Effective leaders at a high level tend to be skilled actors. Franklin Roosevelt is said to have to quipped, on being introduced to Orson Welles, that they were the two greatest actors in America. The story may be apocryphal, but the message rings true.

The unprecedented transparency of our time is a making change by the day. Our era, with transparency and the spread of information, is decentralizing authority and power at a breakneck pace. Those who understand this can break away. Those who attempt to hold back may well be trampled.

If leadership is, fundamentally, about serving others, then any one person should be able to move between being a "leader" and a "follower."

William McKinley has surely been underrated - in no small part because he was succeeded by a memorable leader, Theodore Roosevelt.

It was a particular pleasure to examine President Ronald Reagan's leadership. I experienced it first-hand, as a member of his administration in several capacities as well as his 1984 reelection campaign staff. The most common misconception is that Reagan was a bystander to his own career.

Ronald Reagan was unusual in being an authentic personality. Unlike many professional actors - and politicians - he was much the same behind the curtain as in front.

Often, in a given project team or network, one sees leadership roles shifting among various members at various times. Attempts to fit these into traditional views of "leader" and "follower" don't quite work. It's more like Twitter: the "leader" has "followers" - but the "followers" are empowered to alter the relationship unilaterally, and the "leader" must continually earn the consent of the "followers."