[September 27, 2026] Leadership is an emotion. This idea is unique, and certainly controversial; running counter to those who believe it is merely a practice to influence others. And it is indeed a practice, but one that is also built into every one of us.
However, like love, hate, happiness, fear, and anger, leadership is surely innate. At least in part, since the mind takes basic feelings, context, memory (and training), and culture and puts them together into a specific emotional response.
Leadership, however, differs from other emotions in that each of us has the mental capacity to develop that emotion into something far greater than its original emotional base. For example, we could learn to better see the future and articulate how it benefits others to reach for that future. Developing a vision and communicating it is thus a hallmark of good leadership.
This same person, being a leader, learns to be more reciprocal than others; through peacemaking, reciprocity, and stable long-term social relations with others, especially with those who are more authoritative. We refer to this as a calling. The leader is called to something, and maybe he does not have any control over that calling.
Thus, we need leadership grounded in both our innate qualities and our ability to develop them into a personal ability that can achieve things greater than that person. Because it comes from an innate emotional base that we improve, leadership is also a process we can make better.
The problem with the established study of leadership is that we cannot define leadership without deciding whether it works.
There is no stable definition. Leadership is treated as a personal trait, a set of behaviors, a relationship, a process, a formal role, and a moral quality, all at the same time. The problem is that no one agrees on a definition or boundary between leading, managing, influencing, and simply being in charge. It can mean just about anything.
Circularity. We define “good leadership” by its outcomes. Transformational, authentic, ethical, and servant leadership are not just descriptions of what someone did. These are evaluations; the leader is inspiring, moral, or caring. Research in this area finds that these styles predict better outcomes. This is a tautology.
Romance of leadership. People explain wins and losses as if the person at the top caused them. Context, followers, resources, timing, and luck get underweighted. We often look at the leader in a vacuum and then treat the relationship as proof of that leader’s impact. Leadership then looks more powerful than it often is, especially in messy conditions.
Until we learn to understand leadership first as an emotion, and then as an innate trait to be improved, we can never truly understand leadership.
————
Please read my books:
Gen. Satterfield’s article takes a real risk by calling leadership an emotion instead of only a skill, a title, or a set of tricks used on other people. That claim sounds strange at first because so many leadership books treat the subject as something you do to followers. The writer says the feeling is already inside us, like fear or loyalty, and then the mind shapes it with memory, training, and culture. Growing that feeling into something larger means learning to see a better future and explaining why other people should reach for it. Reciprocity matters too, because a leader has to keep peace and build steady relationships, even with people who outrank them. The idea of a calling is honest, since some men and women feel pulled toward responsibility whether they asked for it or not. The sharpest part of the essay is the warning that leadership studies have no stable definition and try to be a trait, a behavior, a role, and a moral badge all at once. If we only call leadership “good” after the results look good, the definition runs in a circle. The romance of leadership is another trap, because we give the person at the top too much credit and ignore timing, resources, luck, and the team. Seeing leadership first as an emotion does not make it weak; it makes it human and something we can still improve. Until that starting point is taken seriously, people will keep arguing about styles that are mostly praise dressed up as theory. This piece will not win every reader, but it does what a useful article should do: it makes you stop and think.
The women are going to love you. Leadership is emotional. Got it………
Gen. S said it was an emotion, not emotional. I do think there is a difference. Women still love him because he’s a real man.
“Leadership is an emotion,” is more than a unique idea. I think it will be considered by many but I’m not so sure that it will be accepted today. Why? I think that the dominant idea is that leaders are made, not born. You state that there is at least a small element of leadership that is innate. That runs against the current grain of thinking. Go back a hundred years and your idea might have worked. I”m not implying that your idea is to be discounted, and in fact I think it’s right, at least in part. Considered developing the idea. Thanks sir, keep us thinking.
Interesting start.