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

Ronald Reagan was a traditionalist - who purposefully, effectively unleashed innovation and change in himself, in the nation, and in the world. He was a "great communicator" who achieved memorable intimacy with the people everywhere - yet he was often disengaged from his own family.

Some critics have suggested that Ronald Reagan succeeded in a series of careers, ultimately as a two-term president of the United States, by a series of fortunate accidents. Such a criticism is not backed by the evidence. It is true, though, that Reagan's approach to work and life was not conventional.

I attended law school, the progression into a career in corporate law was almost foreordained. I set about to craft a career reflective of my values. These included: public service, environmental protection, and leadership development. Trusting my instincts, following my heart, enabled me to create a calling that became a career.

Legal training has been quite useful in developing critical thinking. Whether one attains it in mathematics, philosophy or law, an analytic grounding can add great value in defining and confronting complex problems, or laying out a path to implement a vision.

Theodore Roosevelt is a natural choice for leadership education. Along with many other observers, I believe he was among the greatest of leaders to serve as president.

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."