable.
Courage, Leadership, and the Difference Motivation Makes
This distinction becomes especially important in public service, military, and emergency environments.
These roles attract people willing to step forward — often into uncertainty, pressure, and real danger — to protect others. That commitment deserves respect. Courage is not optional in these roles; it is lived daily, often quietly and without recognition.
Leaders in these environments step into harm’s way too — not from bravado, but from responsibility. From presence. From standing with their people when it matters most.
So let’s be clear:
Courage is essential. Leadership without courage does not exist.
Where the distinction emerges is not in risk, but in motivation and orientation.
Leadership-aligned courage is:
- Grounded in responsibility
- Oriented toward protecting others
- Willing to carry risk when it cannot be avoided
- Anchored in preparation, coordination, and care
Hero-motivated behaviour, by contrast, is more likely to be:
- Oriented toward recognition or identity
- Reactive rather than considered
- Individualised rather than collective
- At times, disconnected from broader system safety
Both may involve personal risk.
Both may look similar on the surface.
But the intent — and the outcome — are very different.
Leadership does not avoid danger.
It ensures danger is necessary, proportionate, and carried for the right reasons.
When Heroism Becomes a Signal to Pause
In public service, military, and emergency environments, heroism has an important place.
Acts of bravery — often carried out under extreme pressure — save lives, protect communities, and deserve recognition. Many situations demand decisive, courageous action, and there are moments when people willingly step into danger because there is no other option.
Heroes matter.
Where it becomes important to pause is not at the act itself, but at the motivation behind it — and the patterns it creates.
In some environments, there is a subtle but critical difference between:
- Courage in service of protection, and
- Courage driven by the pursuit of danger, recognition, or identity
Both may involve real risk.
Both may result in remarkable outcomes.
But they are not the same — and they do not create the same conditions for safety over time.
There are times when medals are rightly awarded for extraordinary actions — and yet, behind closed doors, concern can linger about the type of behaviour being reinforced and rewarded.
Not because the act wasn’t brave.
But because it may have involved unnecessary exposure, escalation, or risk to others that could have been avoided through different choices earlier in the chain.
This is not a criticism of individuals.
It is a leadership question about what we reward, what we normalise, and what we unintentionally encourage.
Strong leadership does not eliminate the need for bravery.
It ensures bravery is necessary, proportionate, and anchored in protection — not pursuit.
The best leaders in these environments are often invisible.
The Risk of One-Brush Labels
This is why broad labels like leader or hero can be dangerous when used without care.
When we apply these words without examining the mix — motivation, behaviour, impact, and consequence — we unintentionally lower the standard of what is acceptable.
We risk:
- Elevating people with poor behaviours
- Excusing extreme or reckless actions
- Normalising control, dominance, or ego
- Confusing visibility with leadership
This isn’t about stripping people of recognition.
It’s about being honest about what we are recognising.
When leadership is heavily diluted — by agenda, fear, ego, or self-interest — continuing to call it leadership doesn’t protect people.
It obscures risk.
Reclaiming the Word Leadership
If leadership is going to mean something again, we need to be braver — and more precise — in how we use the word.
That means:
- Naming dilution when we see it
- Separating leadership from authority and title
- Distinguishing real acts of courage and bravery from the pursuit of heroism
- Recognising that leadership shows up differently, in different contexts, at different times
Leadership is not a status to be claimed.
It is a practice to be observed.
And when we stop accepting labels at face value — and start examining the mix — we see people more clearly, systems more honestly, and risk far earlier.
That clarity doesn’t weaken leadership.
It strengthens it.
Because precision raises the standard.
And higher standards are how we better protect what matters most — our people, our culture, and the house itself.
The next time you hear someone described as a “leader,” pause for a moment.
Ask yourself what’s in the glass.
Because how we define leadership quietly shapes what we tolerate — and what we protect.
This question sits at the heart of the Risk Rebel Leadership Pathway — where leadership is examined not by title or authority, but by behaviour, motivation, and impact.
