Thank you for validating those of us who do not fit into the expected mold of loud, fast and furious. Many of spend our lives feeling we are inadequate and some, like the young woman in the article, try to change. Unfortunately, not everyone is successful at such a change and it can be a harrowing experience that leaves scars and bruises.
57
Shout out to Phillips Exeter preparatory school in Exeter New Hampshire.
To frame my comment I have to mention this school regularly ranks in the top five in the world. Yes, the world. Academics are rigorous. Grades are the old fashioned way with C being average in the class. They refuse to offer AP classes since they find that whole system corrupt and meaningless. Grades are not discussed among students. It's just not part of the culture there. Students are encouraged to get involved in academics, sports, art, social causes. Classroom instruction revolves around discussion so kids learn to participate and listen to others and work cooperatively. They all go to prestigious universities. Many on scholarships.
Many people feel they are turning out some of the finest young people the world has to offer the next generation.
And, guess what -- the school motto is "Non Sibi" (Not for Oneself)
They invite alumni to speak at weekly assembly. Many are leaders in their chosen fields, many are just doing what they love to do. Income ranges are very broad. You are not invited to speak because you have accumulated wealth or social prestige. You are invited to speak because you are considered a role model for the school's motto. Corporate heads, school teachers, creators of GMO's doing great work for humanity globally. Also poets and basketball coaches; full-time parents and Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. Butchers, bakers, candlestick makers.
Non Sibi.
To frame my comment I have to mention this school regularly ranks in the top five in the world. Yes, the world. Academics are rigorous. Grades are the old fashioned way with C being average in the class. They refuse to offer AP classes since they find that whole system corrupt and meaningless. Grades are not discussed among students. It's just not part of the culture there. Students are encouraged to get involved in academics, sports, art, social causes. Classroom instruction revolves around discussion so kids learn to participate and listen to others and work cooperatively. They all go to prestigious universities. Many on scholarships.
Many people feel they are turning out some of the finest young people the world has to offer the next generation.
And, guess what -- the school motto is "Non Sibi" (Not for Oneself)
They invite alumni to speak at weekly assembly. Many are leaders in their chosen fields, many are just doing what they love to do. Income ranges are very broad. You are not invited to speak because you have accumulated wealth or social prestige. You are invited to speak because you are considered a role model for the school's motto. Corporate heads, school teachers, creators of GMO's doing great work for humanity globally. Also poets and basketball coaches; full-time parents and Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. Butchers, bakers, candlestick makers.
Non Sibi.
60
I've read that in Hinduism we need creation, destruction and preservation. Even destruction is a positive force because it clears away old stale things. Takes out the trash. Not everyone is a creator.
12
Why do we need to box in people with these labels at all? Most of us are leaders, followers, and "soloists" (to use the term in this article) at various times, when the occasion calls for it. Knowing the proper time to be each is perhaps the skill that should be prized and taught.
39
Here's a random one to chew on.....I don't know if Ulysses S. Grant at age 40-ish, when he had moved back home and started working in his father's leather tannery because all his other career efforts hadn't worked out so well to that point in his life (and he had a family to support), would have been considered a "leader", let alone envisioned his own self as the head of a 600,000 man army or President of the United States. Thank God his life trajectory worked out the way it did!
10
The problem, to put it crudely, is that the "leaders" get the credit and the money, and the people who actually make things work have to fight for their peanuts.
Yes, more education, experience, and responsibility should be compensated for--but no ceo on this planet is worth hundreds of millions of dollars/ year. It is a sad reflection of our values that the people who take care of our children, our parents and our most vulnerable have to themselves live in poverty in this country.
Yes, more education, experience, and responsibility should be compensated for--but no ceo on this planet is worth hundreds of millions of dollars/ year. It is a sad reflection of our values that the people who take care of our children, our parents and our most vulnerable have to themselves live in poverty in this country.
50
Glad this subject is being written about as followership is hugely needed and important.
However your view of leadership is a bit off IMO. You're collapsing a quest for authority and legitimate power with leadership. Leadership doesn't require these things (although I would agree young people chase the authority).
However your view of leadership is a bit off IMO. You're collapsing a quest for authority and legitimate power with leadership. Leadership doesn't require these things (although I would agree young people chase the authority).
9
Alot of the overemphasis on leadership results from the top down management styles favored in both the public and private sectors. There isn't a role for followers with good ideas to be heard when management is purely top down. Thus anyone with good ideas needs to aspire to be a leader in order to have any impact at all.
14
Several decades ago I did computer technical support, first for a large nonprofit just starting to use technology, then for a hardware manufacturer that included software package with their sales, and finally for a consulting firm that hired us out but also continued to pay us and provide benefits between contracts. (And did this using critical thinking and an ability to learn new systems and skills that I had learned from the much maligned liberal arts degree.)
In none of those roles was there any reward for technical competence, any way other than longevity to increase our salaries doing the technical work that we did best. In my case I had been a manager and then owner of a small business and I didn't like it and wasn't very good at it.
If there had been quality of support, ability to learn new systems on the run (this was in the days between DOS 2.11 and Windows NT 4.0) or ability to support both users of basic word processing or users creating complex spreadsheets or databases. A track for better recognition or pay doing what we did best would have made more sense than trying to switch to a management track for any advancement.
In none of those roles was there any reward for technical competence, any way other than longevity to increase our salaries doing the technical work that we did best. In my case I had been a manager and then owner of a small business and I didn't like it and wasn't very good at it.
If there had been quality of support, ability to learn new systems on the run (this was in the days between DOS 2.11 and Windows NT 4.0) or ability to support both users of basic word processing or users creating complex spreadsheets or databases. A track for better recognition or pay doing what we did best would have made more sense than trying to switch to a management track for any advancement.
14
Thank you for writing this.
Few things terrify me more than being asked to lead. Yes, the challenge can be a thrill on the rare occasion, but I cannot pretend to be a leader.
I hope corporate CEOs and those who devise employee evaluation schemes move toward this realization.
Few things terrify me more than being asked to lead. Yes, the challenge can be a thrill on the rare occasion, but I cannot pretend to be a leader.
I hope corporate CEOs and those who devise employee evaluation schemes move toward this realization.
12
"It seems as if higher ed is looking for alphas".... you mean like in a wolf pack? You mean "dad". That's what you are talking about. Dad yelling at his kids to shut up and stop making a mess. "Higher education" is a brand, to sell a brand, to monetize a message it has to be willing to be bought. Do you get that? Right now I'm watching higher education institutions who claim to be liberal monetize young black men for billions of dollars. That "message" isn't willing to be "bought", hence it can't be "sold".
11
The most powerful symbol of the rewards of "leading" is the Presidency of the United States. Right now the cultural zeitgeist has placed Donald Trump on "the throne". This catastrophe is symptomatic of capitalism's ethos - imho any other interpretation of our society's current mental health is naive. Elite universities are not to blame for their admissions policies - we are.
19
I liked this article. Two observations to begin with: despite all the "higher institutions'" emphasis on leadership and meritocracy, our political system produced two candidates in 2016 who led the historical record for leaving voters miserable about their choices.
Might anyone else have noticed, in this year of the alienated, downwardly mobile white working class voter, that the "labor movement," such as it is, has produced no outstanding leaders who can address the society as a whole, much less what's left of the working class?
Two additional perspectives. Despite bouts of communal Utopian surges, we have always been a society cursed, or blessed with an excess of individualism, whether it is "Deerslayer" or Thoreau, or a modern day version, New York's own Adirondack pioneer feminist, Annie LaBastille (RIP). The constant churning of capitalism's creative destruction, and its worship of individual entrepreneurs, despite its organization of the world into interdependent supply chains...only aggravates the extreme division of labor...intellectual as well as physical...that goes along with it.
I've long thought social democracy and FDR's Second Bill of Rights are demanded by these trends, as mitigation - and don't look now, this accumulation of "drive" is destroying nature...a race to the bottom for society ...and the nature it depends upon.
Might anyone else have noticed, in this year of the alienated, downwardly mobile white working class voter, that the "labor movement," such as it is, has produced no outstanding leaders who can address the society as a whole, much less what's left of the working class?
Two additional perspectives. Despite bouts of communal Utopian surges, we have always been a society cursed, or blessed with an excess of individualism, whether it is "Deerslayer" or Thoreau, or a modern day version, New York's own Adirondack pioneer feminist, Annie LaBastille (RIP). The constant churning of capitalism's creative destruction, and its worship of individual entrepreneurs, despite its organization of the world into interdependent supply chains...only aggravates the extreme division of labor...intellectual as well as physical...that goes along with it.
I've long thought social democracy and FDR's Second Bill of Rights are demanded by these trends, as mitigation - and don't look now, this accumulation of "drive" is destroying nature...a race to the bottom for society ...and the nature it depends upon.
4
Why is it that the only trends or events that are deemed newsworthy seem to be those at the expensive/prestigious/unrepresentative institutions?
8
I once had a psychologist tell me I was a follower, not a leader. I already knew that, and it never bothered me. However, the way he said it to me, in a disdainful manner, made me feel awful. The implication was that followers are losers, and leaders winners; followers, therefore are psychologically defective.
The world needs less lousy leaders and more followers who can fix the damage those "leaders" often do to the world.
The world needs less lousy leaders and more followers who can fix the damage those "leaders" often do to the world.
29
Try having a corporate job and attempt to explain in a performance review that you're not interested in advancing to management. All you get is blank stares of incomprehension. I spent the last 5 years trying to convince managers that I just wanted to stay in the job I had and loved and had no interest in moving up. It was like I was speaking German--they simply had no understanding. Why would you work if you don't want to move up and up and up? Having an employee who is good at her job, loves her job and wants to stay in it is unheard of. I finally had to leave because I was pretty much ostracized as having an attitude problem and no ambition. Go figure.
26
This is good, but I would go a step farther. What makes a good follower? Is it blindly following orders? No. Critical thinking skills are required, as well as social awareness. When to question what a leader is doing or telling you to do? When to gather more data and background. And it's not just a mindless exercise. Things change in the doing, and a follower will be left often having to adapt to these changes. A fuller understanding of what he/she is supposed to do will lead to better outcome when things don't work out as expected (which in my experience is about 99% of the time!).
The goal is smart followers!
The goal is smart followers!
10
Success requires the determination to persist despite failures, the realization that having a dream is not sufficient to produce the results that we want that we must bring to bear the right efforts and resources at the right place and at the right time to be successful, that there are few things in this life beyond ourselves over which we can control so that we need the collaboration or at least the cooperation of others, and that mastering oneself is crucial to succeeding in just about everything. These are qualities that are required for leadership and they are things which most adults learn about early or late in life. One thing that is not helpful is the notion that people must feel that they are leaders and believe in the certainty of their success to accomplish what they want, it's false and leads to failure.
3
Leaders and followers?
What a ridiculous dichotomy!
It's like dividing the world into "Fuhrers" and "Nazis", pigeonholing most individuals as robotically compliant and completely lacking in moral character or the capacity for individual thought or judgement.
A culture of leadership is worthless without any sense of reciprocal obligation, as noted by Christopher Lasch. I guess his work on the pitfalls of narcissism doesn't show up on too many college syllabuses any more, much less so in the training of college admissions officers. The narcissism inherent in such a false and perverse dichotomy is also responsible for the structural weaknesses and imbalances in employment and income distribution in the economy, where top corporate executives enrich themselves by commoditizing and denigrating the work of subordinates on which they so greatly depend.
The advantage of a federalized democracy with a working guarantee of individual rights and association and a reasonably regulated capitalist economy is that it allows the blossoming of multiple areas of activity and the optimal use of many varied talents of human beings without constriction by rigid, hierarchical structures that would restrain such activity. What passes for "leadership" in both the government and corporate worlds is nothing more than authoritarianism driven by such narcissism.
What a ridiculous dichotomy!
It's like dividing the world into "Fuhrers" and "Nazis", pigeonholing most individuals as robotically compliant and completely lacking in moral character or the capacity for individual thought or judgement.
A culture of leadership is worthless without any sense of reciprocal obligation, as noted by Christopher Lasch. I guess his work on the pitfalls of narcissism doesn't show up on too many college syllabuses any more, much less so in the training of college admissions officers. The narcissism inherent in such a false and perverse dichotomy is also responsible for the structural weaknesses and imbalances in employment and income distribution in the economy, where top corporate executives enrich themselves by commoditizing and denigrating the work of subordinates on which they so greatly depend.
The advantage of a federalized democracy with a working guarantee of individual rights and association and a reasonably regulated capitalist economy is that it allows the blossoming of multiple areas of activity and the optimal use of many varied talents of human beings without constriction by rigid, hierarchical structures that would restrain such activity. What passes for "leadership" in both the government and corporate worlds is nothing more than authoritarianism driven by such narcissism.
11
So much of college (undergraduate and graduate) focuses on how to get ahead, not how to serve and be of use in the world. But, kids and parents are fearful. If people don't have wealth, they will be trampled. If you are not in the top 10%, the struggle is all too real. So, the competition to get there is fierce. We focus on becoming top dog because being at the bottom is increasingly intolerable. Our values are quite clear. It's every man for himself, unfortunately.
18
Mort Sahl tells of seeing a man—an Army General—at a cocktail party, who was adorned with a chestful of medals and ribbons. Sahl looked him up and down said with a smile: “Very impressive…(long pause)…if you’re twelve”.
There are people who ‘lead’, and there are people who simply exist in free space and think independently.
The quality of leadership which can guide a person’s career towards a chestful of medals, or in another famous case, to the White House, will never equal the contributions of soul searching originals such as Van Gogh, Dostoyevsky, or Jackson Pollock. And those with great leadership skills, Napoleon for example, can…overdo it, sometimes.
There are people who ‘lead’, and there are people who simply exist in free space and think independently.
The quality of leadership which can guide a person’s career towards a chestful of medals, or in another famous case, to the White House, will never equal the contributions of soul searching originals such as Van Gogh, Dostoyevsky, or Jackson Pollock. And those with great leadership skills, Napoleon for example, can…overdo it, sometimes.
10
Leadership, isolated from other superior abilities that may command the respect and allegiance of followers, is the ability to organize and persuade team members to do things that are otherwise inimical to their personal principles, interests and well-being.
Leadership is most vividly understood in WWI military terms as the ability to inspire, cajole, intimidate and directly threaten men to "go over the top" of relatively safe trenches and charge through murderous fire and massive casualties toward an enemy still safe in their own trenches. Historically, small unit "leaders" are generally issued shorter range weapons - pistols, submachine guns - that may be turned on disobedient, mutinous members their own unit. From this crucible of combat, the military still gets its "leadership." Those that survive, the higher they rise, the personally safer the position from which they "lead" troops to their deaths.
The general glorification of leadership skills is an aspect of and an important factor in the imperial militarization of America's or any other nation's culture.
Leadership is most vividly understood in WWI military terms as the ability to inspire, cajole, intimidate and directly threaten men to "go over the top" of relatively safe trenches and charge through murderous fire and massive casualties toward an enemy still safe in their own trenches. Historically, small unit "leaders" are generally issued shorter range weapons - pistols, submachine guns - that may be turned on disobedient, mutinous members their own unit. From this crucible of combat, the military still gets its "leadership." Those that survive, the higher they rise, the personally safer the position from which they "lead" troops to their deaths.
The general glorification of leadership skills is an aspect of and an important factor in the imperial militarization of America's or any other nation's culture.
6
The writer writes that "we seem to think that the ideal society is composed of Type A's", and she equates "leadership" with "Type A's". That's incorrect. In the context of elite college admissions, leadership refers to the desire and ability of applicants to excel - to be in the top stratum of this or that category of achievement. Elite colleges want students who want to and can excel. These colleges are in the business of furthering excellence. And they're not fooled by applicants who merely acquire meaningless credentials.
