Reflections
REFLECTIONS
Leadership: A simple definition
MARC R. SUMMERFIELD
Am J Health-Syst Pharm. 2014; 71:251-3
M
r. Richard Coon taught chemistry
at my high school. Mr. Coon was
a great teacher because he did
what great teachers do: present complex
subject matter in a simple manner, so that
it is understood and becomes part of the
students’ intellectual and emotional being.
In one memorable exchange, de-
signed to explain the concept of “mole,”
Mr. Coon related that a handful is 5, a
dozen is 12, a score (“Four score and
seven years ago”) is 20, and a mole is 6.02
× 1023. He asked, “If I had a half of a
mole of cars, how many cars would
I have?” We responded, “3.01 × 1023.”
Mr. Coon smiled a sigh, relieved that no
one answered, “6.02 × 1011.5.”
He pressed on, “If I had a mole of
atoms, how many atoms would I have?”
“6.02 × 1023!” we shouted. Then, pointing
to the potassium frame on the periodic
table, Mr. Coon inquired, “If I had 6.02
× 10 23 potassium atoms, how much
would they weigh?” “Thirty-nine grams,”
we boasted. “If I had a mole of potas-
sium atoms, how much would it weigh?”
Same answer. Then Mr. Coon named the
number (i.e., 6.02 × 1023): “Avogadro’s
number.”
In less than two minutes, Mr. Coon
conveyed a complex concept simply. He
connected the number (6.02 × 1023) with
a name (mole) with the atomic weight of
an atom (in the case of potassium, 39)
with Amedeo Avogadro’s eponymous
moniker (Avogadro’s number).
I never forgot what a mole is—not
in high school, not in pharmacy school,
not in graduate school, not in practice,
not now. Others struggled, but I did not,
because Mr. Coon made it simple.
Exploring the nature of leadership.
After starting a career in hospital phar-
macy nearly 40 years ago, realizing that I
needed to understand the nature of lead-
ership, I began a career-long exploration.
Recently, however, my quest was more
specific: to find or assemble a definition
of leadership or a leader that captured
its essence—a definition that resonated
with me and, perhaps, could resonate
with others, especially aspiring or newly
minted leaders, as they lead pharmacists,
pharmacy technicians, and clinicians. Of
course, the definition would not capture
all that composes leadership. But it could
fuel a deeper understanding of leader-
ship, including its elements, its nature,
and its challenges. And, perhaps, lead to
further insights.
But, I thought as I recalled Mr. Coon’s
lesson, the definition had to be simple:
it had to be easy to understand, easy
to remember, and easy to apply. Jon
Meacham,1 in his biography Thomas
Jefferson: The Art of Power, described
Jefferson’s maturation before draft-
ing the Declaration of Independence.
Meacham observed that Jefferson was
learning “how to distill complexity into
a comprehensible message to reach the
hearts as well as the minds of the larger
world.”
The Dummies Books empire was
built to fulfill the mission of “making
difficult material interesting and easy.”
The Dummies series uses the word
easy instead of simple. The premise is that
most people do not mind admitting their
knowledge deficits, but they do mind in-
M ARC R. S UMMERFIELD , M.S., is Presi-
dent, Summerfield Consulting, Bel Air, MD
(summsum@verizon.net).
The author has declared no potential con-
flicts of interest.
Am J Health-Syst Pharm—Vol 71 Feb 1, 2014
vesting their time and money in fruitless
learning endeavors. Meacham’s observa-
tion and the success of Dummies Books
strengthened my resolve to keep the defi-
nition simple.
I searched diligently for a suitable
published definition, and the following
eight surfaced. Note that some of the
definitions express the concept by what
leaders do; others, by what leadership is.
The people quoted include leadership
development consultants, business writ-
ers, academicians, and researchers.
Marie Kane2: “Leadership is taking
people to places they’ve never been
before.”
C. F. Rauch and O. Behling3: “Lead-
ership is the process of influencing the
activities of an organized group toward
goal achievement.”
Garry Wills4: “The leader is one who
mobilizes others toward a goal shared by
leaders and followers. Leaders, followers,
and goals make up the three equally nec-
essary supports for leadership.”
Marcus Buckingham5: “Great leaders
rally people to a better future.”
John Kotter 6 : “The fundamental
purpose of leadership is to produce use-
ful change, especially non-incremental
change.”
Peter Northouse7: “Leadership is a
process whereby an individual influences
a group of individuals to achieve a com-
mon goal.”
Todd Sorensen et al.8: “Leadership is
successfully creating positive change for
the common good.”
