TED Conferences’ Post

I wholeheartedly agree with the idea of removing labels within an organization to promote a more inclusive and collaborative environment. However, I have reservations about the notion of considering everyone a leader. If everyone is labeled a leader, who will they lead? Leadership implies guiding others, and if everyone assumes the role of a leader, it could lead to confusion and inefficiency. In my view, a vehicle cannot be driven by more than one driver without risking a crash. Clear direction and accountability are essential for smooth operations. That said, if your concept revolves around engaging everyone and encouraging them to take ownership and initiative in their roles, then I am fully on board. I strongly believe in the power of engagement. When everyone is actively involved and feels a sense of responsibility, the organization benefits from diverse ideas, increased motivation, and better overall performance.

High performance teams are often characterised by the notion that everyone can take the lead. What does that mean? Is it time to change the definition of "leader" ... was the definition always helpful? Power v profit ... hands off those good people and that brilliant team! Women in many places used "revolving leadership" to get tasks done; Guardiola's football style is characterized by "rotating leadership" (the leader in a given moment is the player who has the ball and the vision to see how to make the ball move forward), right? In the past the "leader" controlled resources (including information); in today's world with empowered, educated people who are connected, does the "old concept" make sense? In an emergency, maybe (if there's no protocol) ... when else?

Though I share a lot of the same views as this lady, my uncomfortable comments are, I like the concept of bottom up leadership. If the people lead, the leaders will follow. Unfortunately, in my opinion and experience, the reality is that the people are stamped down and prevented from participating in leadership by ego driven leadership. Correspondingly from having read In Search of Excellence at the recommendation of my father, for me more than the qualities that made the excellent companies disgussed in the book I see it as transcending all mediums of leadership, public, private, and benevolent and the simple essence of the book is that with free, open and honest communication accompanied with limited experimentation/testing is how you achieve excellence; never bet the whole pot.

Last week we hosted our annual ‘Natural Leadership day, it’s already in you’ for 60 young leaders of our future. Amongst others helping to remind them that natural leadership is not about roles, positions, functions. It’s about using the human qualities which are already inside of them for the benefit of themselves and especially others. ‘Leadership is how the other feels when they had an encounter with you’. We fully back your message!

Interesting idea, but one that I see as impractical in most organizations. Surely, junior-level execs and those requiring coaching and guidance cannot be viewed as having the same level as the trainer, moreover as a leader? Unless you are talking about leadership as a mental state—to be in control of one’s life—in which case, we don't need to remove labels to achieve it. It does not matter where you are in the hierarchy; we are all leaders in some situations and followers in others. I am all in, however, if the labels are removed to bring down the power distances between ranks and foster more open communications. This is aligned with the concept of psychological safety in forming effective teams.

We love this and couldn't agree more. You can be a leader at any level 🙌

Love this! Leadership isn't just about a job position; it's about applying a set of skills and tools to show up as your best wherever you are. And Compassionate leadership is key to fostering healthier and thriving work environments!

Making leadership development accessible as an everyone priority is an absolute game changer.

In my opinion, the term "Leader" has a different context here and also refers to specific personal qualities of an individual, rather than a defined leadership position (title) within the structure of an organization. For example, a mentor, someone who helps others navigate through rough times, inspires and supports others, someone who is open to learning from others, etc. There are so many real life examples I can think of where individuals, regardless of age, gender, cultural background, or education/reporting level are leaders in their own right and within their respective domains without even realizing. This TED talk is meant to inspire people to view leadership from a different perspective, or at minimum recognize that there are many leaders even if they are not in official leadership positions or are responsible for the final decisions.

This is a description of anarchy.