6
More than a decade ago Peter Drucker, one of the great contributors to the leadership field tried to count the number of definitions of leadership that had been bandied around. He stopped at 800. This is indicative of a paradigm which is based on a pyramid where there is one truly great leader. The problem is there are lots of pyramids and usually the pundits who created those definitions put themselves at the top. For my money it is better to look at the impact of leadership. And when you do you can invite a paradigm shift.
Here is such a definition. Leadership is defined by how well the group makes the best use of its intelligence and creativity in the service of a purpose. Once you have this definition there is no role for status because status hampers the expression and use of intelligence and creativity.
[email protected] .
Here is such a definition. Leadership is defined by how well the group makes the best use of its intelligence and creativity in the service of a purpose. Once you have this definition there is no role for status because status hampers the expression and use of intelligence and creativity.
[email protected] .
7
As someone who is passionate about democracy, I hate this constant dichotomy between leaders and followers, rulers and ruled. Yes, once in awhile, you need people to get things started. Investing anyone with power and authority for too long, however, and it always goes to their head, or they love the the perks so much they don't wan to let go. On the other hand, letting others make all the decisions means you have to live with their choices. Much better, we should promote collaborative decision making wherever we can.
21
Visibility into a person comes from understanding how their leadership led to measurable gains for the group. Also as important (perhaps more so) are the leadership positions that person intentionally chose not to pursue -- and why.
Knowing why we did something is very important. Sometimes choosing not to lead a group, and then disclosing our reasons for abstaining, is a sound way to inform ourselves of who we are.
Knowing why we did something is very important. Sometimes choosing not to lead a group, and then disclosing our reasons for abstaining, is a sound way to inform ourselves of who we are.
7
“They all want to be president of 50 clubs,” and that is insanity rather than leadership in any sense.
5
I actually had a manager say to me once not to get too bogged down in details if you want to move up in position. I thought that was interesting, since the conclusion is that anyone careful enough to want a correct answer would never flourish.
21
This column fails to mention the original driving force behind universities' emphasis on "leadership" in student admissions.
Back in the 1920s, when admission at Harvard was (in theory) based upon academic merit, a number of Jewish students were admitted. The university's leaders, who were like many at the time anti-Semites, did not want their university sullied by the presence of such "undesirables."
Their stereotypes of Jews led them to believe that Jews were not natural-born "leaders." Thus, the focus on leadership provided a means for Harvard and other elite universities to decline most Jewish applicants. (See "The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton " by Jerome Karabel.)
Fortunately, for Jews at least, the situation has greatly changed. My son, an Orthodox Jew, graduated from Princeton in 2013. Princeton now has a very active Jewish community, among whom are "leaders." However, I believe there is currently massive discrimination against Asians.
I wish college admissions were based, as they are in the rest of the world, on academic merit alone - - with exceptions for talented low-income or minority students who don't have the life circumstances (e.g., economic and residential stability, good schools, attentive parents) for developing their full academic potential. With guidance, this potential can then be realized while at college.
Back in the 1920s, when admission at Harvard was (in theory) based upon academic merit, a number of Jewish students were admitted. The university's leaders, who were like many at the time anti-Semites, did not want their university sullied by the presence of such "undesirables."
Their stereotypes of Jews led them to believe that Jews were not natural-born "leaders." Thus, the focus on leadership provided a means for Harvard and other elite universities to decline most Jewish applicants. (See "The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton " by Jerome Karabel.)
Fortunately, for Jews at least, the situation has greatly changed. My son, an Orthodox Jew, graduated from Princeton in 2013. Princeton now has a very active Jewish community, among whom are "leaders." However, I believe there is currently massive discrimination against Asians.
I wish college admissions were based, as they are in the rest of the world, on academic merit alone - - with exceptions for talented low-income or minority students who don't have the life circumstances (e.g., economic and residential stability, good schools, attentive parents) for developing their full academic potential. With guidance, this potential can then be realized while at college.
7
Universities focus on future business and political leaders in admissions because they are looking down the line for ways to increase their endowments. Who is in a better position to benefit a university after graduation? A cello player or a CEO? Follow the money.
6
Yes. Yes this is corporate culture. Yes this has badly infected higher education. Yes this has led to a degradation of the level of achievement found right behind the tippy-top. Yes it has led to a degradation of leadership itself into something more like self-promotion at all cost. Yes this is bad for the whole society. But: it has been going on for a long time, so that I have some hope that we might be ready for a change. I think I detect more interest in community and shared values, and in the idea that a winner-take-all, zero-sum "meritocracy" may not be exactly what we want. Unfortunately, by now, the people who have benefited from this are in charge and are handing on their money and their ruthlessness to their psychically deprived children, letting the rest of us amuse ourselves to death.
8
To commemorate anti-bullying week at my kid's middle school, the administration decided to hold a poster contest. Because the best way to combat bullying is to pit students against each other for a useless award. You can't have a winner without a field of losers.
16
Utter nonsense.
Traditionally, the top leaders in our national government and top businesses have come from elite universities but all the people who lead state and local organizations are trained in all the other colleges and universities in this country. This proportion of our population has never reached half, which means that they are all above average and so will be the people who lead others.
If every person growing up in this country completed four years of additional education past high school in either university or trade/technical school degrees programs so that our 5% of the people on this planet could all qualify for the better careers in the global economy, the U.S. would assure it's future in the next century. People who enjoy the better jobs are all leaders to some degree.
Traditionally, the top leaders in our national government and top businesses have come from elite universities but all the people who lead state and local organizations are trained in all the other colleges and universities in this country. This proportion of our population has never reached half, which means that they are all above average and so will be the people who lead others.
If every person growing up in this country completed four years of additional education past high school in either university or trade/technical school degrees programs so that our 5% of the people on this planet could all qualify for the better careers in the global economy, the U.S. would assure it's future in the next century. People who enjoy the better jobs are all leaders to some degree.
2
I know many people who have virtually zero conventional "leadership" potential, they are not leaders. They also would not be caught dead working for somebody else, and in fact are deeply unsuited to working for somebody else. They aren't and don't want to be followers. Most people call them "entrepreneurs".
To divide humanity into leaders and followers is dumb. It's the easy categorization by a lazy mind. Was Einstein a leader? Was Newton a leader? Was Mother Theresa a leader? Of course they were, but none of them would have gotten into a top university today. They were leaders of different kinds.
There must be a different word. Maybe, "world-changer". That would include Einstein, Churchill, Hitler, Michelangelo, James Madison and JC all in one group.
Most colleges today don't focus on attracting people like that. Their admission standards are bogus. Starting with the Ivy's on down. Once you get past the legacies, Asian princelings and tight ends, they mostly admit hall monitors, the students who could yell the loudest and have the most (false) self-confidence.
One of these days somebody is going to write about that in more detail.
To divide humanity into leaders and followers is dumb. It's the easy categorization by a lazy mind. Was Einstein a leader? Was Newton a leader? Was Mother Theresa a leader? Of course they were, but none of them would have gotten into a top university today. They were leaders of different kinds.
There must be a different word. Maybe, "world-changer". That would include Einstein, Churchill, Hitler, Michelangelo, James Madison and JC all in one group.
Most colleges today don't focus on attracting people like that. Their admission standards are bogus. Starting with the Ivy's on down. Once you get past the legacies, Asian princelings and tight ends, they mostly admit hall monitors, the students who could yell the loudest and have the most (false) self-confidence.
One of these days somebody is going to write about that in more detail.
6
As a pediatrician, I tell all my teen patients that all the actors in the world are worthless if there is not an audience.
5
Susan Cain has summarized what is wrong not just with the emphasis of education on leadership but the American identity generally. It is our collective glorification of leadership for leaderships sake. This is an empty almost authoritarian orientation that devalues critical thinking skills and the very people society depends upon the most to make things happen. Many, if not most leaders I've encountered in my life were leading people in the wrong direction with little substantive grasp of their field. It was all about dominance not thoughtful service. The leaders we need today are people interested in serving others, not alpha types.
Donald Trump's a leader but he's also a racist, bigot, ignoramus, and pathological liar leading gullible poorly informed and poorly educated people in the wrong direction. I consider myself neither a leader nor a follower. I listen to other people and take what makes sense to me. Blindly following any single leader or set of leaders is not living your authentic experience. We don't have to choose between being a leader or follower. My motto for many years has been "Dare Not to Lead."
Donald Trump's a leader but he's also a racist, bigot, ignoramus, and pathological liar leading gullible poorly informed and poorly educated people in the wrong direction. I consider myself neither a leader nor a follower. I listen to other people and take what makes sense to me. Blindly following any single leader or set of leaders is not living your authentic experience. We don't have to choose between being a leader or follower. My motto for many years has been "Dare Not to Lead."
14
"“When everyone is somebody, then no one’s anybody.”
- W.S. Gilbert
- W.S. Gilbert
64
Seems to me that we are neglecting those who lead by example. That allows everyone to use "excellence, passion and a desire to contribute behind the self" - Ms. Cain's so-called "not leadership skills" - to achieve accomplishments that inspire others. The "non-leader" sets the example and tacitly proposes the invitation to "See what we can accomplish with dedication and hard work? Come join me if you want to be a part of it". Isn't that the definition of leadership?
1
"Leadership" can be different things. One type of leadership is being good at one thing and leading by example. Another type is a personality that helps groups of people coordinate with one another. The existence of authoritarian followers creates a market for yet another kind of leadership.
In any case, a person doesn't have to be only a leader or never a leader. Someone who leads by example in one area can be cooperative with peers in other domains.
In any case, a person doesn't have to be only a leader or never a leader. Someone who leads by example in one area can be cooperative with peers in other domains.
1
Thank you for a sobering, timely and thoughtful article. University entrance gauntlets wield formative power to a degree unimaginable two or three generations ago (admittedly, in the good ol' daze, when family/alum connections counted for even more), and the fetishizing of "leadership" is indeed a prime culprit in skewing young people's notions of what's important today. Thanks for the references on the research lit on "followership," too--that seems too much unappreciated, especially considering its importance. Another Harvard Business Review research report, of perhaps a dozen years ago, noted that middle management actually runs the company, and associate profs make sure that a university functions while fulfilling its educational mission.
South Korea and Japanese university entrance exams support a huge "after school" industry of test prep schools and publications, which are apparently effective in raising one's test scores, and in taking over young lives, for perhaps a decade, 24-7. But in those countries, at least so far, high-profile, unfettered pursuit of "leadership" remains enough of a cultural negative that it hasn't become the object of worship that it has here--while in the U.S. we "elect" a "terrific" self-promoting Great Man to "make" his followers and our country "great" again ... Might it be that bad (poorly informed, gullible, and too desperate to be deliberate) followers are the problem?
South Korea and Japanese university entrance exams support a huge "after school" industry of test prep schools and publications, which are apparently effective in raising one's test scores, and in taking over young lives, for perhaps a decade, 24-7. But in those countries, at least so far, high-profile, unfettered pursuit of "leadership" remains enough of a cultural negative that it hasn't become the object of worship that it has here--while in the U.S. we "elect" a "terrific" self-promoting Great Man to "make" his followers and our country "great" again ... Might it be that bad (poorly informed, gullible, and too desperate to be deliberate) followers are the problem?
2
if you want this to stick, you have to stop calling them followers
5
Along the same lines as their article is the foolishness of the notion so often put forth that "everything in moderation" is an ideal. In reality people who excel at something are precisely those who did not pursue their interest in moderation. In fact, they were probably almost obsessive in their dedication and devotion. Leadership has the same pitfalls in that those who lead both in politics and business tend to be those who enjoy status and influence - not those whose ideas are outstanding or whose moral compass is more finely tuned.
2
There are leaders, there are followers and there are soloists.
2
All progress is built on soloists.
4
Practicing my marching skills at Lackland Air Force Base, I remember always marching past a sign that said "Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way". It stuck with me. I have found that throughout my life, I have done all three at various times and still do.
When you start out learning about something that interests you, you may not be passionate enough to know if you want to lead or follow in "taking that hill". Better to study it from the sidelines until you're sure it's a hill worth taking.
When you buy in to the objective, you become a follower in order to learn about it and become a useful soldier. No hill was ever taken by a platoon of Generals.
After you've earned a few stripes and you understand the strategy AND the reason for the objective, leadership may be conferred.
The cycle repeats many times. And then you turn 50!
When you start out learning about something that interests you, you may not be passionate enough to know if you want to lead or follow in "taking that hill". Better to study it from the sidelines until you're sure it's a hill worth taking.
When you buy in to the objective, you become a follower in order to learn about it and become a useful soldier. No hill was ever taken by a platoon of Generals.
After you've earned a few stripes and you understand the strategy AND the reason for the objective, leadership may be conferred.
The cycle repeats many times. And then you turn 50!
8
Not being the alpha in the troop does free up more time for thinking. Better be the consigliere, so to speak, if one is so inclined, or just the humble worker who does their bit for the team. Anyway, what is a leader without a flock? A lost soul?
2
Thank you for this article.
3
Who is going to actually DO the precise, skills-based and often solitary work that modern society requires? Not the leaders - they're too busy TALKING to actually get any work done. Ideas are over-valued in our society. We need more implementers!
7
The world also needs lots of individual contributors, especially the best of them, not the average ones that so many readers have mentioned here. People who practice a trade, craft or profession at the apex of that occupation -- without necessarily having any "direct reports." Which is more important to an organization: a middle manager who has passable people skills and knows project management, or the top-notch software programmer working under him who is 10 times as productive at the average programmer? A deadwood rainmaker who is called managing partner of a law firm, or the brilliant young litigator -- a mere associate -- who wins important cases and brings glory to the firm? The best plumber in the city, or the thumb-twiddling boss who dispatches her?
4
I think this whole team sports model where there are leaders and followers is bunk. A good democratic society doesn't have leaders and followers. It has freethinking independent citizens who decide for themselves what's right and are generally tolerant and facilitative of others' projects.
The Nazis and boarding schools in the British Empire understood that one way to facilitate social control is to convince people to see their relationship to society as one of a member to a team. That's in part why they cultivated team sports, to sort the allegedly natural leaders from the followers. (You can like team sports without being an authoritarian or an imperialist, but you see a sports team as a model for associations of free and diverse people at peril of becoming one.) Members of a team all have one goal: to win. But a great society is one where we're not all playing toward the same goal. We have different ideas of the good life and different ideas of how we should pursue it. A person most fit for that society isn't domineering, a seeker of power or praise, but is instead independently minded, tolerant, and unwilling to defer to assumed authority.
The Nazis and boarding schools in the British Empire understood that one way to facilitate social control is to convince people to see their relationship to society as one of a member to a team. That's in part why they cultivated team sports, to sort the allegedly natural leaders from the followers. (You can like team sports without being an authoritarian or an imperialist, but you see a sports team as a model for associations of free and diverse people at peril of becoming one.) Members of a team all have one goal: to win. But a great society is one where we're not all playing toward the same goal. We have different ideas of the good life and different ideas of how we should pursue it. A person most fit for that society isn't domineering, a seeker of power or praise, but is instead independently minded, tolerant, and unwilling to defer to assumed authority.
7
In my opinion -- having had 40 years experience in corporate America, which included supervising numerous student interns that entered the workplace uncertain and left with some level of leadership skills that many applied successfully to both their personal and professional lives -- I believe there is a misunderstanding between learning and possessing leadership skills and being a "leader." Every student should learn leadership skills, which include business etiquette, ethics and emotional and political intelligence and a positive and enthusiastic attitude. Leadership can be practiced on many levels, as a team player or team leader, as a club member or club president, as a cast member or star of the show, as a staff assistant or the CEO, as a surgeon, teacher, plumber, truck driver or President of the United States. A person can be a leader in his own particular role without being the person ultimately in charge. It means being the best you can be at whatever you are doing with integrity and a moral compass, and having the confidence in yourself to ask questions, make suggestions, question authority and contribute innovative and risky ideas and the joy in what you are doing, whatever that might be.