Jeff Immelt 9: “Great leaders drive
change.”
Each of the definitions contains one
or more of three attractive thematic
elements:
Copyright © 2014, American Society of
Health-System Pharmacists, Inc. All rights
reserved. 1079-2082/14/0201-0251$06.00.
DOI 10.2146/ajhp130435
251
 Reflections
• A democratic component—conveying
that the leader works to achieve a com-
mon goal, one that is jointly conceived
or, at least, jointly agreed on,
• A collegial component—the notion that
the leader influences rather than dic-
tates throughout the process, imparting
a respectful and unifying approach, and
• An enhancement component—conveying
that the results represent an improved
current state.
I decided not to include the first two
elements in my definition of leadership;
instead, the first two would represent a
standard approach to leadership. (I use
the word standard to acknowledge that
collegial and democratic approaches are
recognized as enlightened in our con-
temporary culture, knowing that circum-
stances might occasionally mandate the
pursuit of a parochial goal or a unilateral
decision at any stage of the process.) My
definition would embrace only the third
theme: working toward an improved
state of being.
I decided to exclude from my defini-
tion the traits and skills commonly as-
sociated with effective leadership, such
as intelligent, articulate, confident, cou-
rageous, witty, driven, knowledgeable,
and charismatic. My premise was that
those skills and abilities are intrinsic not
to what leadership is but rather to what
leaders need, recognizing two caveats.
First, no one style or set of traits and
skills defines an effective leader. Business
analysts recognize that Tim Cook, chief
executive officer (CEO) of Apple Inc.,
possesses a style and set of skills and traits
different from those of his predecessor,
Steve Jobs. Nevertheless, Jobs was suc-
cessful, and most knowledgeable people
expect Cook to be, as well. Second, lead-
ership is situational. The combination of
traits and skills that contribute to success
in one situation, shaped by factors such
as the setting, the nature of the goal, its
importance, and the sense of urgency,
might falter in another. Also, traits and
skills that contribute to success in one
discipline, business type, or profession
might not work in another. Most of the
generals who became President of the
United States were abject failures as po-
litical leaders. Ulysses S. Grant10 famously
stated, “War and politics are so different.”
252 Am J Health-Syst Pharm—Vol 71 Feb 1, 2014
Definition of leadership. I deter-
mined that my definition had to pass
Einstein’s11 test: “If you can’t explain it
to a six-year-old, you don’t understand
it yourself.” In that spirit, I decided that
the vocabulary had to be basic and the
number of words few. I decided on three
words. Why three? Because research
shows that memory trails considerably
after three to five elements.12
I decided that the core function of
leadership is to “make things better.” As
mentioned, leadership is usually best
conceived and administered democrati-
cally and collegially, but ultimately—at
the core—the job of the leader is to make
things better.
But . . . better how? Who is to
judge? Better for whom? Better when?
These questions provoke more ques-
tions: Better scientifically? . . . financially?
. . . legally? . . . emotionally? . . . ethically?
More efficient, or more effective, or safer?
Better objectively or subjectively? Better for
one, better for many, better for all? Univer-
sally accepted, or controversial? Better now,
or better later? Better for now, or better for-
ever? The answers are circumstance-based
and wide-ranging.
The definition (i.e., to make things
better) has several appealing characteris-
tics. First, it embraces broad, transforma-
tive leadership, such as rescuing a sinking
department or drastically altering a de-
partment’s vision and mission, without
excluding specifically defined, project-
based leadership, such as decreasing drug
costs or decreasing employee turnover.
Second, it embraces leadership that pro-
duces specifically defined, project-based
goals. But it does not exclude leadership
that touches the intellectual, emotional,
and spiritual elements of what we do and
how we do it. The definition embraces
leadership that fuels the “pursuit of hap-
piness,” at least in a professional sense.
Finally, it embraces emergent leadership
and assigned leadership. Emergent lead-
ership embodies the notion that each
of us—even those with titles that do
not begin with uppercase letters, such
as shortstop, school board member, and
pharmacist—can make things better.
Leadership is not the exclusive domain
of assigned leaders, who occupy formal
leadership roles, such as CEO, president,
or chairperson. Comedienne Lily Tomlin13
bellowed, “I always wondered why some-
body didn’t do something about that.
Then I realized I was somebody.”
According to the definition, not only
can a “worker bee” be a leader, but an
assigned leader, in actuality, might not
be one. The assigned leader might be a
capable manager, but he or she must make
things better to deserve the title of “leader.”
