When I read a book this morning, I found an explanation about “leadership”. We use the word “leadership” in Japanese, which normally indicates ability to lead or an act to lead something. On the other hand, another meaning of “leadership” as the leaders of a group hasn’t imported.
The author points out that definition of the “leadership” has changed in the USA since 2000s. Though it focuses more on a sense of unity now, business people in the US embraced it because of inclusion of the “leadership” meaning as a position or function of a leader.
As it has only one meaning as ability to lead in Japanese, the definition change hasn’t yet been accepted by Japanese people. When we talk about the leadership of a corporate manager, it’s same as the management ability of the person. Even if the company needs more bond of solidarity, we tend to focus on the ability of the top management, not the cohesion power of an organization.
In reality, the bigger the company gets, the harder it become to unit it by the ability of only one person. The power of unity is necessary. In this sense, the leadership definition in the US is advancing more than that in Japan. However, when the word “leadership” was imported in Japanese, it was unfortunate that only one meaning was defined as Japanese “leadership”. We can’t keep up with the advancement of the “leadership”.