I spent the last year being a leader of several someones, and I did only a mediocre job-- meaning I did a terrible job, because most people could have performed just as well without my leadership. If I had read the following post nine months ago, I may have remained the leader of that group. I'm not beating up on myself here; I don't believe in doing that, ever. I'm hoping that someone in a leadership position will read this and learn the best strategy I've found.

There's a notion we have about leaders-- this mental picture resembles a warrior or a king, or maybe a CEO or a rock star. Say the word "leader," and you'll have your listener imagining someone who holds assets like power, respect, sound judgment, decisiveness, expertise, intelligence, insight, wisdom. Great assets to wield, and probably essential in most leadership roles.

This is how leadership looks from the ground floor; when someone's leading you, these are the characteristics you recognize. It looks pretty glamorous, seeing the leader in action-- seeing him kick heads in when something goes wrong, watching people humble themselves when they've screwed up, or seeing people serve that person unquestioningly because of their respect for her. It's a coveted position, and one that many people know (or think) they could do well.

You're waiting for me to tell you that leadership isn't that glamorous, that I know from experience how nerve-wracking and soul-punishing it can be. You're waiting to hear that leadership skills come from hard work and tough, gritty decision making. You expect me to say that leaders work harder than the combined force they lead. Maybe. But that kind of thinking won't get you any closer to (and may in fact draw you away from) the core truth of effective leadership.

See, hard work and tough-guy tactics only make for a person who's difficult to listen to, because he's always pissed that he's doing "all the work around here," which makes him belittle his peers and followers. "But we've got pressing work to accomplish, and how else will I snap these soldiers to attention than to punish the ones who slack?" The main problem here is that nobody has to follow you, though there may be certain situations where people are pressured to appear to follow you, if only to keep their jobs or eventually replace you as leader.

The core truth of leadership, the one I should have known if I was to keep my position:

Leaders don't serve a purpose; they serve people who have a purpose.

That's the difference between belittling people for slacking, and re-orienting people toward their purpose when they lose track. It's the difference between honing your expertise so you won't be outdone by your followers, and educating yourself so you can better provide insight to those who need it for their goals. It's the difference between a restrictive policy that keeps people from usurping your throne, and creating an environment where leadership directives take only 1% of the time so that meaningful work can take the other 99%.

Yes, leaders need expertise, power, respect, and all the Russel-Crowe-in-Gladiator characteristics that make the job look glamorous.

But the most glamorous part of all, and the most rewarding, is serving people who have a purpose. When all your other leadership assets are employed toward that end, the result isn't just a successful company or a killer app or a note-perfect band. The result is a group that makes a difference, and a leader who can barely take credit for it-- because the purpose was in the group all along.