At Tero, we have some strong feelings about leadership. We read about it, think about it and train others in it almost every day. Moreover, we, like you, are learning to lead. We, like you, are developing our own leadership capacity on a daily basis. We have not arrived, but we, like you, are on our way.

As we have studied leadership, we have formed opinions about it. We call them our 'philosophy on leaders'. The following are some of our key beliefs:

When you think of leadership, you may recall the names of famous leaders such as Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King Jr., Winston Churchill, Jack Welch, etc. These individuals served and continue to serve an important role in the world. They accomplished great things for the betterment of the human condition.

The problem with the famous leaders is that they are exceptional. Who can live up to the standard of Mother Teresa? Or Martin Luther King Jr.? If they are the leaders we reflect on when we contemplate leadership, then leadership is a daunting task to say the least.

Tero holds loosely to the notion of the larger than life Leader with a capital 'L'. Tero is inspired by the notion of developing leaders because Tero believes in the leaders with a lower-case 'l', or everyday leaders. These are the people who practice leadership wherever they are. They may not be in positions of great authority or prestige, but they challenge the status quo, motivate and empower others and make the world around them a better place by courageously communicating a clear vision for productive change in whichever situation they find themselves. We believe there is a place for the big-name leaders and there is an even bigger place (and bigger need) for the everyday leaders.

Big-name leaders make a big impact because they are exceptions to the rule. They are rather like the fine china that humanity trots out for the special occasions. Everyday leaders are not reserved for special occasions. They are necessary for daily life and (fortunately for those of us who will never meet the likes of a Mother Teresa); they are present and active doing great things in daily situations. Everyday leaders come in all shapes and sizes, all ages and educational levels. They practice their leadership as a fine art in their own way, in their own communities and for the betterment of the people around them.

An example of an act of everyday leadership is the young child who sticks up for the weird kid when others are making fun. Simple. Bold. And, it makes a big difference to the weird kid. We need more leadership like that; everywhere, everyday.

While each of us is born with our own unique gifts, many of which serve us in leadership roles, we believe that leaders are grown. The qualities of great leaders are not handed down from the gods, nor encoded in DNA. They are developed with practice, courage and discipline over the course of a lifetime.

A lifetime!? But that's too long! Wouldn't it be better if we could send everyone to a quick leadership course, turn on the timer and pop out McLeaders ready for public consumption? Just think of how much more efficient that would be! [Does the sarcasm give you a sense of how we feel about this?!]

Leadership is an art. And, like any art, it requires skills honed over the course of time; skills such as judgment, experience, discipline, tact and timing. Characteristics like that don't develop overnight (or in a quick leadership course). They develop with practice, with failure, with reflection, with success, with humility. They take hard work and time. Then again, most things of real value do.

This definition, offered by Kouzes and Posner, authors of Credibility and The Leadership Challenge, is our favorite definition of leadership for a couple reasons.

The first is that it describes leaders mobilizing others. The word 'mobilize' implies that the leader is inspiring others, energizing them, and directing their enthusiasm toward something specific. We like that.

The second reason is that it describes how people 'want to' work. You can make people do something by threatening, manipulating, forcing, coercing, or bribing them. That's not hard, nor is it leadership. Leaders mobilize people to want to follow them. That's not as easy.

The third reason is the focus on the goal. We are firm believers in the idea that leadership does not develop in a vacuum. Simply putting people in a room and talking about the idea of leadership will not make them leaders. The thing that develops leadership is the challenge of motivating others to work toward a common goal. Leadership develops because someone thinks something should be done about_________ and then works toward raising support among others who feel the same way.

It would be nice (or at least easier), if leaders could lead without the inconvenience of people. People are, after all, so complicated. They tend to have distracting baggage like outside interests, personal hang-ups, habits, values, different personalities, etc. It would be so much easier if they were like computers and you were able to program them to do exactly what you wanted.

Of course, then it would be computer programming, not leadership.

By definition, leadership is about 'leading' other people. As a result, leaders who intend to lead people are going to have to get really good at understanding what influences people, what makes them tick, how to talk to them, how to challenge them to take risks, how to motivate them, how to bring out their best and so forth.

Are you beginning to see why we think leadership is lifelong? This stuff takes practice! With leadership, there are no formulas or absolutes. There are seldom even any easy answers.

Leadership is a reciprocal relationship between those who accept the challenge to lead and those who choose to follow. Any discussion of leadership must attend to the dynamics of that relationship. Strategies, tactics, skills, and best practices are empty unless we understand the fundamental human aspirations that connect leaders and their followers.

If there is no underlying need for the relationship, then there is no need for leaders.

There is a greater connection between leadership and customer service than between leadership and management. This is true in three ways:

1. Both services are basically intangible. Moreover, because both leadership and customer service are intangible, precise manufacturing specifications concerning uniform quality (or style) are difficult, if not impossible to set.

2. Both require high labor content that is heterogeneous which means the performance varies from producer to producer, from customer to customer and from day to day (or goal to goal).

3. Production and consumption of both leadership and customer service are inseparable. The quality of the service occurs during the service delivery which is most commonly a moment of relational interaction.