The American Society of Health-
System Pharmacists (ASHP) concurs
with Lily Tomlin.14 ASHP’s “Statement
on Leadership as a Professional Obliga-
tion” concludes that “Leadership is a
professional obligation of all pharmacists
and not the exclusive responsibility of
pharmacists who hold formal leadership
roles or titles.”
Making things better. Abraham Lincoln
envisioned a unified United States and
vowed that “this nation, under God,
shall have a new birth of freedom—and
that government of the people, by the
people, for the people, shall not perish
from the earth.” Martin Luther King,
Jr.,15 envisioned tolerance and equality
and predicted that “one day this nation
will rise up and live out the true meaning
of its creed.” James Watson and Francis
Crick discovered the structure of DNA,
thereby illuminating human biology
and opening paths to an enhanced qual-
ity and duration of life. Billie Jean King
defeated Bobby Riggs, an actual and sym-
bolic feat that launched her and others
to champion women’s rights, gay rights,
and gender equality. All were leaders. All
made things better.
But making things better does not
have to imply a broad reach or an
expansive impact; it can be local and
personal. As pharmacists, each of us
can make things better in our practice.
Making things better entails forming
a vision of the better state (what you
want to achieve), having confidence in
that vision and your ability to execute
it, and acting on it. We all can make
things better for our patients, our
colleagues, and our guests. We make
things better when we participate on
a quality-improvement team, when we
streamline the medication-use process,
and when we reduce the potential for
error. We make things better when
we improve job satisfaction, when we
counsel or comfort a patient, and when

we give directions to a visitor. When we
make things better, we are leaders. We
all are “somebodies.”
A lasting impression. Forty-five years
ago in a high school classroom in New
Jersey, Mr. Coon was teaching chemistry.
Little did I know that he was setting the
foundation for my personal and profes-
sional growth. Much later, reflecting on
his teaching style and its effectiveness,
I learned to appreciate simplicity as a
leadership skill. Recently, I used it as an
approach to define leadership and to
encourage professional participation. I
learned more than just chemistry in that
classroom. Thank you, Mr. Coon.
References
1. Meacham J. Thomas Jefferson: the art
of power. New York: Random House;
2012:35.
2. Kane M. Leadership: today’s re-
quirements and tomorrow’s chal-
lenges. www.executiveevolution.com/
leadershipsummary.htm (accessed 2013
Nov 4).
3. Rauch CF, Behling O. Functionalism:
basis for alternate approach to the study
of leadership. In: Hunt JG, Hosking
DM, Schriesheim CA et al., eds. Leaders
and managers: international perspec-
tives on managerial behaviour and
leadership. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon;
1984.
4. Wills G. Certain trumpets: the call of
leaders. New York: Simon & Schuster;
1994:17.
5. Buckingham M. The one thing you need
to know: about great managing, great
leading, and sustained individual success.
New York: Free Press; 2005:59.
6. Kotter JP. What leaders really do. Harvard
Bus Rev. 1990; 68(May–Jun):103-11.
7. Northouse P. Leadership: theory and
practice. 5th ed. Los Angeles: Sage;
2010:3.
8. Sorensen T, Traynor A, Janke K. Invit-
ing scholarship in leadership in phar-
macy. Innovations in pharmacy [serial
online]. 2010; 1:1-6. Available at http://Z.
umn.edu/innovations.
Am J Health-Syst Pharm—Vol 71 Feb 1, 2014
Reflections
9. Immelt J. In: Hwang E. Managing orga-
nizations in the “projectized” way. http://
bai-conference.org/BAI2011/Papers/8.
Others/8362.pdf (accessed 2013 Nov 4).
10. Bishop D. Dick Bishop’s blog: archive for
April 2012. http://dickbishop.wordpress.
com/2012/04 (accessed 2013 Dec 13).
11. Working Minds. Quotations from Albert
Einstein (1879–1955). www.working-
minds.com/AEquotes.htm (accessed
2013 Dec 13).
12. Cowan N. The magical number 4 in
short-term memory: a reconsideration of
mental storage capacity. Behav Brain Sci.
2000; 24:87-185.
13. Tomlin L. Lily Tomlin quotes. http://
thinkexist.com/quotation/i-always-
wondered-why-somebody-doesn-t-
do/361406.html (accessed 2013 Nov 4).
14. American Society of Health-System
Pharmacists. ASHP statement on leader-
ship as a professional obligation. Am J
Health-Syst Pharm. 2011; 68:2293-5.
15. Quotations Book. http://quotationsbook.
com/quote/12713/#sthash.5iPxQpKD.
dpbs (access 2013 Dec 13).
253