So, yes, students should be taught age-appropriate leadership skills as early as possible and continue all through their education and their lives. That is what colleges are looking for and it is what employers are looking for. It's what we're all looking for in others.
So, yes, students should be taught age-appropriate leadership skills as early as possible and continue all through their education and their lives. That is what colleges are looking for and it is what employers are looking for. It's what we're all looking for in others.
6
No, this is *not* what colleges are looking for. The skill sets useable in business are surely very varied; calling them "leadership skills" expresses what the people selling them think they are important for. Not everything should have to be describable in terms of leadership. What about notions such as: ethical, compassionate, thoughtful, co-operative, respectful of others, of ideas, of your own integrity... ?
2
Someone recently pointed out to be that Trump is the first president that is not God-fearing, and it has stuck with me as I've thought about not only his leadership, but the leaders in today's headlines.
God-fearing may be an antiquated concept in today's secular society, but I believe it represents a bigger systemic problem with a lack of integrity and sense of obligation to serve one's fellow man and woman.
I don't believe that it's the duty of Ivy League schools to fix our problem, rather that it's a proper data point to recognize where we have gone wrong.
"It teaches students to be a leader for the sake of being in charge, rather than in the name of a cause or idea they care about deeply."
Where do we find this commitment in today's day and age? Without a unified commitment to God (church, religion, etc), how do teach this commitment to help one another to our children?
Having attended a Quaker college, I lived 4 years in a utopia of shared values. I fully understand the limitations of theses systems, but want more and believe so many others do as well.
I'm 27 and can't imagine having children in a world of today's leadership. Susan Cain gives me a sliver of hope.
God-fearing may be an antiquated concept in today's secular society, but I believe it represents a bigger systemic problem with a lack of integrity and sense of obligation to serve one's fellow man and woman.
I don't believe that it's the duty of Ivy League schools to fix our problem, rather that it's a proper data point to recognize where we have gone wrong.
"It teaches students to be a leader for the sake of being in charge, rather than in the name of a cause or idea they care about deeply."
Where do we find this commitment in today's day and age? Without a unified commitment to God (church, religion, etc), how do teach this commitment to help one another to our children?
Having attended a Quaker college, I lived 4 years in a utopia of shared values. I fully understand the limitations of theses systems, but want more and believe so many others do as well.
I'm 27 and can't imagine having children in a world of today's leadership. Susan Cain gives me a sliver of hope.
1
Quaker college as utopia? My goodness. Who knew. And your reason for not imagining having children is that the world has lousy leaders? Mama mia. The human race would have died out long ago ... Lighten up, Chrissy, you have many years ahead of you, God willing -- good luck!
1
I would dispute the notion that we live in such a bifurcated world; one divided into leaders and followers. Creativity and innovation often spring from independent thinking not bound by social consideration. Often, the most creative people neither follow nor lead. They answer to their Muse. They follow their inner voice. Some are able to protect their ideas and shepherd them through the shoals of public opinion to advance their own careers. Others find their ideas being co-opted by managers or bosses who, in many cases, take credit for their ideas. This author might call these creative souls "followers" and the people doing the co-opting "leaders," but these so-called leaders are, in fact, merely aggressive opportunists.
7
This society is obsessed with moving up the ladder. To the very top where the big money is. For some reason, money and fame and power is the greatest motivation for those bosses. I wouldn't call them leaders since they only have the titles and none of the actual qualities I want in a leader I want to follow. I am just obeying them so I wouldn't be in trouble. It's all about popularity and not really kindness and passion that lead them to their empty positions. Unfortunately colleges stopped catering to those who could really use the education long time ago. They now serve those hungry for power and money and status and mostly those that can pay for expensive education.
4
There are great leaders like FDR and there are Kim Jong-il, North Korea's "Dear Leader." It's not about leadership, it's about pathology. Somehow, Leona Hemsley's line, "The little people" comes to mind.
4
When my daughter was in middle school, she participated in a year long class and project that grouped her with 3 others not really of her choosing and had them build a business from idea to marketing plan, design, production, outside sales, trade show, and pitch to a panel of venture capitalists.
Her teacher, an experienced business professional, guided the students with the help of mentor-coaches and showed them that being the "leader" was not so important. Instead, what successful businesses (organizations) need is excellent "glue," the fixers who ensure that everyone is talking that everyone knows when to show up and what to bring, and that everyone feels like they are contributing and are valued by the rest of the team.
My daughter was so proud when her teacher commended her for being such good glue for her business. (And the girls turned a tidy profit, too, with each of her business colleagues receiving a check for a few hundred dollars profit at the end of the project.)
Her teacher, an experienced business professional, guided the students with the help of mentor-coaches and showed them that being the "leader" was not so important. Instead, what successful businesses (organizations) need is excellent "glue," the fixers who ensure that everyone is talking that everyone knows when to show up and what to bring, and that everyone feels like they are contributing and are valued by the rest of the team.
My daughter was so proud when her teacher commended her for being such good glue for her business. (And the girls turned a tidy profit, too, with each of her business colleagues receiving a check for a few hundred dollars profit at the end of the project.)
4
Ah yes. The wonders of the collective.
1
After 20+ years of experience in business, here's my take: leaders are the most confident, but not the most competent. And in our culture, most people confuse confidence with competence. The best thing a follower can do is pull a leader aside and advise them. The world needs more followers.
13
As a long-time leadership development assessor, coach, trainer and consultant, personally I never wanted to lead nor did I ever advise or suggest or hint that people should attempt to change their basic nature/personality in order to become a leader as a type A, extroverted, take-charge sort. I saw my role as working with the already-formed personalities to help them adopt, modify or change overt behaviors as much as they could, often very incrementally, so that they would not only be perceived as more effective, but so that they could be more effective and, therefore, be happier.
There are all kinds of leaders. For instance, some lead by doing/setting a tone or example, some lead by personality, others by persuasion, building credibility through knowledge or successes, some by being a force of nature, some by being dictatorial (we call it "overly directive") and many combinations. With this view of leadership, virtually anyone can be an effective leader of something at some point.
I don't know what colleges have in mind with their missions when they talk about leadership, but perhaps it is far more encompassing than this writer - or most people - consider. If they see it like the consultant teams I have worked with for decades then it is not a bad thing, nor is being a follower, nor are they mutually exclusive.
There are all kinds of leaders. For instance, some lead by doing/setting a tone or example, some lead by personality, others by persuasion, building credibility through knowledge or successes, some by being a force of nature, some by being dictatorial (we call it "overly directive") and many combinations. With this view of leadership, virtually anyone can be an effective leader of something at some point.
I don't know what colleges have in mind with their missions when they talk about leadership, but perhaps it is far more encompassing than this writer - or most people - consider. If they see it like the consultant teams I have worked with for decades then it is not a bad thing, nor is being a follower, nor are they mutually exclusive.
2
p.s. love the graphics featured in your editorial
1
I imagine that a major reason why colleges and universities want to produce "leaders" is that they see those alumni as their donor pool.
12
Ms. Cain has condensed one of major issues facing our country, our businesses and institutions down to one sentence "It attracts those who are motivated by the spotlight rather than by the ideas and people they serve". Brilliant.
We need look no further than our president (small p).
We need look no further than our president (small p).
15
Universities increasingly depend on donations by alumni and leaders get paid more than followers. So Universities look for more leaders.
In turn, students pad their resumes with "leadership". It is a bad system, but when States increasingly abandon support of Public Universities, what are the Universities to do ?
In turn, students pad their resumes with "leadership". It is a bad system, but when States increasingly abandon support of Public Universities, what are the Universities to do ?
1
This topic is prevalent in the corporate world where individuals are labeled during the process of performance management. A person can be an excellent contributor and happy do so for a long time. But the environment expects them to transform their personalities as a leader which they do not care about.
Mark Sanborn's book "You Don't Need a Title to Be a Leader: How Anyone, Anywhere, Can Make a Positive Difference" does promote the idea that every individual can demonstrate leadership as an individual. Many think that if one needs to be a leader they need to be a team lead, manager, director, etc.
In my personal experience this resonates with individuals who are quite happy with what they do. They are willing to develop leadership skills to enhance value of what they like but not to strive for something they do not care.
The framework described in this article allows one to focus on the strength of the individual and allow them to excel.
Mark Sanborn's book "You Don't Need a Title to Be a Leader: How Anyone, Anywhere, Can Make a Positive Difference" does promote the idea that every individual can demonstrate leadership as an individual. Many think that if one needs to be a leader they need to be a team lead, manager, director, etc.
In my personal experience this resonates with individuals who are quite happy with what they do. They are willing to develop leadership skills to enhance value of what they like but not to strive for something they do not care.
The framework described in this article allows one to focus on the strength of the individual and allow them to excel.
2
Leadership/follower is a false binary-- both will be required at different occasions. Self-authorization and informed appreciation are the required orientations of effective collaborator and cooperator who truly accomplish and participate in achievement. Difficult people with dominant egos who either over or under express in groups slow the progress of every endeavor no matter how creative or intelligent their contributions. Empathy and emotional maturity are under-developed capacities in many very bright people especially if privileged. Schools -- elementary through graduate, do well to nourish the development these capacities across their institutional ecology--in students, staff and faculty.
2
This is common sense in other cultures. I love how it has to become some sort of life hack with a cutesy name to be taken seriously ("followship"? Eye roll). One of the most irritating thing about the USA is that you've got a handful of Kellys and scores of Michelles, and they all think they are Beyonce.
2
What is often left out in the literature on leadership is the vital role good followers play in any organization. Yes, great organizations have great leaders with big ideas and big strategies, but ideas and strategies go nowhere without great implementers. In the organization I led, I was fortunate to have great followers who were great implementers. When I offered several of these great followers a leadership position in the organization, all said they were very happy being a follower (not there words), and didn't want the hassles of leadership. Should add that when I retired, one of them did assume a leadership role, and for the next few years wrote me notes indicating that he was miserable in his leadership role.
2
I am pretty content knowing my strengths and weaknesses. I like to work at my own craft in medicine, I love going to work, I like being an employee without the worries of everything else. I'm not great at managing, miserable at networking, indifferent towards recognition, I'm quiet, and I don't like my arguing point. Once I've shared it, I move on. I am happy, and that's all that matters. Some people are meant to be leaders, they thrive on it. I thrive on doing my own small part, and recognizing that leading can never bring me the calm life I cherish.
6
When my daughter was applying to colleges in 2004, we happened to have dinner with the head of admissions at an Ivy League university. I was proud that she argued with him about the proclivity of such schools to admit "leaders". Who will all of those so-called leaders be leading, she asked. He had no answer.
She was not admitted to that esteemed institution; no surprise there. She was much better served by the small liberal arts college she attended. She is today pursuing a doctorate in her chosen field. But I am sorry to see that the Ivies and the Ivy wannabes persist in the delusion that they can select and anoint leaders.
She was not admitted to that esteemed institution; no surprise there. She was much better served by the small liberal arts college she attended. She is today pursuing a doctorate in her chosen field. But I am sorry to see that the Ivies and the Ivy wannabes persist in the delusion that they can select and anoint leaders.
4
I think the ideas of "leader" and "follower" are problematic and should be abandoned as categories people need to fall into. "Leader" implies someone at the top of a hierarchy of power and influence whereas "follower" implies someone at the bottom of the same hierarchy. These are value laded terms rather than descriptive term. "Organizer" is a more value neutral term that describes people who like to run teams and projects, whereas "domain expert" can be used to describe the people composing the "organizers" team. Those terms are more descriptive and point to the value each person brings to the effort.
At work, although my managers may disagree with my perspective, I don't see my managers as authority figures in a position superior to me. I see them as equals who have a different job than I do- organizing people and projects so they will meet goals. To me their job is necessary but not superior to mine, which involves completing the often difficult and creative technical tasks necessary to meet project goals.
If our society readjusts it's value judgements, I believe both "organizers" and "domain experts" will benefit. This shift will make the idea of 360 degree evaluations seem not just reasonable, but necessary for proper organizational functioning. There are many leaders to great harm to organizations due to unchecked incompetence. Unfortunately, there is no mechanism for remediation in these cases because they are in a position of power over others.
At work, although my managers may disagree with my perspective, I don't see my managers as authority figures in a position superior to me. I see them as equals who have a different job than I do- organizing people and projects so they will meet goals. To me their job is necessary but not superior to mine, which involves completing the often difficult and creative technical tasks necessary to meet project goals.
If our society readjusts it's value judgements, I believe both "organizers" and "domain experts" will benefit. This shift will make the idea of 360 degree evaluations seem not just reasonable, but necessary for proper organizational functioning. There are many leaders to great harm to organizations due to unchecked incompetence. Unfortunately, there is no mechanism for remediation in these cases because they are in a position of power over others.
5
I refuse to be slotted as either or. Leader implies the one who knows, follower implies the opposite. All the mischief in the world arises from those made up distinctions.
No, elite universities don't foster type A personalities, because they want to help American business. They want to help themselves by producing business leaders who can give hundreds of millions of dollars worth of donations. Academics, writers and surely poets don't make mega-donors. And mega-donors is what universities need in the face of dwindling government support and the increased importance of endowments.
4
I am a teacher in a high school on Long Island and my daughter attends a neighboring high school, both highly ranked. Students are encouraged to participate in so many extra curricular activities, and in a leadership capacity, they are often unable to commit to them fully. They either don't attend all club meetings regularly or they stop by for 15 minutes on their way to their next club meeting since many clubs meet on the same days. It's difficult sometimes for the teacher advisors to know who is coming to a meeting, or to rely on their president because he/she is moonlighting at another club deemed more important. Of course they expect you to sign off on their position at year end. I blame colleges, high school administrators and parents for the predicament. Students are stretched in too many directions, running around breathlessly - often not for the love of the activities but out of their anxiety that they are not "leading" enough compared to their peers. And most kids don't have real leadership skills yet anyway. It's all a little artificial. Kids with authentic interests gravitate towards and pursue their true interests without being told to lead in them. Bottom line: you can't, nor should you, serve too many masters. Kids should be encouraged to follow their passion, or at least what they like to do and what they feel they are good at, and pursue those activities to their fullest, in a leadership capacity or not.
6
First, we are all leaders. Even children exert influence on those around them.
"Good" leaders (bosses, friends, parents, teams, Presidents) subsume their personal interests under the common good. Bad leaders conflate their self interests with the interests of the community.
We should all (re)read Plato's "Republic." Leadership by a bronze soul is disastrous to a republic.
"Good" leaders (bosses, friends, parents, teams, Presidents) subsume their personal interests under the common good. Bad leaders conflate their self interests with the interests of the community.
We should all (re)read Plato's "Republic." Leadership by a bronze soul is disastrous to a republic.
3
There is a stark contrast between true leaders and pretenders otherwise known as managers. Someone once wrote that leaders take people places while managers administer things. A poignant example of this creed just took place this past week. Obama attempted to take the USA to place where healthcare was available for everyone. Meanwhile Trump, well..........
What an affirming article for introverts like me. I never really considered myself either a leader or a follower. I liked and still prefer working on my own and became a poet and professor (not one who lectures a lot). We need room at colleges and in the world at large for all kinds. And perhaps not defining success as wealth or dominance over others is a good first step. Most people I know eventually manage to find their own place, but they are privileged enough to be highly educated.
3
Thanks Ms. Cain, stir the bucket and the cream will come to the top.
1
Money in our country is in the hands of "The Power Class". For the most part, these are the people funding elite higher education and whose children attend those institutions. Leadership equals power equals money, so if a college seeks out leadership-oriented students, they will have a greater number of wealthy alums to donate to the school.
There ARE schools who view leadership through a different lens. There is a different kind of leadership which is sorely needed now: the person who leads by example and doesn't follow blindly, but chooses carefully before following someone or taking some path. In a group, a leader can be someone who stands up for someone who is being treated unfairly, or refuses to support an unjust decision. It doesn't always mean "being in charge".
