I like the article but I don't think it makes its point clearly. What I took from it is that notions and mechanisms of defining leadership/influence are somewh

I like the article but I don't think it makes its point clearly. What I took from it is that notions and mechanisms of defining leadership/influence are somewhat orthogonal to problem-solving. In the example, it was Martha who came up with the solution, yet when asked who had been most 'influential' [1] it was Arne. Does that mean Arne was the 'leader'? According to the psychologists viewpoint/definition, yes, but does it really matter? When the question is re-framed and they watch the video again the author proposes that there was only one 'effective influencing action', which came from Martha. I find this viewpoint just as valid (and useful) as the former (i.e. not very). [1] Note also that influence and influencing actions aren't defined in this post. It's difficult to discuss this with out further detail. It even seems like the definition changes partway through.