I especially agree with your comment about ‘leadership’ becoming a dirty word. It’s so true.

David Wilcox makes a similar point on this blog. He says “The term leadership is okay but ‘leaders’? I balk at ‘leaders’. There’s an organisation called Common Purpose and they send me emails beginning ‘as one of the leaders of the future…’ What does that mean exactly? They’ve got it completely wrong!”

Over-use is such a problem. Like many good words, leadership has been over-blown as a sort of MBA catch phrase (and I’m speaking as someone who’s run electives on the subject!). When we think of people who might call themselves “Leaders” we all too often think of bumbling CJs and David Brents - leaders who are a grotesque pastiche of what they really should be.

It’s such a shame: let’s hope the word “collaboration” doesn’t get equally hijacked!

I think the ‘hero leader’ will always be important - but perhaps its more about trying to promote more people to take on that role when its appropriate - and importantly to dispense of it when its not needed. In our work ‘leadership’ is often thought of as a dirty word or something people don’t want to aspire to because they see it as a negative thing (the idea of having or being a big bad boss). But actually in the groups we work with theres always some sort of leadership (not always good) and what we try to do is make young people aware of different styles of leadership and to see that its something that can be flexible in approach - but also in person. So very often you need that hero leader to get something kickstarted - the challenge comes in getting them to then let go!