There ARE schools who view leadership through a different lens. There is a different kind of leadership which is sorely needed now: the person who leads by example and doesn't follow blindly, but chooses carefully before following someone or taking some path. In a group, a leader can be someone who stands up for someone who is being treated unfairly, or refuses to support an unjust decision. It doesn't always mean "being in charge".
1
The author assumes that colleges are looking out for the good of society. That seems too simple.
Colleges are looking for money. And CEOs of the future will make the most money, and maybe donate to their alma mater.
Colleges are looking for money. And CEOs of the future will make the most money, and maybe donate to their alma mater.
7
The trouble is that these "leaders" aren't actually leading anyone at all. As noted, they are simply in a dominant role. And likewise, people you call "followers" aren't following anyone either. What we need are more people who feel free to be of independent mind and a desire to share and help others. The dualism of leader/followers does not perceive this type of psycho-social arrangement. Which makes sense in our kleptocratic capitalist society.
5
I think the article misuses the concept of a Type A personality, which is, according to Wiki, "more competitive, outgoing, ambitious, impatient and/or aggressive." There are Type A introverts driven to succeed in academia, creative arts, etc. by spending hours and hours alone on their work. Type A behavior may be necessary but not sufficient for leadership--in fact, not necessary, either, as often the better leadership styles are ones that focus on cooperation, consensus, and general power-sharing. Type A does have one defining quality: it was coined to describe those more likely to have heart attacks.
1
"looking for the students and citizens most likely to attain wealth and power"
Money does not go to those who do the work, even the gifted who do what nobody else can.
The money goes to those who skim it off the top, skim deeply these days. They are "in charge" and their focus is themselves and their own benefit, not the job.
Followers are the ones who care about the job, "committed to “a purpose, principle or person outside themselves” and being “courageous, honest and credible” and "called to service rather than to stature."
The problem is deeper than college admissions. It is a warp of the fundamentals of economic and social justice.
Money does not go to those who do the work, even the gifted who do what nobody else can.
The money goes to those who skim it off the top, skim deeply these days. They are "in charge" and their focus is themselves and their own benefit, not the job.
Followers are the ones who care about the job, "committed to “a purpose, principle or person outside themselves” and being “courageous, honest and credible” and "called to service rather than to stature."
The problem is deeper than college admissions. It is a warp of the fundamentals of economic and social justice.
23
So now instead of the best leaders we need the best followers, too? Or those who will contribute most? Notice the superlatives are still there. You cannot glean who will be the best for society from a college application. You only have to look at society to see that. Maybe we should just get to find the students who want to learn and let them figure out how they want to use that learning.
22
My heart broke when my 11 yr old son told me that he's more of a wing- man than a leader type. It broke because I know how competitive this world is and that admissions officers aren't impressed with wing-men. As an alpha parent I struggle to understand my introverted child and accept him. Shout out to SPSG- my alma mater!
3
Wonderful and thoughtful piece.
If only the value of its insight were widely considered - but alas, the message is downright un-American.
We are a look-at-me culture. We are a hegemonic culture. We are an exceptionalist culture. We are a dance in the end zone culture.
Maybe we'll grow up someday.
If only the value of its insight were widely considered - but alas, the message is downright un-American.
We are a look-at-me culture. We are a hegemonic culture. We are an exceptionalist culture. We are a dance in the end zone culture.
Maybe we'll grow up someday.
2
Perhaps the adverse of Trump ?
2
To me "leadership", if that's what you want to call it, has always been about being the best that you can be at whatever it is you want. I do not want to 'lead' people. But when I was a programmer, I wanted to be the best coder I could be. When I managed people, I wanted to be the best role model, mentor and teacher I could be. When I was part of a team, I strived to ensure that the team was successful by performing my role as best as I could. I didn't start by wanting to be a leader, but I think I've become one, as have many of my colleagues as become leaders for me. We all lead others in our own particular way.
2
Well the big thing is what are called leaders are just bosses generally and spokes dolts. Primitively the leaders were those who actually figured stuff out, defeated enemies of the tribe, and otherwise actively lead forward.
In effect, the complete rotting out of society in peak Capitalism is expressed in this, that "leader" almost invariably simply means people manager, cheerleader, naked spokesdolt, and virtually never anybody who actually does stuff, such as really leading.
So yeah too much of that, next to zero of the real thing, at least at the levels where it would matter.
In effect, the complete rotting out of society in peak Capitalism is expressed in this, that "leader" almost invariably simply means people manager, cheerleader, naked spokesdolt, and virtually never anybody who actually does stuff, such as really leading.
So yeah too much of that, next to zero of the real thing, at least at the levels where it would matter.
1
The article omitted the Quiet Revolution Manifesto, on Cain's website.
Sounds like excellent advice for anyone working in today's White House.
Herewith:
1-There is a word for “people who are in their heads too much”—thinkers.
2-Solitude is a catalyst for innovation.
3-The next generation of quiet kids can and must be raised to know their own strengths.
4-Sometimes it helps to be a pretend-extrovert. There is always time to be quiet later.
5-In the long run, staying true to your temperament is the key to finding work you love and work that matters.
6- One genuine relationship is worth a fistful of business cards.
7- It’s okay to cross the street to avoid making small talk.
8- “Quiet leadership” is not an oxymoron.
9- Love is essential; gregariousness is optional.
10- “In a gentle way, you can shake the world.” —Mahatma Gandhi
Sounds like excellent advice for anyone working in today's White House.
Herewith:
1-There is a word for “people who are in their heads too much”—thinkers.
2-Solitude is a catalyst for innovation.
3-The next generation of quiet kids can and must be raised to know their own strengths.
4-Sometimes it helps to be a pretend-extrovert. There is always time to be quiet later.
5-In the long run, staying true to your temperament is the key to finding work you love and work that matters.
6- One genuine relationship is worth a fistful of business cards.
7- It’s okay to cross the street to avoid making small talk.
8- “Quiet leadership” is not an oxymoron.
9- Love is essential; gregariousness is optional.
10- “In a gentle way, you can shake the world.” —Mahatma Gandhi
9
The educational system's single minded focus on leaders has created a few leaders and mostly bad followers, whose dropout rates from the trained fields is high. To find suitable followers, and get the job done, companies have to look elsewhere. This may explain the continuous need for foreign trained professionals to sustain the economy.
3
I so appreciate this piece. US colleges' fixation on "leadership skills" fosters so often cv-building of the worst sort, and often a facile understanding of the world to the exclusion of deep thinking. I encourage my students to do ONE activity outside of class. I say spend the rest of the time reading, writing, thinking, and working if they need a job-- all good skill sets. I also urge them to commit to making time for doing NOTHING, but chatting to friends or sleeping or lying about. Alas, I know I am going against the tide especially at elite colleges.
8
My daughter didn't make Nationa Honor Society her junior year in high school due to a lack of "leadership" on her application. She was too busy volunteer shadowing the school athletic trainer (400 hours for the year), working a part time job, training for a sport she's now about to pursue in college and staying clean and sober (a problem with some of the kids who actually earned the NHS nod). She had little interest in joining school clubs due to the sheer self importance of the self-important and self-annointed "class leaders" who essentially accomplish little.
People lead in different ways, which is being completely overlooked.
She made this year; the induction ceremony is Monday night.
It's a bit underwhelming.
People lead in different ways, which is being completely overlooked.
She made this year; the induction ceremony is Monday night.
It's a bit underwhelming.
8
We can't all be leaders and we know at our core what we truly are. By nature, I am an introvert, but I give 100% to my work. I have retired from the teaching profession, and was never the sponsor of this club or that at the school where I taught. Neither was I the outspoken faculty member or the person sending out emails to the whole staff. Instead, I worked tirelessly for my students in the classroom. I read their papers diligently and responded with care. I made sure I was well prepared and informed before presenting material to my students and I had high expections for each and everyone of them. While thankful for my colleagues who were able to contribute as coaches and "leaders" outside of the classroom, I also wonder if they really gave as much in the classroom itself. I agree with the premise that many who seek leadership status are really only looking for a moment of glory in the spotlight.
9
Another problem is we don't know what leadership is. Rousing speeches doesn't equal leadership.
3
To become a good general you have to be a good soldier.
12
Good point. However, unless I missed the real purpose of your piece, I think the Trump reference weakens your argument. The sad thing is that while kids are busy filling their days with activities that will highlight their superior leadership skills and competitive volunteerism, they become detached from who they are and lose the opportunity to discover the things that they truly care about.
4
Faux organizations with faux leadership positions meant to decorate resumes and CVs permeate the modern university landscape and have conflated the meaning of leadership with a leadership position. (And of course this is not limited universities and 20 year olds as can be affirmed by a quick glance at our political landscape.)
I regularly answer emails from students that contain a default signoff signature that lists every organization and club the student is a member of, as well as every leadership position held. I like to joke that student email signatures are longer than my CV. And of course none of it reflects the skills and characteristics that I truly care about: Is the student a good listener? Can the listen critically? Can they think creatively, critically and independently about new information in new situations? I would rather have a student with an ounce of independent and creative thought than a pounds worth of the ability to sit in front of room and run a meeting, but this is lost on the modern interpretation of what it means to be a leader.
I regularly answer emails from students that contain a default signoff signature that lists every organization and club the student is a member of, as well as every leadership position held. I like to joke that student email signatures are longer than my CV. And of course none of it reflects the skills and characteristics that I truly care about: Is the student a good listener? Can the listen critically? Can they think creatively, critically and independently about new information in new situations? I would rather have a student with an ounce of independent and creative thought than a pounds worth of the ability to sit in front of room and run a meeting, but this is lost on the modern interpretation of what it means to be a leader.
13
THW:
"I regularly answer emails from students that contain a default signoff signature that lists every organization and club the student is a member of, as well as every leadership position held. I like to joke that student email signatures are longer than my CV."
We live in the LinkedIn Culture in which everyone is treated as a walking resume and every contact is a marketing self-promotional opportunity. Even adults of all ages feel pressured by it.
In addition, an unintended consequence of having more inclusive educational and occupational opportunities is more competition, hence, more effort to increase or inflate achievements.
"I regularly answer emails from students that contain a default signoff signature that lists every organization and club the student is a member of, as well as every leadership position held. I like to joke that student email signatures are longer than my CV."
We live in the LinkedIn Culture in which everyone is treated as a walking resume and every contact is a marketing self-promotional opportunity. Even adults of all ages feel pressured by it.
In addition, an unintended consequence of having more inclusive educational and occupational opportunities is more competition, hence, more effort to increase or inflate achievements.
5
Susan Cain, I want to thank you for you book "Quiet". Not only was it a valuable read for me but I have passed it onto many juniors and seniors in my role as an English teacher.
I do want to add that colleges truly want all types of students. But the application process seems to force children to contort themselves and thus I fear many adolescents burn too bright, too young, and then peter out quickly once they hit college.
I absolutely love your soccer game analogy b/c it is so true, the primary teamwork skills I gained I did so on a soccer field. Most of my work life has had shuffles of leaders to and fro but I can pick out someone who knows only how to be a star in a minute whenever I collaborate with them.
These self proclaimed stars often stop group progress in its tracks...it would surely be nice is teamwork were a course in high school and college.
So, parents of juniors and seniors need not fear if their child's application is simply loaded with character than with leadership awards. A good college takes all kinds.
I do want to add that colleges truly want all types of students. But the application process seems to force children to contort themselves and thus I fear many adolescents burn too bright, too young, and then peter out quickly once they hit college.
I absolutely love your soccer game analogy b/c it is so true, the primary teamwork skills I gained I did so on a soccer field. Most of my work life has had shuffles of leaders to and fro but I can pick out someone who knows only how to be a star in a minute whenever I collaborate with them.
These self proclaimed stars often stop group progress in its tracks...it would surely be nice is teamwork were a course in high school and college.
So, parents of juniors and seniors need not fear if their child's application is simply loaded with character than with leadership awards. A good college takes all kinds.
7
Sadly, anyone who interprets leadership as this article does is assuming "leadership" is still stuck in a very old mold. Today, leadership studies includes collaboration and relationship building and focuses on ethics and authentic identity and socially conscious goals. It also includes followership because followers are part of the leadership process.
8
Agree. Good leaders aren't necessarily "alphas" nor do they always need to be in charge nor are they bad team players. The world has enough followers (who often follow the wrong examples).
1
Having graduated from a highly-selective liberal arts college, I recently attended a 50-year reunion. We were gathered together by fraternities. Guess what: we nearly all commented that, given the new competitiveness, we would not have been admitted today!! I think the same for graduate school (an Ivy). I do not think the mean IQ of the nation has risen. Rather, colleges are engaging in destructive marketing, marketing which does no one much good.
30
Yales Siiliman court's harassment of a faculty member shows that Yale has plenty of followers, including a dean who stood by watching as students screamed at a teacher. Middlebury seems to foster harassing followers also!
4
Seems as if the rate of admissions to top colleges must be one hundred percent in the town of Lake Wobegon, where All the children are above average.
8
Once upon a time at Princeton leadership potential was justification for admitting academically inferior Princeton legacies and other WASP men over academically superior Jews.
16
My father was a NASA engineer. (Ast happens he worked at the same time and the same place as the women in "Hidden Figures.") Twice he was offered promotion to division chief, and each time he turned it down. He knew himself well and recognzed that while he was an absolute gun at structural dynamics and made contributions that influence the design and modelling of aircraft even today, he was terrible at managing people. He just didn't care about that stuff.
A few years after he retired he was cajoled into taking over a troubled project in the private sector. The money was far better than anything he'd earned working for the government, and he let the old colleague who recruited him sell him on the romance of being the heroic leader who rides in on a white horse and keeps a $100 million contract from going down the tubes. It nearly killed him. He hated it. There were technical problems that needed to be overcome, but the factors that were putting the project in jeopardy were all due to personnel.
Like you say, not everyone has to be a leader. If you gave my old man a slide rule, a ream of graph paper and a supply of IBM punchcards, he would - and did - help put a man on the moon. But if you asked him to inspire others to join such an endeavor or, worse, asked him to discipline those who failed to measure up, he'd just as soon jump out the window.
A few years after he retired he was cajoled into taking over a troubled project in the private sector. The money was far better than anything he'd earned working for the government, and he let the old colleague who recruited him sell him on the romance of being the heroic leader who rides in on a white horse and keeps a $100 million contract from going down the tubes. It nearly killed him. He hated it. There were technical problems that needed to be overcome, but the factors that were putting the project in jeopardy were all due to personnel.
Like you say, not everyone has to be a leader. If you gave my old man a slide rule, a ream of graph paper and a supply of IBM punchcards, he would - and did - help put a man on the moon. But if you asked him to inspire others to join such an endeavor or, worse, asked him to discipline those who failed to measure up, he'd just as soon jump out the window.
185
Dare to be average!
49
I can assure you that the admissions officers are onto the student-club-president thing, just like the hospital-volunteer thing that came before it as the supposed magic ticket to getting into college. And greatness as a scientist or a poet (although the latter must be harder to measure at age 17) definitely counts as leadership.
But yes, taken more broadly, the incredible competitiveness of college admissions has had a terrible effect on the lives of adolescents. I don't think I would today get into MIT, where I got my B.S., even though I skipped two years in school and had two years of upper division math courses at the wonderful Science Honors Program at Columbia.
Worse than the exaltation of "leadership" has been the overwhelming emphasis on Advanced Placement courses in college admissions. It would help if the colleges agreed to stop giving an extra GPA point for AP classes. But, in my opinion the real core of the problem is that today's kids are encourage to apply to 20-odd colleges, instead of the three (heart's desire, plausible target, and safety school) to which I was encouraged to apply. Of course some kids get into all 20, even though they can only attend one, and that pushes excellent students onto waiting lists.
