After two years in the Laidlaw programme I see leadership differently. Rather, I see more of it. I see it everywhere. Prior to Laidlaw I knew about leadership, of course, I cared about leadership, sure, but I thought of leadership as big, active leadership: Presidents (of societies, governments, etc), group project leaders, directors, CEO’s - all these positions which have very clear and obvious connotations of Leader. To me, leadership was an integral skill if you wanted to, or had to lead - if you were the person making decisions, directing groups of people towards a larger goal. Leadership was obvious.

But leadership doesn’t require a ‘position’ or a ‘role’ - the bottom of the hierarchy can demonstrate just as much leadership as the top, it’s just easier to miss. Over these two years, by learning about leadership, myself, and cooperation, I’ve become much more aware of when someone is exhibiting leadership - I notice it in plenty of unexpected places. Let’s take my LiA experience in Spain. We volunteers were working with children, but there were two coordinators from the organization which we reported to - our ‘leaders’, as it were. That didn’t change the fact that every single volunteer was a leader, especially to the children. How they treated each other, the kids, carried themselves, expressed themselves, the children would absorb all of it. Whether they knew it or not, every volunteer was leading by example to these kids. 

However, this goes one step further - every person leads everyone else. Humans have evolved as social creatures, so we’re generally sensitive to what other humans think, do, and say. I’m going to be a nerd and bring up something I learned in my first year political philosophy class: Havel’s analogy of the Green Grocer. I’ll boil it down to this: a man in an authoritarian state (ie. is powerless to change the system) ceases to put up a propaganda poster that’s in his shop. A tiny act of rebellion, but what it does is that it shows anyone who passes by that shop that A) not everyone likes the system, and B) it is possible to not conform. I would argue this Green Grocer is demonstrating incredible leadership, through the humble action of taking down a poster. It can trigger a chain reaction of individuals, who, inspired by someone else, take the next step to not conform, themselves turning into leaders. 

Essentially, any time we do anything and other people perceive us, we send a message. People see this message, and this message can then affect their actions. If your action, or speech, influences what a group of people says or does, is that not leadership at its most fundamental?

This is what leads me now to consider leadership ubiquitous. Everyone lives as a leader. The difference between people is that some learn to lead better, they learn about themselves and others, and they put themselves in bigger leadership positions, gaining experience and developing their leadership abilities. 

I suppose you could call it passive versus active leadership. Passive is small moments of leadership, in everyday life: How do you interact with others? Speak to people? Carry yourself? Regular things you may not think twice about, but that others notice, either consciously or not, and copy. 

Here’s a moment of passive leadership that happens every single day in London: Jaywalking. When the pedestrian sign is red, but there are no cars. Sometimes, everyone waits until it's green. More often, someone, an average everyday person, decides they can’t be asked to wait, makes sure the coast is clear of cars, and walks across the red light anyways. Very rarely do they become the only person crossing. The norm already violated, nearly everyone else crosses as well. 

That is perhaps a negative example of passive leadership, so here’s a simple example of positive passive leadership: being the first person to help clean up at any gathering - others will add themselves to the cleanup effort and lend a hand after someone becomes the first to help. Easier yet - being the first to introduce yourself to a group of people, where nobody knows anyone else. 

This can be contrasted with active leadership. I believe the biggest requirement for active leadership is that the person exhibiting leadership is aware of their goal, and aware of themselves exhibiting leadership. If someone is given a position, they’re also given a goal, and also are told that they are leaders. You cannot avoid active leadership if you are in a leadership position, which is why active leadership is what people typically associate with leadership. Being the person with authority, who is aware of the goal they are trying to achieve, and the people they are leading and working with to achieve said goal. 

The neatest thing Laidlaw has done for me is notice all the examples of passive leadership, allowing myself to turn passive leadership into more active examples. The person introducing themselves is being a passive leader since they’re doing so unconsciously. If I think, my goal is for everyone here to be part of a comfortable environment and get to know each other, and then introduce myself with that goal in mind, working with others to make the environment comfortable (whether they know they’re working with me or not) - this turns into a semi-active version of leadership. I become aware, and try to be more purposeful, more active, in my passive leadership. 

I might have rambled a little towards the end there, but I hope I illustrated my point: people influence people, people lead people, all the time. 

This leads to one final reflection - this ubiquitous leadership is why leadership skills are integral for everybody to learn. There’s a plethora of reasons why, one standout being that the best followers need to understand and be prepared to exhibit leadership. Nevertheless, if everyone is a leader, as I claim, then everyone should learn how to be a good one. Let me underline that by no way do I mean to suggest that there is ‘one’ type of good leader, which only makes it more important for people to learn about leadership. It’s crucial for people to learn their own style, how they work and cooperate, and learn how to be their own version of a ‘good’ leader by honing their personal strengths and leadership potential. 

I truly believe that being more effective, moral leaders makes us better people, and better citizens of this world. Laidlaw helped me learn how to live as a leader, which I endeavor to do every day, and I hope to bring that out in others as well.