Leadership or Manipulation?

I've been meaning to read more on the topic of leadership, but find myself putting down books after the first chapter, when I have grasped the author's definition of "leadership" and categorically reject what s/he has to say.   The main problem is that there seems to be little understanding of the practice - or more specifically, partial understanding: leadership is seen as control or persuasion, but without a purpose.  To my way of thinking, this is not leadership, but merely manipulation.

Leadership always requires a goal - to lead someone is to lead them somewhere, or to something.   There are instances in which a person attempts to control or manipulate others without any sense of a goal.  This is not leadership, though it might be said that the "goal" is to appease their own desire for domination.  As a rule, a person's attempt to influence others can only be regarded as leadership if it is intent on the achievement of a goal.

However, that is not to say that the goals of a wannabe-leader are always clear.   Most operations managers who oversee the work of employees who do the same daily tasks have the vague sense that they want better performance, but no clear concept of exactly what they must do to achieve it.   Others have a clear goal, but are quite vague in the methods by which it will be achieved - so their directions seem misguided or aimless, as they do not correlate to the goal. Perhaps the worst wannabe-leaders are those who have goals that they do not disclose to their subordinates, which seems to be blatantly manipulative.

There is also the problem of weak leadership, who merely support and encourage activities that require neither support nor encouragement. A person who is already motivated to do something does not need to be "lead" to do it, and while sports fans may disagree, I reject the notion that someone who merely cheers a performer on can be at all credited for their performance.   Insofar as support is concerned, it's often necessary for someone in a position of authority to clear obstacles and authorize the allocation of resources - and this is very helpful, but it is not leadership if this is all that is done.

Another common misconception is the notion of "self-leadership," which is claimed when a person overcomes their own reluctance or pessimism to undertake an action.    This is necessary, but is more along the lines of self-discipline and integrity, both admirable qualities, but neither of them qualifies as leadership per se.

But this misconception is useful in considering the behavior of a leader whose behavior consists of compelling or tricking others into doing things that they are unwilling to do themselves.   Granted, it does meet the criterion of having a clear goal for influencing the behavior of others, but it reeks of moral cowardice.

At this point I seem to be straying a bit - to summarize: to qualify as leadership, influence/persuasion must be directed toward the achievement of a goal that followers would not have pursued without the influence of the leader.   I think the last major topic is the beginning of a different discussion - ethical versus unethical leadership - that is a secondary concern.