Benjamin Zander's TED talk on classical music is a video I've watched many times before. I find it again every few years. The electricity and joy in his voice, the conviction with which he speaks, the remarkably beautiful playing—it is without a doubt one of the best presentations I've ever seen. Of course, this is by no accident. Zander had given this presentation quite a few times before, and he had honed it to elicit the strongest reaction it possibly could. He even quips at the beginning that he already knows of the outcome to his “experiment.” He knows with complete certainty that, when he finishes, the audience will be filled with “shining eyes,” as he puts it. I certainly know my eyes still absolutely shine every time I watch it.

What does that mean, though? It is clearly especially important to him since he says “if their eyes are shining, you know you're doing it” multiple times, as well as defining a strong, simple idea of what success means to him: “it's not about wealth and fame and power. It's about how many shining eyes I have around me.” To posit a particular possibility, I argue that he means this: “shining eyes” are any physical manifestations of the realization of opportunity or personal potential.

That may initially be a bit obtuse, so allow me to break it down. It is Zander's goal to be an enabler. He strives to allow people to realize their full potential, and he opens their eyes to unrealized possibilities—possibly even to him. He does not want to simply give his orchestra members sheet music and call it a day—no! He wants every member to feel a real connection to the music they are creating. By whatever means he attempts this, he looks for any signs that people care, any signs that his colleagues are impassioned! The eyes are amazingly expressive, and so simply become the easiest window to see this passion spring forth. He is not referring to a simple temporary feeling, such as the eyes welling up upon hearing his stories (although mine indeed can tend to do so), but a deeper, more embedded sense of newfound opportunity and fundamental realization. He is not just giving a simple experience of classical music, rather, he is fundamentally displaying and sharing a whole new way of experiencing it, opening the doors for all to feel the connection he feels, and that we, the audience, are capable of feeling as well.

In this, he is displaying his exceptional quality as a leader. To me, a leader is somebody who can break down (oft-nebulous) hopes into achievable goals and then oversee the execution of those goals—both for themself, and for others. Zander breaks down, simply and clearly, just a few reasons to be passionate about classical music, where that passion may come from, and he skillfully guides the audience through this journey. He enables us to follow these steps alongside him, and to expand our own horizons.

It bears noting that our new definition of 'leadership' is deceptively simple for what it represents. It can sneakily encapsulate many different qualities, which may not be so immediately clear. To illustrate, take the idea of fairness. I hope we can agree that this is an especially important quality for a leader to have. However, it initially can appear to be sadly absent from our definition. It is in there, though! The non-specificity of “oversee the execution of those goals” saves us. Of course, efficient and effective execution is exigent upon everyone feeling especially cared for, and so fairness is simply an aspect of executing the stated goals!

Now, this might seem a little pedantic and roundabout, I do confess, but I will continue to defend it because these are things that we should consider simply inherent to the idea of leadership. These important qualities—fairness, integrity, empathy, confidence, creativity, humility, positivity, and so forth—do not a leader make, rather, they simply come with the job as a requirement. I argue, there is no such singular thing as a responsible leader, or confident leader, or good leader. Instead, there are only leaders, and then there are those who fill an empty organizational role. Of course, a particular leader may especially excel in one quality, in which case it may be fair to add the additional adjective, but speaking broadly, a leader is a leader.

Now, certainly nobody has perfect fairness, integrity, empathy, confidence, creativity, humility, positivity, and so forth. This does not invalidate the existence of what we will henceforth consider a leader. Simply, a leader is someone who follows the definition and does so “well.” This, clearly, is subjective. That is okay! Some theoretical definition with accurate objective bounds would certainly be helplessly overgrown and unwieldly to interact with, as well as overly restrictive. A leader to one need not be a leader to all, but just to those whom they need to be.

When attempting to analyze the merit of an actual leader, then, look towards the “shining eyes” (or lack thereof) of those following the leader (even if the leader is only leading themself!). This quick step removes much of the prickly ambiguity of our earlier discussion. Simply put, if those who are being led feel well led, we should trust that! We could put all sorts of wording to that effect, but to be direct, humans and our ancestors have spent many thousands of years developing a keen social and emotional sense of what being led by a competent leader can feel like. We could apply all sorts of processes and hand-crafted algorithmic systems to determine the merit of a leader, and sometimes that may be of valid use, but here, I urge us to explore the possibility that our answer already lies inside of us. Trust the sparkling eyes of those being led, and Zander truly succeeds.