The best thing that could happen would be for all the colleges to agree that students may apply only to three colleges. Alas, the last time colleges tried for such a deal on another topic, it was overturned in court as monopolistic.
But yes, taken more broadly, the incredible competitiveness of college admissions has had a terrible effect on the lives of adolescents. I don't think I would today get into MIT, where I got my B.S., even though I skipped two years in school and had two years of upper division math courses at the wonderful Science Honors Program at Columbia.
Worse than the exaltation of "leadership" has been the overwhelming emphasis on Advanced Placement courses in college admissions. It would help if the colleges agreed to stop giving an extra GPA point for AP classes. But, in my opinion the real core of the problem is that today's kids are encourage to apply to 20-odd colleges, instead of the three (heart's desire, plausible target, and safety school) to which I was encouraged to apply. Of course some kids get into all 20, even though they can only attend one, and that pushes excellent students onto waiting lists.
The best thing that could happen would be for all the colleges to agree that students may apply only to three colleges. Alas, the last time colleges tried for such a deal on another topic, it was overturned in court as monopolistic.
5
In high school being considered a leader can often be connected to physical attributes such as height or attractiveness or skills in sports, sometimes just having loud voice and interest in sharing opinions.
Certainly these attributes play a part in leadership off campus, but not always. At 17 there are just too many things in play to use "leader" as a valid criteria for college admissions.
Certainly these attributes play a part in leadership off campus, but not always. At 17 there are just too many things in play to use "leader" as a valid criteria for college admissions.
2
Good god, it's about time someone noticed this. It's been true at least for the 67 years i've been around. As near as i can tell leadership is also synonymous with chief conformist.
2
Effective leadership requires an ability to be in touch with one's values, and to articulate the mission of the team or enterprise in a way that shows commitment to those values, values which resonate. Followers who are in touch, and show their commitment to the values, echoing and reinforcing the mission in such terms, become the effective leaders of tomorrow. Those values must include a sense of higher purpose, of service beyond self. That is the definition of true leadership....not a title or a role.
2
I wish I could agree with the claim that 'followership' is gaining prominence in our society's discourse about our roles in organizations and society. On the contrary, I've observed the obsession with alpha leaders seems to be firmly planted in the collective zeitgeist. Startup culture is dominated by the Steve Jobs ideal, for example, the visionary genius who compels his company of subordinates to follow his lead without questioning. Name a company held up as an example of brilliant products and astonishing growth that does not come with a famous leader sitting in the saddle?
This is not naturally a problem of universities or our educational system. This merely reflects the beliefs of our culture, which extol the leader and exclude the follower.
This is not naturally a problem of universities or our educational system. This merely reflects the beliefs of our culture, which extol the leader and exclude the follower.
4
A leader will be followed by someone who respects/and or admires or loves him or her. Anyone have parents? As the 1960's anti smoking commercial "Like father, like son. Think about it. " shows parents are leader and (many of) the best ones know it because they know it's their most impactful role and saw that in their parents.
I'm nearly 60 years old but I'm also a grad student. I got my first degree at 47 so my college experience was tempered with a whole lot of real life experience. My four (so far, will finish the fifth in August, which can't come soon enough) degrees are in diverse subject areas so I interacted with a wide variety of college students. I met some really outstanding kids, some of them were so obviously over-the-top intelligent that I was in awe of their abilities. But these kids were in general not the same kids we'd think of as "leaders" in the sense that word is defined in today's America.
But how are we going to ever get beyond our current obsession with "leadership" when we offer them degrees, both undergrad and graduate, in "Organizational Leadership"? The kids I met who were majoring in OL, as they put it, were certainly not the ones that I would want to follow. Nor were they the cognitive stars, you can take a look at the curriculum, which is filled with what I call fluff at the link below. No, these kids were those who were quite convinced that they were entitled to be "leaders" because, well, just because.
I remember coming home and telling my husband that "Organizational Leadership" must mean "I've been telling my mommy and daddy what to do all my life and I intend to continue doing that in my professional life."
http://artsci.uc.edu/departments/psychology/undergrad/orgl/major/smstr_p...
But how are we going to ever get beyond our current obsession with "leadership" when we offer them degrees, both undergrad and graduate, in "Organizational Leadership"? The kids I met who were majoring in OL, as they put it, were certainly not the ones that I would want to follow. Nor were they the cognitive stars, you can take a look at the curriculum, which is filled with what I call fluff at the link below. No, these kids were those who were quite convinced that they were entitled to be "leaders" because, well, just because.
I remember coming home and telling my husband that "Organizational Leadership" must mean "I've been telling my mommy and daddy what to do all my life and I intend to continue doing that in my professional life."
http://artsci.uc.edu/departments/psychology/undergrad/orgl/major/smstr_p...
4
To be an outstanding leader you need a bit of stupidity because at some point you have to stop thinking and just be convinced that you are right so that you can convince others. Colleges should cultivate thinkers instead. That's what most professors like to do, and that's why there are some successful businessmen who dropped out of college to become billionaires. But colleges should really be dedicated to the life of the mind. Unfortunately that's not how the managerial types see it who have taken over educational and academic administration. They want to have success through managing by the numbers. Sad!
4
Want to teach young people about true leadership and followership? Consider military service before college. Honor, duty, teamwork, self-sacrifice, comradeship, it's all there.
2
What message are we sending to young generations about "leadership" when our own national leader's most obvious traits are narcissism, greed, vulgarity and belligerence?
2
This helpful article makes a common mistake: defining leadership as a self-promoting, look at me, follow me endeavor. As a leadership educator, I've always maintained that there are many ways to lead. Some leaders are analytical and deliberate, shunning the limelight. Others work the room, and actively pull people in with rah-rah enthusiasm. Every approach should be valued, but we need to give up the alpha (male) definition of it first.
3
A really insightful article. Colleges should do less promotion of what they deem to be the ideal graduate, and just "make the trains run on time"--provide and nurture a professoriate, classrooms, labs, libraries, etc.--and let students mature and become what they will become without all the hype, promises, and interference.
4
Tell it to kids trying to learn their way out of the barrio or the ghetto. This is the "let them eat cake" piece of the decade.
I love this piece. I see problems of poor leadership all the time in school and sports. I value those who can work as a team. I value those who can be good role models with their actions. Colleges have devoted whole degrees to leadership, my wife has one, but what if we devoted degree programs to team work? The US political scene would probably be a little better.
4
They are all followers, which is why they flocked to the safety of colleges to begin with.
The true leaders are the ones who strike out on their own path. The world is full of lawyers, but try to find a good plumber.
The true leaders are the ones who strike out on their own path. The world is full of lawyers, but try to find a good plumber.
2
As a literature professor who teaches at Yale-NUS College, I read with both bemusement and puzzlement when the author quoted an unnamed professor about the failure to define leadership as, for example, "being the best poet of the century." This is quite dubious. I mean, who is the best poet of the century in the 20th century? In what language? According to who?
This seems like a category in which literary creativity is judged by a hyper-competitive, winner-takes-all attitude, precisely the very opposite qualities that the authors is advocating for.
This seems like a category in which literary creativity is judged by a hyper-competitive, winner-takes-all attitude, precisely the very opposite qualities that the authors is advocating for.
2
As a teacher of literature you should edit your writings with greater care..."authors ARE advocating for."
3
Wow, you teach literature, and you don't even understand pronoun case and subject-verb agreement?
2
Lol our "teacher of literature" just used a misplaced modifier. If you are going to be an insufferable prescriptivist, hold at least your own writing to the same standard. I, on the other hand, has no problem with non-standard inflectional morphology.
2
Leadership in the corporate world is a euphemism for aggressive dominance, has nothing to do with the skills or knowledge that set a moral example or mentor staff. It's about business, money, anyway it can be gotten, nothing else.
Unfortunately this state of affairs has now infected the citizenry, blossomed such that the leader of the free world is a petty lying misogynist who has no qualification other than the ability to have duped trusting souls who mistook his vainglorious boasting for substance.
It would do the planet a world of good were Leadership to always be greeted with the inherent skepticism to be found in our checks and balances, had they been enforced.
Unfortunately this state of affairs has now infected the citizenry, blossomed such that the leader of the free world is a petty lying misogynist who has no qualification other than the ability to have duped trusting souls who mistook his vainglorious boasting for substance.
It would do the planet a world of good were Leadership to always be greeted with the inherent skepticism to be found in our checks and balances, had they been enforced.
4
Colleges are looking for "leaders" who will excel in the corporate world because they are thinking long term--who will be able to make large donations twenty or thirty years from now? The fact that some of these people are sociopaths won't matter as long as they are willing to write a large check for the privilege of having their name on an impressive building. Artists or social workers are a much poorer bet financially...
4
Thanks for pointing this out. The Girl Scouts are guilty of this too. Our troop was encouraged to push every girl to earn a Gold Award. It never made sense to me for the many reasons you explained.
3
The media age makes all this worse. You must "define your brand" on social media, and stand out. Essentially, you must lead. Your soapbox must be tall, your pronouncements loud and forceful, to stand above the crowd.
Type A personalities thrive on social media. It leaves in the dust people who have much to think about, but not necessarily much to say.
Type A personalities thrive on social media. It leaves in the dust people who have much to think about, but not necessarily much to say.
4
What we need to understand here is that "leadership" is a jargon word of the neoliberal corporation, and its handmaiden, the corporate university. If on the one hand it seems to valorize a kind of aggressivity, a go-getter disposition ["entrepreneurship" is its brother-word; they frequently walk together in this jargon-universe], on the other hand it is nearly void of meaning. As long as we keep talking about "leadership," without a deeper critique, we will be trapped in this leader/follower opposition. And lord knows, no one wants to be tagged as a follower--not in the US of A! Let's toss off this language, and expose it for what it is. And while we're at it, let's think about the people who have often gotten held up as models of 'leadership:' Our current president, for instance, who spent years publishing ghosted books on his 'leadership,' and who is exposed now as a corrupt, lying, con man. His secretary of state, Tillerson, who led a giant corporation to participate in environmental destruction, and led that industry's diffusion of lies about climate change, and now can't figure out for the life of him how to lead in the job he currently has, with terrible effects for us all. Time to think hard the next time a university admin of any kind blathers to you about 'leadership' or 'entrepreneurship.'
4
It would help if our nation's Universities were revered as institutions of learning and research instead of being regarded as job training centers.
11
I always thought that the Ivies wanted student leaders - where "leader" is defined as someone who can run a student organization - because they have an ungodly number of highly active student organizations. To take just one example, my undergraduate school, with 6000 undergraduates, has a weekly student newspaper and two other student magazines that are published once a term. In contrast, Princeton, with 5200 undergraduates, has a daily student newspaper, a student magazine that's published weekly, and a student humor magazine that's published quarterly. Comparisons between intramural sports, student performance groups, and student service groups are similarly exhausting.
4
Susan Cain addresses a real problem but frames it incorrectly, in my view. It isn't that college admissions offices are Favoring "alpha" types. Many colleges assess students' teamwork skills--and many (including the ones Cain mentions) emphasize academic excellence and interest first and foremost. Moreover, admissions officers wrestle with questions and uncertainties.
Part of the problem is that colleges are evaluating far more applications than before, thanks to the Common App and other factors. This makes it harder for individual students to stand out; hence the pressure (perceived, real, or both) to excel on all fronts, to go "above and beyond."
Also, we live in an era of buzzwords and Big Ideas. Yes, there's much vague talk of the importance of leadership--but also of teamwork, social justice, creativity, etc. These terms mesn little in the abstract: as commenters have pointed out, "leadership" can mean many different things. Admissions officers want it to mean something; they probably won't be impressed with a president of twenty clubs.
Part of the challenge, then, for students, admissions officers, op-ed writers, and others, is to use language precisely and richly and to look beyond jargons and types. Rather than embrace "followership," a good college seeks students who show promise and interest in the subjects themselves. Does the current admissions process allow for this? That is another question.
Part of the problem is that colleges are evaluating far more applications than before, thanks to the Common App and other factors. This makes it harder for individual students to stand out; hence the pressure (perceived, real, or both) to excel on all fronts, to go "above and beyond."
Also, we live in an era of buzzwords and Big Ideas. Yes, there's much vague talk of the importance of leadership--but also of teamwork, social justice, creativity, etc. These terms mesn little in the abstract: as commenters have pointed out, "leadership" can mean many different things. Admissions officers want it to mean something; they probably won't be impressed with a president of twenty clubs.
Part of the challenge, then, for students, admissions officers, op-ed writers, and others, is to use language precisely and richly and to look beyond jargons and types. Rather than embrace "followership," a good college seeks students who show promise and interest in the subjects themselves. Does the current admissions process allow for this? That is another question.
55
You say, among other interesting things: "What if we said to our would-be leaders, 'Take this role only if you care desperately about the issue at hand'?"
That we don't say that might explain the fecklessness of so many of our national political leaders, especially in Congress. Gore, Obama, and Biden seem like notable exceptions to the feckless norm to me. I hope we start doing this with climate change.
I was once in a discussion group in which the person to whom we generally looked for guidance often said, "If you want to be the boss that disqualifies you for the job."
Eisenhower had a lot to say about leadership. This is from a piece he wrote for Reader's Digest, edited for gender neutral language:
Anyone who does their work well, who is justifiably self-confident and not unduly disturbed by the jeers of the cynics and the shirkers, anyone who stays true to decent motives and is considerate of others is, in essence, a leader. Whether or not they are ever singled out for prominence, they are bound to achieve great inner satisfaction in turning out superior work. And that, by the way, is what the good Lord put us on this earth for.
Ike also apparently quoted Napoleon to the effect that the great leader, the genius in leadership, is the person who can do the average thing when everybody else is going crazy.
That we don't say that might explain the fecklessness of so many of our national political leaders, especially in Congress. Gore, Obama, and Biden seem like notable exceptions to the feckless norm to me. I hope we start doing this with climate change.
I was once in a discussion group in which the person to whom we generally looked for guidance often said, "If you want to be the boss that disqualifies you for the job."
Eisenhower had a lot to say about leadership. This is from a piece he wrote for Reader's Digest, edited for gender neutral language:
Anyone who does their work well, who is justifiably self-confident and not unduly disturbed by the jeers of the cynics and the shirkers, anyone who stays true to decent motives and is considerate of others is, in essence, a leader. Whether or not they are ever singled out for prominence, they are bound to achieve great inner satisfaction in turning out superior work. And that, by the way, is what the good Lord put us on this earth for.
Ike also apparently quoted Napoleon to the effect that the great leader, the genius in leadership, is the person who can do the average thing when everybody else is going crazy.
7
The truth is, all of us are followers in some capacity inside or outside our work environments. Few of us are formal leaders. Yet, ironically, for every publication on followership found in the Library of Congress, I found 4,200 publications on leadership. While I don't like the classism implied by the role of follower, I concur that organizations and educational institutions should give more attention to the identification and development of followers. As such, let me share what I found in my study of followership. The quantitative and qualitative research reveals that leaders are looking for followers who are (1) effective communicators, (2) proactive, and (3) interpersonally skillful.
Norman Baldwin, author of Winning at Following: Secrets to Success in Supporting Roles
Norman Baldwin, author of Winning at Following: Secrets to Success in Supporting Roles
4
Glorification of Colleges has emptied them of their meaning. I would have thought you'd want the best qualified students. What 17-18 year old is really going to know about real leadership at that age? Considering that so many College bound kids and their families are setting themselves up for a crushing load of debt I'd be more concerned about what a perspective College graduation rate is and what the first job success rate is after graduation.
Some people are natural leaders. Most however become good ones as they gain life experience and educate themselves whether at College, The Military, or somewhere else.
Some people are natural leaders. Most however become good ones as they gain life experience and educate themselves whether at College, The Military, or somewhere else.
