Leadership...and sleepy ramblings

Ok... i can't sleep, and as the residual adderall courses through my system (i kid. ...mostly), i'm left to ponder such asinine things as the question John, our Program Director, has posed to us repeatedly, since our first Seminar class: "Are you leaders?" (It seems he's waiting on a good enough answer before he ceases to ask it every week, and so far, we just stare blankly at him, or roll our eyes... well, those of us awake enough during Seminar to do more than drool on our desks, that is.)

But, upon hours of lying awake, thinking of nothing and everything all at once, I think, the better question is "Is John a good leader?" ...and i think the question is completely valid. Here's my rambling argument on that one:

Leaders ≠ Managers (as we all know intrinsically whether we ever learned it in a classroom or not, via the joys of working for a living), and in fact, the best definition for Leadership is simply this:

                        "the ability to inspire others towards a common goal."

Because this definition does not include status, assume authority, or dictate that position/title is a key component, it is therefore, completely invalid to say we are NOT leaders based on our decision to become Path Assists and not Pathologists (which i know to be the basis behind his question in the first place, as it is commonly assumed anyone who would work under the direction of an MD must be incapable of being one themselves, and are therefore "followers" by nature. A misconception that is worth fighting, i agree, while at the same time disagreeing with his methodology...but i digress.)

In keeping with the idea that a leader is not defined by position or rank, it is valid to point out that the leaders of many strikes/riots/wars throughout history, are people in positions of subordinance, status-wise, and not in titled positions of authority. (Rabble-rousers come from all walks of life, do they not? And even leaders of evil and destruction are leaders by definition. I mean, hey, no one said it had to be organized!)

So, then, the question then becomes what denotes GOOD leadership from BAD leadership, and at its simplest answer, it must be concluded that leadership recognizes leadership potential in others. ie: one cannot "inspire others to a common goal" if there is no passing on of that inspiration. Or to reiterate, a single person can only inspire so many individuals based on the limitation of time/space, so it is considered "good leadership" to promote others to lead with you, thereby promoting the common goal and increasing the outreach potential.

So, i ask, then... "Is JOHN a good leader?" ...and isn't that the real answer to his question?! 

If he IS, then we are or will become leaders, because the implication is that John has the ability to detect leadership ability in each of us, thereby promoting his goal (which in this case, i will assume to be promoting the scope/professionalism of Path. Assists).

But.... If, however, by that same logic he is NOT a good leader, ...well.. it's at least possible then, that i might indeed BE a follower. 

Either way... maybe we'd get a new question. ;)