Leadership has been described as “a process of social influence
in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in
the accomplishment of a common task“. But what if that
definition is wrong? Maybe the definition of leadership in the
social era isn’t about a person but an idea. Leaders die, ideas
self perpetuate. So which is more important to the creation of
value, the person or the idea? The answer is obvious. Yet our
mental models about leadership are all centric to people rather
than ideas. Look up leadership on Wikipedia. What y0u find is an
exhaustive list of leadership definitions and theories all
centric to a person rather than an idea. Using People’s Ideas
Ron Baker writes: Ideas and knowledge are what economists
describe as nonrival assets—meaning more than one person can use
it at a time. Contrast this with traditional rival assets, such
as land, labor and capital, which can only be used for one
purpose at a time, and are subject to diminishing returns. If I
give you the tie off my shirt