3
This over-emphasis on the value of leadership has long bothered me too. Perhaps the reason that I am not comfortable with it is that the leadership skills usually described are characteristic of the form more often seen in men, and for which women who try to adopt them are often criticized as overly aggressive. Skills such as consensus building that women leaders more often bring to situations are often overlooked. Looks to me like we need a lot more of that type of leadership!
18
Timely, even overdue, article. Too many chiefs and not enough Indians, as they say. We shouldn't forget that people naturally lead and follow every day. A good follower should be able to lead once in a while and vice versa.
8
Great article. The Times had an article the other day about what is wrong with
"elite" NYC high schools - and the author made the same mistake, saying that admission by test scores didn't let qualities like "leadership" matter. I couldn't help but think oh here goes new pressure on the black kids he meant to help, now they have to turn themselves into "leaders." There is so much fake pressure on kids to have a resume and to elbow other kids out of the way when it comes time to be club president or editor. One can only hope good admissions directors can spot the good fakes.
"elite" NYC high schools - and the author made the same mistake, saying that admission by test scores didn't let qualities like "leadership" matter. I couldn't help but think oh here goes new pressure on the black kids he meant to help, now they have to turn themselves into "leaders." There is so much fake pressure on kids to have a resume and to elbow other kids out of the way when it comes time to be club president or editor. One can only hope good admissions directors can spot the good fakes.
6
Rather than promoting "leaders," perhaps what universities should encourage are "pioneers," those who create and trailblaze. I would love to see more of them elevated in this world.
17
Exactly. Team players who can effectively problem solve and innovate are the ones who truly durably advance causes, missions, and businesses.
1
I went to a Stanford sponsored day that was put on by the university to encourage Stanford students to volunteer in the community. I sat in the back of the room as the students prepared for the event. One of the tasks was to assemble the tables and chairs for the event. The students got into a heated discussion about who was to do this menial work until one of the "important" visiting speakers came into the room. The students abandoned the menial task and rushed to self promote themselves with the important guest. As the day proceeded the potential volunteers all wanted to shepherd around important speakers and virtually ignored the ladies from groups like an East Palo Alto preschool. At the end of the day the students (who never did assemble the tables and chairs) left a mess for the custodians to take care of the next day. They agreed that they all had important studies to do. In fact they left immediately after their important guests left without even speaking to some unknown and unimportant groups that needed volunteers.
It is a day that will stay with me. I don't have much respect for Stanford grads to this day. Graduates from these types of schools now "lead" the nation. It is no wonder that there is a revolt against the elites today, we created generations of selfish brats and put them in charge.
It is a day that will stay with me. I don't have much respect for Stanford grads to this day. Graduates from these types of schools now "lead" the nation. It is no wonder that there is a revolt against the elites today, we created generations of selfish brats and put them in charge.
119
As it happens, Speaker Paul Ryan and I were in college at the same time, being the same age. During those years, I volunteered many nights at a volunteer ambulance corps.
This week I have been joking with friends that the same night I was giving away free health care, Ryan might have been at his infamous keg party planning for the day he could take away free health care entitlement programs.
Ryan went to a better college, has fame, more money, and certainly far greater leadership skills than I could ever achieve.
Forgive my immodesty- I feel I have something much greater.
This week I have been joking with friends that the same night I was giving away free health care, Ryan might have been at his infamous keg party planning for the day he could take away free health care entitlement programs.
Ryan went to a better college, has fame, more money, and certainly far greater leadership skills than I could ever achieve.
Forgive my immodesty- I feel I have something much greater.
91
The idea of leading by example has gotten lost...as has the idea that we all have talents and struggles, and that nobody gets everything they want all the time. Parents who buy into the competition idea (that more for you means less for me) and that their child(ren) must excel in all areas always..leads to heartache all around. Kids need to learn to experience and get over failure, disappointment, loneliness, and boredom in elementary school. Otherwise, they have no sense of their own capabilities and resilience when the 'college resume' madness begins.
9
Thank you for highlighting this disturbing trend. I think the problem can be traced to the widening gap between the haves and have nots. The oft cited example of the ratio of CEO salary to lowest paid worker comes to mind. Whereas it used to be 10 or 20, now it's 500 or more. We increasingly find ourselves in a "winner take all" economy. Of course Ivy league schools want as many future CEO's as they can get, for how else are they going to win the endowment race?
34
Call it whatever you want, but leadership is actually about having the confidence and certainty that enable a person to sell herself and her ideas, because in our ruthlessly competitive world, the work does not speak for itself. Some people are more aggressive about it, and perhaps that's what Susan Cain objects to. But, ironically, this is exactly what she herself is doing, confidently selling and marketing her point of view, though in a quiet voice, which disguises the aggression.
2
When the culture keeps idolizing the alleged "stars" of sports teams as the ones who do the winning, and creates mythical never failing leaders, who can leap tall buildings and save humanity with an APP, or latest iteration of yesterdays time-suck tech device, its expected that a lot of the younger generation would think they can be the penultimate leader. But that's foolish, and the historical records show that only a few people become real and effective leaders.
In my youth I recall reading, the titles currently escape me, short books written by the working class athletes of my day. The grinders, the ones who passed the ball, blocked the opposing linemen to let the "star" gain a few feet. The guys who hurt still suited up and yelled their support from the sidelines, who unlike today didn't sit there like mopes in their expensive suits, and a years salary worth of jewels.
Then came the rise of the "All-Star", the sports apparel selling celebrity. The ones willingly mugging for the cameras. Partied all night, seen at the latest Scenes. Their lifestyles outlandish and gross.
Forgotten was that if their teammates didnt play as well if not better in their shadows...well, they'd never be the "star". The grinders put the W's up.
Leadership is overrated. As we just saw with the aborted GOP health care mission. All that "skilled" leadership got us what?
Queen Bee ain't got no hive without worker bees. Its just a guy/gal out for a solo-stroll if no one is walking with them.
In my youth I recall reading, the titles currently escape me, short books written by the working class athletes of my day. The grinders, the ones who passed the ball, blocked the opposing linemen to let the "star" gain a few feet. The guys who hurt still suited up and yelled their support from the sidelines, who unlike today didn't sit there like mopes in their expensive suits, and a years salary worth of jewels.
Then came the rise of the "All-Star", the sports apparel selling celebrity. The ones willingly mugging for the cameras. Partied all night, seen at the latest Scenes. Their lifestyles outlandish and gross.
Forgotten was that if their teammates didnt play as well if not better in their shadows...well, they'd never be the "star". The grinders put the W's up.
Leadership is overrated. As we just saw with the aborted GOP health care mission. All that "skilled" leadership got us what?
Queen Bee ain't got no hive without worker bees. Its just a guy/gal out for a solo-stroll if no one is walking with them.
2
We can see this attitude reflected in the Ayn Randian Republican philosophy. Leaders (entrepreneurs) are worthy. Followers (workers) are not.
They seem to think those who have risen to the 'top' got there all by themselves, owing nothing to anyone. Conversely, it must follow that those who have not become wealthy must also accept full blame for their circumstances. They have absolutely no comprehension that without these other people successfully implementing plans and making their own contributions, they would achieve nothing. Their success is totally dependent on the qualities of their followers.
Actually, the term 'followers' implies servitude, lack of ability, and someone in need of monitoring. It's simplistic and patronizing. 'Partners' may be a better word.
They seem to think those who have risen to the 'top' got there all by themselves, owing nothing to anyone. Conversely, it must follow that those who have not become wealthy must also accept full blame for their circumstances. They have absolutely no comprehension that without these other people successfully implementing plans and making their own contributions, they would achieve nothing. Their success is totally dependent on the qualities of their followers.
Actually, the term 'followers' implies servitude, lack of ability, and someone in need of monitoring. It's simplistic and patronizing. 'Partners' may be a better word.
6
Elite institutions need over-the-top players, or they won't be elite. Leadership is about a desire AND a drive to build things. Big things require lots of leaders who possess similar interests. Command and control is an outdated model everywhere except the military. Schools that want to attract talent need to differentiate from the norm of aggressive dominance and focus on 'what did you achieve in terms of measurable results' and 'how did you get there'? Flip side, what is the compelling business case for going to any elite school - and I mean in terms of paying for it with your own money? The answer may surprise you: you're buying into their alumni network.
2
I'm in general very introverted, and I graduated not ever having been president of anything. I'm currently a freshman in college, and, as you might expect, the "leadership" thing haunted me throughout the application process. Every now and then I see writers in publications like the NYT or the Atlantic take up this topic (they never seems
to change much), and every time I see one of these articles there's usually a lean towards, and in some cases a total embrace, of a paradigm in which the world has only two kinds of people--leaders and followers.
This article mentions that people can be things like "team players" or "artists", but although it doesn't necessarily mark them down as "followers", the title and introductory paragraph of the article seem to suggest that these people are, indeed, intended to fit into that category. It seems to me that by accepting these sorts of binary labels, even those critical of the "leadership" attitude implicitly accept that the world is made up of a faceless mass of "followers" who are put in their places and only set on the way to greatness by the few exceptional individuals--the leaders. I don't think that sort of rhetoric helps us escape this mindset any more than a visit to the Harvard admissions page does. So why keep using it?
to change much), and every time I see one of these articles there's usually a lean towards, and in some cases a total embrace, of a paradigm in which the world has only two kinds of people--leaders and followers.
This article mentions that people can be things like "team players" or "artists", but although it doesn't necessarily mark them down as "followers", the title and introductory paragraph of the article seem to suggest that these people are, indeed, intended to fit into that category. It seems to me that by accepting these sorts of binary labels, even those critical of the "leadership" attitude implicitly accept that the world is made up of a faceless mass of "followers" who are put in their places and only set on the way to greatness by the few exceptional individuals--the leaders. I don't think that sort of rhetoric helps us escape this mindset any more than a visit to the Harvard admissions page does. So why keep using it?
216
Thank you for your wise conment. Yes, the article tilts toward binary thinking. Also, it appears to present independent thinkers as "types"--to be valued among other non-leader types--when in fact independent thought is an essential good. It would be folly to create "followers" who lacked the knowledge, insight, and courage to think and act on their own. I understand that the current theories of "followership" acknowledge the role of good thinking and informed participation--but as you point out, the very term misleads.
3
High-performance and healthy groups - whether families, business teams, or jazz bands - aren't composed of "leaders" and "followers". Leadership is a role that people fill when it helps the team perform. Even a CEO finds it's often smart to follow and in healthy groups, natural followers find themselves leading naturally when their talents can shine.
Let's stop treating these labels as if they're personal attributes and recognize that they refer to roles, functions that can and should switch frequently. We don't need great leaders - we need great teams and great communities.
Let's stop treating these labels as if they're personal attributes and recognize that they refer to roles, functions that can and should switch frequently. We don't need great leaders - we need great teams and great communities.
44
Anyone remember the saying "too many chiefs and not enough Indians"?
I was going to recommend the excellent book on the values of introversion until I got to the bottom of this article and recognized the author as one and the same. I was so grateful to read that book. I only wish I had read it earlier in my introverted son's life- I would have been a better mother to him and enjoyed myself more.
I was going to recommend the excellent book on the values of introversion until I got to the bottom of this article and recognized the author as one and the same. I was so grateful to read that book. I only wish I had read it earlier in my introverted son's life- I would have been a better mother to him and enjoyed myself more.
86
When I start the debate unit at my community college classes, I tell them that leaders tend to emerge during this team exercise--but that not everyone can lead, or wants to, and that while American culture seems to place a very high value on leading, leaders need followers.
What I also know--but do not tell them up front--is that one of the ways I can identify an effective leader is that she or he gives high marks to the other members of the team at the end of the unit when they evaluate one another's contributions. A leader appreciates the effort of others, and says things like "we all worked hard" and "we were awesome."
What I also know--but do not tell them up front--is that one of the ways I can identify an effective leader is that she or he gives high marks to the other members of the team at the end of the unit when they evaluate one another's contributions. A leader appreciates the effort of others, and says things like "we all worked hard" and "we were awesome."
22
Shakespeare could have made a better timeless quote if he had said, “neither a follower or leader a be.” If, in the end, a singular outcome must be chosen, then there needs to be a reference to the org chart, as a last choice, as ideas themselves have unsuccessfully percolated through. That’s why individuals are assigned a position in the hierarchy on paper. But, as Ray Dalio continues to represent, ideas themselves are the currency of the most successful societies that are to come. His methods are how we will use our different natural personalities in the future as the mix of influence over decisions. Sifting out ego from the assertions in collaborative work is the most difficult task that requires self-knowing. We have so far to go to get at efficiency and compassion as simultaneous goals. We can enhance our path if we listen to Susan Cain and Ray Dalio.
3
Ms. Cain makes a counterintuitive point, but overstates it's pervasiveness. Rice University has a flat, non-hierarchical view of leadership and the most comprehensive leader development program at any top 20 school. Students are coached by professional staff, one on one, to work in flat, non-hierarchical teams, whether those are string quartets or engineering project teams. Several business schools, notably Yale and Northwestern, recognize the importance of leading without formal authority. Her suggestion that caring, creative and committed people are followers and leaders are merely called to stature is repugnant. Just scan Fortune's recent list of top 50 world leaders--people like Rebecca Richards-Kortum, who leads teams of student and scientists to save babies in Malawi with technology. What a warped view of leadership Cain must have if she classifies leadership skills as outside of excellence, passion, and a desire to contribute beyond self.
3
This is interesting to me for a couple of reasons.
You state the author makes a counterintuitive point and close with: "What a warped view of leadership Cain must have if she classifies leadership skills as outside of excellence, passion, and a desire to contribute beyond self."
As I read the piece her main point is that leadership skills are without value to "a society of caring, creative and committed people" unless those skills are joined with excellence, passion, and a desire to contribute beyond self. That's an intuitive point for me.
I'm glad to hear that Rice today has a flat, non-hierarchical view of leadership that informs how it coaches students to work in teams. When I left the University of Houston decades ago to attend law school, I quit my blue collar job and spent my last summer in Houston coding documents for one of the big three Houston law firms in relation to a big antitrust case. Everyone else on the team but one was prelaw at Rice. I liked them well enough but I jokingly referred to them with my friends as "the assembled presidents of Rice" since each of them was the president or vice-president of a student organization.
You state the author makes a counterintuitive point and close with: "What a warped view of leadership Cain must have if she classifies leadership skills as outside of excellence, passion, and a desire to contribute beyond self."
As I read the piece her main point is that leadership skills are without value to "a society of caring, creative and committed people" unless those skills are joined with excellence, passion, and a desire to contribute beyond self. That's an intuitive point for me.
I'm glad to hear that Rice today has a flat, non-hierarchical view of leadership that informs how it coaches students to work in teams. When I left the University of Houston decades ago to attend law school, I quit my blue collar job and spent my last summer in Houston coding documents for one of the big three Houston law firms in relation to a big antitrust case. Everyone else on the team but one was prelaw at Rice. I liked them well enough but I jokingly referred to them with my friends as "the assembled presidents of Rice" since each of them was the president or vice-president of a student organization.
6
You read Ms. Cain all wrong I think. She recognizes leadership in its pure form as excellence and passion and the commitment to the welfare of others that you mention. She also recognizes that as a marker for selection into the most competitive of schools, its purpose has rather been usurped to the point where this very special attribute, is abused as a means to an end. That is what makes students scramble to 'create' clubs with such ridiculous purposes as 'saving the stones of Alcatraz' and scoring points with them.
Far from denigrating leadership in its conventional sense, she is prompting us all to look closely at other contributors and forms of leadership that eludes the scrutiny of the untrained eye.
If you follow soccer, you would notice that American 'judges' reserve 'man of the match' honors mostly for the goal scorers. Yet some of us, like Ms. Cain see others such as the midfielders and ball distributors, to be equally or more deserving of that honor, in most cases.
What I see from the article, is just a call to pay attention to the unsung heroes - the gophers and workhorses who make our lives complete even if all they do, is offer us the rare but genuine smiles we need on very difficult days.
