In our Leadership Master's class, when we were asked to choose a model leader, all of us came up with names of some inspiring leaders. Someone in the group asked if inspiring people is a metric of leadership, is Madonna a great leader?

This got me thinking, if we can call all movie actors, fashion models as leaders? They do inspire people on some level, don't they? If we say yes, what about marketers who inspire people to buy? Are they leaders? What about car salesmen? Their pitch is inspiring isn't it? Where do we draw the line between genuine leaders and other quacks?

All inspiring leaders that my colleagues shared with us in the class, were all famous. So, does fame entitle leadership? Will that make Madonna a leader? We know true leaders do not chase fame, and fame is only a by-product of excellence. So, can fame and inspiring people jointly become the real qualifying composite metric?

Now, what about individual leadership? In personal leadership, you inspire yourself beyond who you are, and there is no fame there! Many of such acts are unknown to another individual. Is that leadership at all? Some of my colleagues at work and other friends at gym diasgree with me when I say a janitor can demonstrate leadership qualities through his/her work, even while cleaning a toilet. Do they disagree with me because these inspiring leaders are not famous?

If you ask how can one inspire people just by performing a mundane chore like cleaning a toilet - imagine this! Let us imagine that there are two janitors in your building and each one is responsible for maintaining one separate facility. Say one of them is doing a shoddy job all the time and the other one, prides himself/herself with her/his work and consistently does a spectacular job. Which facility would you choose to use? If you say, the clean one, hasn't the janitor responsible for a clean room inspired you to use his/her facility? Doesn't the cleaner facility provide you with a better experience? Could that inspire you to do better things that day?

Now let us kick it up a notch! What if the janitor 's work was motivated by a higher purpose of giving his/her customers a greater experience, and imagine if this inspires his/her colleagues as well, couldn't that make him/her a leader?

Thus, inspiration through excellence could become a criteria for validating genuine leadership. Could this mean all people who excel through talent be called as leaders? Can an acrobat be called a leader? We have high talented sports athletes who embarrass their teams with their off-field conduct. Can they be called as leaders? What is the difference?

John Maxwell says, "Talent is a gift, but leadership is a choice!" So, what is that choice that one has to make to distinguish their inspiring act, as either a demonstration of true leadership or merely an exhibition of talent and excellence?

It, in my opinion, is 'The Intent!'. 

Verse 19, chapter 3 of Gita says, "Therefore, without being attached to the fruits of activities, one should act as a matter of duty; for by working without attachment, one attains the Supreme". Here, to become supreme, one's intention/inpiration is used as the criteria. From the PMI Leadership Master's Class, I have learnt that "the difference between manipulation and motivation is intent". This quote alone deserves another blog.

True leaders motivate, not manipulate. That is because, their work is inspired towards a greater purpose or cause, not personal benefits. Thus, we can say, an inspiring act which in itself is inspired by a vision, a grander purpose, that benefits other people, is in my opinion a true demonstration of leadership. People who do that on a frequent basis are genuine leaders