I absolutely disagree with that quote about leadership.
If you aren't leading people, you aren't a leader. It's right in the name. If you're going your own direction, alone, you're a pioneer. But not a leader.
If you aren't leading people, you aren't a leader. It's right in the name. If you're going your own direction, alone, you're a pioneer. But not a leader.
Film directors become directors because they go around and tell people "I'm a director putting a movie together, do you want to work with me/invest in me/help me?" not because they work hard at unrelated task X and somehow become promoted to the rank of directors.
Leadership at its best...
Isn't that usually the job of the executive producer?
Edit: However, I agree with your second statement. Though there's a wide gap between "leader" and whatever you would call the individuals I mentioned (yes, I'm trying to avoid terms such as "visionary").
Having said that certain cases of "Thought leadership" which is one kind of leadership probably agrees with her blog.For example all leading scientists who make fundamental contributions to our understanding don't really need people following them but they do set the direction of future research so people do indirectly follow their leadsership
I agree that if you aren't leading people that you aren't a leader, but I don't think that is what the author implied. There are many many great leaders who are never seen as or talked about as "leaders."