Harold G. Nelson offers an interesting perspective on the realm of our discipline:

"Scientists and artists legitimately serve their own interests-their curiosity or need to express themselves. In contrast, design is defined as a service to the 'other'. Design is relationship-based-a social system-and designing is a complex, dynamic process I describe as a 'conspiracy'-a breathing together-among stakeholders in the design."

He also talks about our ability to be transcendental (well, not exactly, but it seemed like a great '60s attribute to try on for fit). His case for design as a basis for leadership is all the more intriguing when looking at its reliance on a "service relationship" (it's likely slighly different than your first mental image). Based on my own heightened focus to embody more 'change management' practices in our discipline, this quote was also quite relevant:

leaders forget, people like to change -- they just don't like being changed

Mr. Nelson suggests that a design culture helps accommodate the change, but this also requires an organizational design competency.

A quick review of his book, The Design Way, strongly suggests that there are some keys here to crossing the chasm. The more I learn about Harold Nelson and his work the more it looks like it could be the missing Rosetta Stone for our discipline. He certainly has pegged a primary reason I've never pursued an advanced degree.

Quotes from in-depth interview in NextD Journal: ReRethinking Design
Caution: While purported as an 'interview', GK VanPatter has a tendency to pontificate too profusely at the expense of gaining greater understanding of the individual being interviewed. The last 20 pages (printed html pages of 44 total) is an endless stream of GK interjecting material which should have been published in a separate piece.