Self-leadership is only possible with a certain definition of leadership, but it does sound odd to some people.
Some people view leadership as being inspiring, as influencing someone to do something rather than ordering them to do it. Leaders, on this view, are sensitive to the needs of people while managers are task oriented. Achieving esults is all they care about and they can overlook people's needs. There are a number of books around on the topic of self-leadership which is characterized as applying laudable values to yourself and ensuring that you behave in accordance with them. I have a real problem with this, I have to admit. I simply don't buy the idea that only leaders can be considerate of people, not managers. For me, leaders promote change while managers get things done. Both can be sensitive to people's needs. Also, it just seems strange to talk about leading yourself. As I see it, we can manage ourselves but only lead others. I agree that we can talk ourselves into doing things we wouldn't otherwise do, but I find it hard to see this as leadership. I think leadership is a group function. It is shown in the midst of competing views or competing people, where one person or viewpoint seeks to win out, to show the way forward for others. Leadership can be shown between competitors as in sports, say when Tiger Woods leads a golf tournament. In an organization, someone with a more compelling vision of what to do wins the argument over other competing visions. How do you do this for yourself? Two sides of you might want to go in different directions, but which one is the real you who shows leadership to some other you? It gets complicated in my view. Why would anyone want to talk about self-leadership and what does it matter? Well, I think it matters because there is so much confusion around about what leadership means. For me, self-leadership is just a gimmick, but one that adds more confusion than it clarifies.
