Defining Leadership: What Truly Makes You a Leader

In my previous post I promised to explore the historical roots of leadership and the qualities that distinguish a true leader. Few professionals dedicate eight years to a Ph.D. in leadership theory followed by seven years of postdoctoral research; this overview distills that scholarship into a concise read.

Central to leadership is the presence of willing followers. Titles alone do not confer leadership; rather, it is the ability to inspire, motivate, coach, and mentor that attracts voluntary followership. In short: effective leaders earn followers.

In maintenance and reliability, a growing trend is to shortcut proven practices. Senior leaders, lacking the requisite expertise, often approve such shortcuts, which rarely succeed. The most common example is appointing engineers to lead maintenance teams.

An engineering diploma alone does not equip one to manage maintenance or reliability. Organizations that forgo building dedicated reliability resources risk failure, mistakenly assuming that a four‑year degree or short‑term trade training equals the depth of hands‑on experience gained through apprenticeships.

A quick online search for reliability leadership roles reveals that almost every posting requires an engineering degree as a baseline. This article explains how maintenance and reliability professionals can educate their organizations, navigate these conversations, and secure support. We discuss why leadership must be rooted in expertise, how to adopt an ownership mindset, and how to avoid being a victim of poor decision‑making.

The article also addresses the underrepresentation of authentic reliability managers on Top Management Teams (TMTs). Drawing on research from my books and dissertation, it clarifies what constitutes genuine leadership and reaffirms that transformational, not transactional, approaches are required for organizational transformation.

Reliability often consumes 40–60 % of an organization’s budget, yet manpower considerations rarely influence TMT composition. Typically, reliability voices are represented by operational managers whose primary focus is production output, not capacity planning. Consequently, reliability is seldom integrated into strategic planning or viewed as a competitive differentiator.

TMTs allocate fewer than 3–4 % of their time to reliability concerns, often framing the discussion solely around cost rather than strategic value. While searching for operational waste, they overlook how reliability improvements can unlock significant efficiencies. As a result, reliability gets buried amid other expense line items, despite its central role in organizational success.

Companies focus on obvious metrics—airlines on seats sold and schedule compliance, hotels on nightly room occupancy, schools on enrollment, and manufacturers on units produced. Beneath these metrics lies the cost of keeping aircraft on time, rooms in suitable condition, learning environments safe, and equipment defect‑free, all of which are governed by maintenance and reliability.

The value-added potential of true reliability management can significantly influence the bottom line. The absence of a reliability perspective on the TMT hampers overall effectiveness. Reliability management encompasses more than cost control; it is a strategic lever for competitiveness that many organizations overlook.

Top Management Team

I recommend adding a reliability background to the functional criteria used when selecting TMT members. Removing the barriers that prevent reliability professionals from ascending to senior roles will strengthen organizational performance and profitability. Without this change, reliability will continue to decline.

My dissertation research traced the evolution of transactional and transformational leadership back to James McGregor Burns, who first linked follower motivation to leadership. Bernard M. Bass later argued that transformational leadership outperforms transactional styles in driving organizational outcomes.

Over the past fifty years, thousands of studies confirm that transformational leaders boost profitability, employee satisfaction, and commitment, while transactional leaders maintain status quo operations. The evidence underscores that transformational leadership is essential for meaningful change.

Transactional leaders focus on maintaining smooth day‑to‑day operations. They use reward and discipline to motivate compliance, often relying on management by exception or contingent reward systems. This approach yields minimal strategic advancement.

Transformational leaders, by contrast, employ charisma, vision, and inspiration to elevate both themselves and their followers. They foster intellectual stimulation, encourage questioning, and develop individual potential—traits embodied by figures such as Ronald Reagan, Winston Churchill, and modern innovators like Elon Musk.

Research by Johannes Rank and colleagues shows transformational leadership positively predicts subordinate self‑esteem and organizational performance. Similarly, studies by Ignacio G. Vaccaro highlight how company size influences the effectiveness of transactional versus transformational approaches, with larger firms benefiting more from transformational styles to manage complexity.

Adaptive leadership builds on transformational principles, emphasizing moral and ethical conduct, continuous learning, and the capacity to guide teams through change. Adaptive leaders prioritize team cohesion, morale, and creativity, setting goals that align personal growth with organizational objectives.

Understanding where leadership is learned helps identify the sources of effective styles. About 40 % of our leadership tendencies stem from family, followed by educators, community, business, political leaders, and public figures.

My Leadership Style

I transitioned from transactional to transformational leadership through a blend of early influences—parents, Navy mentors, and senior managers who exemplified idealized influence and intellectual stimulation. Their guidance shaped my confidence and approach, allowing me to adopt a visionary, coaching style.

Reflecting on my developmental years—particularly the first five years when foundational coaching occurs—highlights the importance of early mentorship. Transitioning to formal education often introduces restrictive, indoctrinating environments that discourage creative questioning, a factor that can trap many leaders in transactional habits.

My future articles will focus on proactive reliability practices that sustain robust plant operations. If you have a topic you’d like me to cover, questions, or simply want to discuss, feel free to drop me a note or call.