Many organizations claim that each and every employee can be a leader, more often than not they are referring to those four behaviors: initiative, creativity, the courage of one's convictions, and integrity. And, in one sense, they are right to call attention to these behaviors. Each employee can take initiative, and figure out new ways of getting things done, and show resolve, and take full responsibility for his actions. And, yes, if each employee does these things, the organization will be stronger for it.

But they err when they label these behaviors leadership. There are many examples of admirable men doing heroic things, but they don't necessarily indicate leadership. (And, yes, all leaders should possess integrity, but so should the rest of us. Integrity is not just a desirable leader-ship trait; it is a desirable human trait.)

The same can be said of many other, often heroic, behaviors. If you take initiative, improvise creative to changing circumstances, and have the courage of your convictions, you will be a formidable and effective human being, and surely an asset to any organization, but you will not necessarily be a leader.

So what does define leadership? What do leaders get done that is distinct from what ordinary people of initiative, creativity, resolve, and integrity get done? From all my research, this is the only satisfactory definition I've found:

Great leaders rally people to a better future.

A leader encourages. If you don't feel this way, if you are, by nature, a little jaded, disillusioned by the motives of man and the capriciousness of fate, take heart. First, you will be right more often than the optimist. After all, there are many more ways that things can go wrong than right. And, second, there are jobs for you, jobs in which an innate scepticism can serve as a distinct advantage — in the legal department, for example, or strategic planning. (I'm joking. A little.) But, whatever you do, don't lead. Properly defined, the opposite of a leader isn't a follower. The opposite of a leader is a pessimist.

This doesn't mean that the best leaders are wide-eyed dreamers, delusional about or dismissive of present realities. On the contrary, the best leaders are markedly clear-eyed when it comes to assessing the challenges of the present. It simply means that, despite their realistic assessment of present chal­lenges, they nonetheless believe that they have what it takes to overcome these challenges and forge ahead.

Which, inevitably, raises the whole question of ego.

The need for a leader to have a strong ego is rather less self-evident. Much has been written lately about the need for leaders to be humble, to downplay their egos, and, indeed, a review of the business pages reveals a motley crew of executives all of whom appear to have succumbed to a surfeit of ego. Bernie Ebbers at WorldCom; the Rigas family at Adelphia; Gary Winnick at Global Crossing; Ken Lay at Enron; Martha Stewart at Martha Stewart Omnimedia. The list is depressingly long, and growing.

However, no matter how reprehensible their actions may have been, to explain their misfortune as a function of excess ego is actually a misdiagnosis. The reputations of these executives fell not because their egos were too strong but because their principles were not strong enough. They had too little integrity, not too much ego.

The key thing about leading is not only that you envision a better future, but also that you believe, in every fibre of your being, that you are the one to make this future come true. "I am not satisfied." This is the mantra of the leader. As a leader you are never satisfied with the present, because in your head you can see a better future, and the friction between the "what is" and the "what could be" burns you, stirs you up, propels you forward. This is leadership.

Leaders, those who have a passionate belief in a better future, can be found in any sphere. The school superintendent who constantly pushes his teachers to come up with more effective ways to help children learn is a leader, as is the pastor who rallies his congregation with images of a more faithful community; the store manager who begins every staff meeting with a vivid description of the best customer stories from the previous day; and the sports coach who challenges his team to visualize what the perfect play would look like. Whenever a person strives to make others see a better future, there is leadership. Optimism and ego are the talents underpinning all great leadership.

The need for a core talent for optimism is almost self-evident. As a leader you must believe, deeply, instinctively, that things can get better. You don't describe your images of the future because you want to put a brave face on things, or because you hope that you will be able to inspire other people. Others may become inspired, and you may recognize that as important, but you don't do it for this reason.

You do it because you can't help it. You do it because you see the future so vividly, so distinctly that you can't get it out of your head. No matter how intense the present, the possibilities of the future seem to you even more intense. You have no choice but to do everything in your power to make them real.

Corporate excellence has always been impossible to explain without factoring in the role of the leader. Naturally, the importance of the leadership role varies according to the type of challenge the organization is facing—when the organization is confronted by dramatic change, the guiding hand of a strong leader is more influential than when the organization needs simply to maintain its current course. But, in general, my experience conforms with that of Warren Bennis, perhaps the preeminent leadership expert, when he says, "Leadership accounts for, at the very least, 15 percent of the success of any organization."

It is inaccurate and not a little unhelpful to say that everyone, regardless of his or her place in the hierarchy, must be a leader. Leaders play a distinct, discrete, and enormously diffi­cult role within an organization. If everyone is trying to play leader, they will lose focus on their primary role—whether it be sales, or service, or design, or analysis, or management—and quite quickly the organization will splinter apart.

Leadership does in fact require certain natural talents: the notion that anyone can learn to be a great leader, no matter how appealing it is at first glance, is equally inaccurate and unhelpful. The same can be said for great managers. Obviously, you can improve your performance as either a leader or a manager through practise, experience, and training, but if you lack a few core talents you will never be able to excel consistently in either.