There is nothing repugnant about a call to look deeper to see if we are overlooking equally important parts of our existence.
Far from denigrating leadership in its conventional sense, she is prompting us all to look closely at other contributors and forms of leadership that eludes the scrutiny of the untrained eye.
If you follow soccer, you would notice that American 'judges' reserve 'man of the match' honors mostly for the goal scorers. Yet some of us, like Ms. Cain see others such as the midfielders and ball distributors, to be equally or more deserving of that honor, in most cases.
What I see from the article, is just a call to pay attention to the unsung heroes - the gophers and workhorses who make our lives complete even if all they do, is offer us the rare but genuine smiles we need on very difficult days.
There is nothing repugnant about a call to look deeper to see if we are overlooking equally important parts of our existence.
3
How would a college application tell if you're a leader of a club because you care about something or because you just wanted to be the leader of anything? This article does a disservice to leaders who are passionate about their activities by assuming that "leader" is equivalent to "thoughtless windbag".
8
I think the point is that schools and parents put so much emphasis on "leadership" that we students feel like the only way to show dedication to an activity is to be the president of a club or sports team, regardless of whether or not it aligns with our strengths. This isn't to say that all leaders felt pressured to run for that role, but it certainly makes it harder to ensure that student groups are run by those who actually care about the group rather than need the resume and ego booster.
6
I'm a School Counselor and I had a kid, as sincere as any I have worked with, spend hours working at an animal shelter each week, walking the dogs, cleaning their cages, feeding them. She told me she had loved animals since she was a little girl. I asked if she did the volunteer work because she loved doing it or because she felt it was important for college applications. There was a moment of silence, a sad look and a mournful "I really don't know". It was one of the saddest moments in my 35 year career. This poor kid was robbed of the pleasure and pride of doing what she loved because of the nagging insincerity of "College". Our college admissions process is breeding a generation of self-involved and self-aggrandizing children for whom ennui becomes the defining characteristic of their adulthood.
126
But Scott, what an incredibly poisonous question for you to ask! I think you have misjudged her response -- a misjudgement only available to a person who would harbor the possibility of such a question in the first place.
She loves animals, you dolt.
She loves animals, you dolt.
4
You should take a while to reflect on yourself here: why you asked this question in the first place.
1
Yes, unfortunately leaders now bully and hurt those beneath them, betraying the trust given them.
4
Strange that evidence of serious thought on how to acquire and manage money is not included in the list, when that talent is what colleges most need and value in their alumni.
6
As a parent and an educator, I appreciate your calling attention to the empty commodity of "leadership" and its contribution to the frenzied self-curation that adolescence has become.
5
What we need is more COLLABORATORS.
6
Some people want neither to lead nor follow.
20
Based on my professional experiences, I disagree with the primary premise of this article. I worked in the Penn Admissions Office for a decade. We valued leaders and followers, and often quipped that Penn would be a miserable place if everyone was a leader. Plenty of candidates overemphasized leadership in their applications because they believed that leadership was an essential quality for admission. A diverse student population is comprised of leaders and followers and those in between.
The notion that leadership is prized in the college admissions process above everything else is inaccurate. While I appreciate that this article indirectly encourages students to consider personal passions, ultimately, it only reinforces incorrect perceptions among impressionable teen agers and their parents.
The notion that leadership is prized in the college admissions process above everything else is inaccurate. While I appreciate that this article indirectly encourages students to consider personal passions, ultimately, it only reinforces incorrect perceptions among impressionable teen agers and their parents.
4
i.e. too many chiefs, not enough Indians.
Why does everybody need to be a leader? Because leaders get paid more... a lot more. Simple, eh? And why do leaders get paid more? Because leaders decide who gets paid what. Even simpler, eh? Lose the pay disparity and the problem will solve itself.
In the corporate world, each level gets paid more than the level below it. This buys loyalty to the level above instead of the level below. The quickest way to ensure that you rise no farther is to get caught questioning whether people at the level above you are really worth that much more.
Hear the bias here? Up, down, on top, on the bottom. No one wants to stay 'on the bottom', and with few exceptions, that means being a leader.
That said, leading well is a high order skill, but not the only one. Persons with high order skills should get paid more than people without, but in all fields, not just 'leadership'.
In the corporate world, each level gets paid more than the level below it. This buys loyalty to the level above instead of the level below. The quickest way to ensure that you rise no farther is to get caught questioning whether people at the level above you are really worth that much more.
Hear the bias here? Up, down, on top, on the bottom. No one wants to stay 'on the bottom', and with few exceptions, that means being a leader.
That said, leading well is a high order skill, but not the only one. Persons with high order skills should get paid more than people without, but in all fields, not just 'leadership'.
9
I'm surprised that an expert on introversion mistakenly conflates "leadership" and "Type A" personalities.
5
Advertising that a school is looking for leaders is not necessarily equivalent to the experience students will have. The example of the student winning a physics scholarship calls into question the way that a physicist might be a leader or how would an English major be a leader? Professors make the college experience, not the admissions officers. And are we sure schools are defining leadership simply as alphas? Some aspects of this piece are vague in this regard. Aren't some good leaders considered such because they are good servants? Don't boy and girl scouts rank high in the college application process both because they are compassionate servants and because they may demonstrate leadership through example? But if it is simply true that universities are looking for leaders to grow them into better leaders, why would we begrudge them? After all, only the elite can go to college these days. So who are we kidding? Excuse me, I mean whom are we kidding?
1
I have always said that the beta male is vastly underestimated. Et tu, Brute?
3
I interview college applicants for a highly selective college. I know that this school is looking for students with passion and initiative. So I invite the students, assuming all have been groomed to say they are leaders, to tell me about their leadership style. I tell them that my leadership style is not always to be the chair but to more leading from behind, grooming and influencing others who really seek the limelight. This encourages them to think more deeply of how they interact with others and be more honest about how they actually behave.
2
My daughter went to a boarding school in CT, where she volunteered in a club that worked with autistic children. She loved it and looked forward to swimming with her kids every week. But because the club president was chosen by the prior president instead of a vote, the leadership positions were passed on within a group of popular girls, who rarely showed up to work with the kids and were less than enthusiastic when they did. It was all just padding for their college resume. It drove my daughter nuts and even the parents of the children complained.
23
A general will accomplish nothing without troops willing to follow.
1
The New York Times Magazine had an article about "What Google
Learned From Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team". Below is the web address.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learned-from-its...
Learned From Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team". Below is the web address.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learned-from-its...
One of the best articles I've seen in ages. Thank you.
5
Superb timeous article. Thankyou
3
This article is promoting a false portrait of the "type A" bias in Ivy League schools that the media has created a stereotype out of. I am a student at one of the top institutions whose admissions pages was mentioned, and I certainly do not think that I was accepted for my traditional leadership qualitiies. I am a quiet, introverted, independent person who has never held a ranking position on any team let alone run an organization I want people to know that it is possible to succeeed in the world of accademics without being a "leader" as the article defines it. All throughout high school, I played the piano, studied music theory and composition, and attended creative writing workshops. When applying to college, I turned in a short-story collection with my application as proof that just because I wasn't actively leading my community, I was still doing something productive with my four years. When I look back now, I realize that I was just following my interests and passions. I never really worried about what other people were doing or how I could out compete them. As long as you truly make the case for your "activities" or your interests in your application and showcase how they are valuble to who you are, you will have a fair chance of convincing someone else on an admissions committee that you are a worthwhile candidate.
11
Susan,
I think you would find this McKinsey article attached below on leadership interesting, as it defines core leadership traits that have nothing to do with dominance or extroversion. It defines the most effective leadership traits (these are measured in the corporate setting but one can imagine they apply anywhere) as the following : being supportive of others, seeking the perspective of others, being a problem solver, and being results oriented. They specifically claim these are more important that other more stereotypical leadership traits such as charisma. It seems then, that what would be most helpful is reframing what we mean by "leadership" and educating kids on core traits like these. I'm trying to do just that with my blog PatronSaint.com.
And here is the article below.
http://www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/leadership/decoding-leadership-wha...
I think you would find this McKinsey article attached below on leadership interesting, as it defines core leadership traits that have nothing to do with dominance or extroversion. It defines the most effective leadership traits (these are measured in the corporate setting but one can imagine they apply anywhere) as the following : being supportive of others, seeking the perspective of others, being a problem solver, and being results oriented. They specifically claim these are more important that other more stereotypical leadership traits such as charisma. It seems then, that what would be most helpful is reframing what we mean by "leadership" and educating kids on core traits like these. I'm trying to do just that with my blog PatronSaint.com.
And here is the article below.
http://www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/leadership/decoding-leadership-wha...
1
Whether I am a leader or a follower? (A question every person should ask of himself and honestly answer to get some clarity about what a leader is and an efficient follower in the first place).
I am no leader. I am not even sure what a good leader is. But I will offer some thoughts. Too often society seems to follow people who really do not care that much for people and who probably find it easy to step forward and lead precisely because they do not care that much. Too often the leaders we are faced with are like jugglers who do not care about the balls (the people) they juggle, not to mention do they care about really improving their juggling; they just want to step forward and be the juggler no matter how many balls they drop.
The true leader is a like a juggler who does have concern about the balls (people) being juggled; the true leader does not want to drop the balls, he wants to juggle more balls and feels the stress rising, he takes pride and concern in his juggling. In other words, true leadership is probably similar to pride and exactitude and stress in any field where insight and organization is profound--and this includes all the arts and sciences. The person is truly concerned about his materials; is concerned about arriving at best organization; feels enormous stress to have the most balls being juggled in the most efficient and beautiful manner.
I know I am no leader because I can only do some writing; dealing with people is a frustrating nightmare.
I am no leader. I am not even sure what a good leader is. But I will offer some thoughts. Too often society seems to follow people who really do not care that much for people and who probably find it easy to step forward and lead precisely because they do not care that much. Too often the leaders we are faced with are like jugglers who do not care about the balls (the people) they juggle, not to mention do they care about really improving their juggling; they just want to step forward and be the juggler no matter how many balls they drop.
The true leader is a like a juggler who does have concern about the balls (people) being juggled; the true leader does not want to drop the balls, he wants to juggle more balls and feels the stress rising, he takes pride and concern in his juggling. In other words, true leadership is probably similar to pride and exactitude and stress in any field where insight and organization is profound--and this includes all the arts and sciences. The person is truly concerned about his materials; is concerned about arriving at best organization; feels enormous stress to have the most balls being juggled in the most efficient and beautiful manner.
I know I am no leader because I can only do some writing; dealing with people is a frustrating nightmare.
1
I think all colleges should require parents to submit a synopsis of their child. Ya' get apples off of apple trees, after all.
2
Excellent article! My husband and I are both introvert lawyers (like the author of this piece, Susan Cain). I worked in recruiting at a large law firm and the bias towards extroverts (a/k/a "leaders") was strong and coded in terms like "someone I'd like to have a beer with." This is not good hiring criteria and many candidates who are extroverted leaders and excel in interviews do not have the intellectual rigor and work ethic to execute detailed work for clients. The world needs both introverts and extroverts and colleges and employers will be more successful if they recruit both.
44
Ha!
Leadership?
Colleges are looking for kids who have wealthy parents. The type of parents who can effortlessly stroke two $35,000 checks each year.
And, once they fill half the class with those kids... they look for athletes, minorities and some middle class kids who are extremely qualified, perhaps even overqualified to attend.
Leadership?
Colleges are looking for kids who have wealthy parents. The type of parents who can effortlessly stroke two $35,000 checks each year.
And, once they fill half the class with those kids... they look for athletes, minorities and some middle class kids who are extremely qualified, perhaps even overqualified to attend.
116
The wealthy parents' checks partially contribute to the tuition of the poor and middle class children attending the school. Colleges look for a diverse class based on the requirements of each school and can't be generalized. There are always too many qualified students and far less slots, but there are numerous colleges that will be a good fit and a student can always find a place where they will get a good education and be happy.
1
The notion that the cure for Type A leader over-supply would be to cultivate 'followers' of good skill and intention seems blind to the binary thinking inherent in the proposition. Why would leaders only be considered type A personalities? I work with a lot of people, grassroots activists, many of whom are leaders in their own way. There are so many different kinds of leaders, including pioneers who don't care whether they are being followed at all, or even heeded. They simply go where they are called, or speak their own truth.
What would be much more meaningful would be to look into our nation's fostering of a "cult of leadership." (See http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/02/29/our-dangerous-leadership-ob... Leaders and followers are not polar opposites.
In fact, one could easily observe that what we need today from our politicians is not more of the leadership we've been getting, but rather to get out front and follow. The Republican leadership in health care is a clear example of the failure of 'not following.'
If we speak of leadership in terms of the needs of business and politics, we will have one kind of discussion, much like the binary discussion printed here.
If we speak of leadership as a human phenomenon, quite another. The great spiritual leaders and teachers of the past were NOT the spiritual equivalent of Teddy Roosevelt or (shudder) David Sarnoff, famous for quipping"I don't get ulcers. I give them!"
Many leaders are not aware they are leading.
What would be much more meaningful would be to look into our nation's fostering of a "cult of leadership." (See http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/02/29/our-dangerous-leadership-ob... Leaders and followers are not polar opposites.
In fact, one could easily observe that what we need today from our politicians is not more of the leadership we've been getting, but rather to get out front and follow. The Republican leadership in health care is a clear example of the failure of 'not following.'
If we speak of leadership in terms of the needs of business and politics, we will have one kind of discussion, much like the binary discussion printed here.
If we speak of leadership as a human phenomenon, quite another. The great spiritual leaders and teachers of the past were NOT the spiritual equivalent of Teddy Roosevelt or (shudder) David Sarnoff, famous for quipping"I don't get ulcers. I give them!"
Many leaders are not aware they are leading.
21
Brilliant! You nailed a few nails right on their heads, and drove them cleanly in.
1
There is a quote about the three types of people in the world: Those who make things happen, those who watch what happens, and those who wonder what happens. The quote concludes by saying that to be successful you have to make things happen. Says who? The New York Times is filled with successful people who watch what happens and then report on it. University are filled with successful professors who wonder what happened by studying the past via history and philosophy. You don't have to be a mover and shaker to be successful unless you have a very narrow definition of success.
112
True.
But on the flip-side, if the "teaching profession" never started, how would the next generations know how to do things? If historians didnt start actually documenting history in real terms, how would we'd know what mistakes to try to avoid?
If journalists didnt ferret out bad actors, but just wrote panegyrics, corruption would truly flourish.
Its the small tremors that build into the big earthquakes. Its the small tectonic movements that slide continents along their fault lines...
What missing in today's discussions and arguments about change and advancement is that its most effective when its truly incremental, its rarely ever the big event that moves us as one. Obama often spoke about that...the incremental changes we can all make in our lives to improve not only our own, but others around us.
While now we have a prez, and a staff who think they can turn the whole thing upside down and do it all yesterday and make all things right. Its not fix the ACA, its "destroy it!" Its not fix the Dept of XYZ, its eviscerate it, and let the guts spill where they will. Its not do better, its destroy it, to antagonize and belittle - and make people afraid.
Which is what the whole "disrupter movement" is truly about. To come in and fluck with everything for the mere sake of it, and because its possible. APP-based businesses like Uber, are great examples. Never is their deliberation of cause and effect. Its just disrupt for its own sake.
Its the very spirit of terrorism.
But on the flip-side, if the "teaching profession" never started, how would the next generations know how to do things? If historians didnt start actually documenting history in real terms, how would we'd know what mistakes to try to avoid?
If journalists didnt ferret out bad actors, but just wrote panegyrics, corruption would truly flourish.
Its the small tremors that build into the big earthquakes. Its the small tectonic movements that slide continents along their fault lines...
What missing in today's discussions and arguments about change and advancement is that its most effective when its truly incremental, its rarely ever the big event that moves us as one. Obama often spoke about that...the incremental changes we can all make in our lives to improve not only our own, but others around us.
While now we have a prez, and a staff who think they can turn the whole thing upside down and do it all yesterday and make all things right. Its not fix the ACA, its "destroy it!" Its not fix the Dept of XYZ, its eviscerate it, and let the guts spill where they will. Its not do better, its destroy it, to antagonize and belittle - and make people afraid.
Which is what the whole "disrupter movement" is truly about. To come in and fluck with everything for the mere sake of it, and because its possible. APP-based businesses like Uber, are great examples. Never is their deliberation of cause and effect. Its just disrupt for its own sake.
Its the very spirit of terrorism.
“…But many students I’ve spoken with read “leadership skills” as a code for authority and dominance and define leaders as those who “can order other people around.”…”
Actually, what good is a “leader” who can robotically boss people around into carrying out somebody else’s ideas, most times counterproductive to the organization?
A good leader has to be thoughtful enough to visualize the change an organization needs in order to improve its performance, and then can follow the few simple rules of change management to carry out that change, working through people over whom he may or not (more than likely) have hierarchical authority.
Using a topical example, a good leader would be a politician who would be able to think up a much better healthcare system and obtain a win-win bipartisan consensus to get it approved by Congress.
Actually, what good is a “leader” who can robotically boss people around into carrying out somebody else’s ideas, most times counterproductive to the organization?
A good leader has to be thoughtful enough to visualize the change an organization needs in order to improve its performance, and then can follow the few simple rules of change management to carry out that change, working through people over whom he may or not (more than likely) have hierarchical authority.
Using a topical example, a good leader would be a politician who would be able to think up a much better healthcare system and obtain a win-win bipartisan consensus to get it approved by Congress.
3
The title of this article is misleading. There are certainly many who would describe themselves as "followers" but even within the editorial itself, Cain refers to the quiet leaders who have changed the world and distinguishes leadership for the sake of "being in charge" vs. being engaged in activity for the sake of a goal or mission. The world needs more quiet, mission-oriented leaders--as leaders--not only as followers. These leaders have voices but are often not the first to jump to fill leadership positions. We need to cultivate these people as leaders and continue to forward ideas of leadership that encompass introverted thinkers and not just extroverted doers.
9
This is an excellent article, but the title ("Not leadership Material? Good. The world Needs Followers") is deficient. As the article makes clear below the first three paragraphs, many of the people most important to the human condition cannot readily be classified as either leaders or followers.
39
Ken: Thanks for pointing out the value of those who get things done, period. A number of years ago I worked with others to put together a leadership conference. We took pains to recognize "leaders" as those who choose to step forward to facilitate an idea and then step
back when the job is done. The idea that anyone can be a leader empowers us all.
back when the job is done. The idea that anyone can be a leader empowers us all.
1
Rather than followers or leaders, what the world needs and what is good for individuals is that people learn self-reliance through problem-solving. Each person has a mind and ought to be encouraged to use it both for their own esteem and for possible social, scientific, and technological improvements. Another area for encouragement is the redefinition of 'smart', not as to how quickly a person picks up a language, subject, or process, but as to how much of an expert s/he is with any of those, which requires persistence.
16
If the current state of politics serves as any example, it should be clear that we need more team players, not an entire group of narcissists thinking that it must be done their way. Narcissism is not leadership.
How do we expect people to help us if they don't see themselves as one of us?
Those who latch on to overly simplistic phrases like "you have to be aggressive to get ahead in this world" as their prime directive are not leaders. Such people are cognitively lazy followers of memes that have existed long before the term meme was invented.
Leaders allow themselves to consider original thoughts, or at least to keep their eyes, ears, and hearts open so they can respond appropriately to a variety of situations. And most of all, leaders recognize that they are connected to other people and can always learn from other people as well.
The overemphasis on individual performance and achievements in our country makes us more and more disconnected. So many "leaders" who are less concerned with helping the group progress than they are with leading themselves to the next pond to gaze at their own reflection.
How do we expect people to help us if they don't see themselves as one of us?
Those who latch on to overly simplistic phrases like "you have to be aggressive to get ahead in this world" as their prime directive are not leaders. Such people are cognitively lazy followers of memes that have existed long before the term meme was invented.
Leaders allow themselves to consider original thoughts, or at least to keep their eyes, ears, and hearts open so they can respond appropriately to a variety of situations. And most of all, leaders recognize that they are connected to other people and can always learn from other people as well.
The overemphasis on individual performance and achievements in our country makes us more and more disconnected. So many "leaders" who are less concerned with helping the group progress than they are with leading themselves to the next pond to gaze at their own reflection.
29
Excellent piece. See also the late leadership guru Warren Bennis's 1994 contribution to this line of thinking:
http://www.trustworthyleader.org/eng/Resources/Interesting_Articles_Rela...
... as well as the book he wrote on it in 2008.
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0787996653.html
http://www.trustworthyleader.org/eng/Resources/Interesting_Articles_Rela...
... as well as the book he wrote on it in 2008.
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0787996653.html
Even in elementary schools there's this ridiculous emphasis on leadership skills. So tiresome. And so common as to be nearly devoid of meaning. How about teaching kids to have a little humility instead? To respect others. To respect their elders. To admire cultures other than just their own.
37
The title of this article is misleading. There are certainly many who would describe themselves as "followers" but even within the editorial itself, Cain refers to the quiet leaders who have changed the world and distinguishes leadership for the sake of "being in charge" vs. being engaged in activity for the sake of a goal or mission. The world needs more quiet, mission-oriented leaders--as leaders--not only as followers. These leaders have voices but are often not the first to jump to fill leadership positions. We need to cultivate these people as leaders and continue to forward ideas of leadership that encompass introverted thinkers and not just extroverted doers.
5
Thus, ironically, rose the not-my-President: a man who'd sooner burn a college book than learn from one.
Damn if he can read or write outside a certain social media site, or have compassion for anyone with a flaw or a disadvantage. But boy can he bully and browbeat, and a certain class of people—swayed less by merit and mastery than marketing and might—relish that "leadership" at their peril.
Speaking of marketing, there really ought to be a law that goods and services procured and performed for the sole purpose of advertising do NOT count as "manufacturing", and that there be no tax credits of any sort given to marketers (especially for drug commercials).
But for that law to happen, we clearly need a real leader.
Damn if he can read or write outside a certain social media site, or have compassion for anyone with a flaw or a disadvantage. But boy can he bully and browbeat, and a certain class of people—swayed less by merit and mastery than marketing and might—relish that "leadership" at their peril.
Speaking of marketing, there really ought to be a law that goods and services procured and performed for the sole purpose of advertising do NOT count as "manufacturing", and that there be no tax credits of any sort given to marketers (especially for drug commercials).
But for that law to happen, we clearly need a real leader.
6
Thank you, Ms. Cain. This column is a good corollary to "Quiet."
2
I hope the colleges communicate this message in their information sessions and high school visits as well as their web sites. They certainly know what they are doing and accept many different types of student. On every campus you will find future leaders and followers who will go on to work on Wall Street, in laboratories, art studios and non profits. Parents, students and teachers need to be reeducated about the journey through high school and the application process. Find and reveal your real self.
1
One of the great advantages the Asian cultures have over the United States is that their civic religion, very largely Confucian with overtones of Taoism Mohism, and other strains of thought, mixes social and personal themes.
America's consensus morality, by contrast, is self-improvement. In its churched version this is just sour sanctimony with a thin smile. The lay version, very often staffed out by well-paid ex-Evangelicals, is simply me, me, me, me, me.
The competition? Well, I'm old enough to remember those shiny new Edsels up against those clunky 57 mph ricemobiles, and Honda only made 50 cc. motorbikes. Obvious losers.
3
I'm too shy to lead and too rebellious to follow, but I've been making valuable, innovative contributions in my field since I graduated #1 in my class from MIT. I work for a firm that seeks leadership in every job interview. The interview questions are inane and unreflective-- I don't believe the personnel office has ever actually stopped to wonder why a draftsperson or a receptionist or a researcher needs leadership traits. And--no surprise-- the firm is bloated with blowhards, a bunch of strutting, self-important roosters who spend their time trying to chest-bump each other out of partnerships. I'd much prefer a low-key and clear-eyed management type to steer the ship, and a bunch of quietly cooperative experts getting stuff done.
I bet that the universities mentioned in the article recruit supposed leaders to shore up future donations. It can't be that leaders are the best students. Very different personality types. Send me the studious nerds. You can keep your roosters.
I bet that the universities mentioned in the article recruit supposed leaders to shore up future donations. It can't be that leaders are the best students. Very different personality types. Send me the studious nerds. You can keep your roosters.
159
Amen. Having lived in academia for many, many years, and as a student at Catholic University of America, I served as student president of Basselin College (2 terms,elected), chairman of the House Council of Theological College (3 terms, elected) also on the University Council of Graduate Students (2 terms) and the University Judicial Council ( one term). No classes or even cant about leadership. We just were who we were in the concrete circumstances of the times and were esteemed even as we esteemed others. and respected them more than we thought about ourselves.
The "leaders" in management positions more often than not, mislead the team, partly because these "leaders" more often than not, think of themselves as superior to the others on the team and not as one part of the team; essential, yes, but as essential as everyone else. These types of "leaders" lead the team straight into a nosedive; demotivating everyone on the team because they do not understand that the others on the team have skills they do not have, do not understand and haven't bothered to acknowledge or appreciate.
6
What if we said to our would-be leaders, “Take this role only if you care desperately about the issue at hand”?
You speak of a world of civil self-restraint that my inner follower can only dream of in a world that is so aggressively brash and individualistic that the notion of America as a country has never, for me, seemed so distant. If only our representatives took this approach: perhaps instead of 435 "leaders" without any reasonable experience voting on a health care bill we could leave it to health economists and policy leaders who do. As a doctor it's always saddened me that so few physicians have represented America in government compared to Europe, Latin America, the Middle East. When they do they are the Tom Price's and Rand Paul's, less so the Howard Dean's. Maybe this needs to change...but what do I know, I'm just a follower. ;]
You speak of a world of civil self-restraint that my inner follower can only dream of in a world that is so aggressively brash and individualistic that the notion of America as a country has never, for me, seemed so distant. If only our representatives took this approach: perhaps instead of 435 "leaders" without any reasonable experience voting on a health care bill we could leave it to health economists and policy leaders who do. As a doctor it's always saddened me that so few physicians have represented America in government compared to Europe, Latin America, the Middle East. When they do they are the Tom Price's and Rand Paul's, less so the Howard Dean's. Maybe this needs to change...but what do I know, I'm just a follower. ;]
5
So - the ivies are now going to make a point of admitting social followers, who don't make the grade on standardized tests...
The idiotic asymptotic limit of this is admission (at - of - course, the typical 7-9% admit rate) of people who send in applications on behalf of other students - and suggest to Harvard to let those folks in, instead...
While they take on unpaid internships at their local community colleges, to help rake leaves...
The idiotic asymptotic limit of this is admission (at - of - course, the typical 7-9% admit rate) of people who send in applications on behalf of other students - and suggest to Harvard to let those folks in, instead...
While they take on unpaid internships at their local community colleges, to help rake leaves...
A fine article. I was not the type A leadership candidate as a youth and even now as a successful professional, I realize it is in part because I am a good lieutenant; I work under a leader whose vision and energy in turn energizes. Having a sharp, visionary and demanding CEO brings out some of the best in my work ethic, creative thinking ans sense of purpose.
At the same time I have also been a leader at times (wrestling team captain, president of my fraternity, founder and leader of a literary group of some regard, as a few quick examples), but these were all areas I first had a passion for, then learned to serve in and only then evolved into a leadership role that was, ultimately, an act of service to the thing itself (the sport of wrestling, the camaraderie of our social club, the joy of learning Shakespeare, etc.) and it was all born of a desire to serve those who shared those passions.
The leadership positions I have held large and small have, in their way, chosen me. What we should instill in our children is not to shy away from the summons when time and passion conspire to offer them the chance.
Fine article.
At the same time I have also been a leader at times (wrestling team captain, president of my fraternity, founder and leader of a literary group of some regard, as a few quick examples), but these were all areas I first had a passion for, then learned to serve in and only then evolved into a leadership role that was, ultimately, an act of service to the thing itself (the sport of wrestling, the camaraderie of our social club, the joy of learning Shakespeare, etc.) and it was all born of a desire to serve those who shared those passions.
The leadership positions I have held large and small have, in their way, chosen me. What we should instill in our children is not to shy away from the summons when time and passion conspire to offer them the chance.
Fine article.
11
Oh great. First we confused dominance with leadership. Now we will be asked to confuse individuality with follower-ship. Both are fake categories.
7
When my daughter was looking at and applying to college a year ago she threw every glossy brochure that stressed leadership right into the recycling. So boring they all were. Helen Vendler has it right.
7
"A leader...is like a shepherd. He stays behind the flock, letting the most nimble go out ahead, whereupon the others follow, not realizing that all along they are being directed from behind."
Nelson Mandela
Nelson Mandela
7
The leaders/followers divide is so vacuous I can't believe decent colleges still buy into it. All of us in our lives will play both roles and while one role or the other may be more "natural" for us, we all need to learn to do to both. Do the college professors want students taking over the classroom? Of course not. They want "followers." Do children want "follower" parents: of course not. They want parent "leaders." In both cases, the vast majority of people rise to whatever situation they are thrust into. Colleges should definitely get rid of this emphasis on leaders.
19
I see a lot of resumes, especially from college and high school students pursuing internships. Many of these resumes list several leadership positions of disparate clubs, teams and councils. This tendency is especially true of private school students from newly moneyed families.
Recently I got a four page (!) resume from a high school senior of a suburban private school. We passed it around the office, howling with laughter. The resume was tacked up on the bulletin board as an example of how not to pursue an internship.
I rarely hire these students - they do not make good interns. They lack self awareness, curiosity and integrity.
Recently I got a four page (!) resume from a high school senior of a suburban private school. We passed it around the office, howling with laughter. The resume was tacked up on the bulletin board as an example of how not to pursue an internship.
I rarely hire these students - they do not make good interns. They lack self awareness, curiosity and integrity.
22
I taught Leadership Studies for 33 years at Ripon College. As I did the research to prepare for this challenge, it became clear to me that leadership and followership are reciprocal and that the most effective leaders emerge from groups of smart, well-informed, and committed followers.
3
Leaders need followers much more than "followers' need leaders. A shepherd is only a shepherd with sheep. A sheep is still a sheep.
6
Good article. In fact I think that the words "leader" or "leadership" have been misused for the last 10 years. A true leader must make enormous sacrifices, and put his own persona at risk for the goal he or she is commited to reach: Ghandi, M.L. King and Jesus are good examples.
But nowadays, a "leader" maybe simply someone who is behind a desk, just because he or she has 4 or 5 employees. Where is the merit here?
But nowadays, a "leader" maybe simply someone who is behind a desk, just because he or she has 4 or 5 employees. Where is the merit here?
2
Followers, unite! Stand up and be proud of how you avoid leading!
Now if we can just find a leader for this movement...
Now if we can just find a leader for this movement...
7
This article is overblown. If at all, I am seeing far less willingness or aptitude for leadership in the current student generation. Most seem to be followers, mostly defined by inability for independent thinking. Some students stand out and they become the natural leaders. Not really any different than in the past.
Hi Kara,
I completely agree here. As a high school student who has watched my friends and fellow classmates quickly jump through the rings to take on positions of high importance in the clubs they join, I also agree with the article.
What's wrong here is our definition of leadership. Many of these kids think that since they're the president of a club, they're the ones in charge when really they're being told what to do by the club advisor or sponsor. Many don't actually have what it takes to lead the group onward, hence, though they are in the position of a leader, they're really just another follower.
I completely agree here. As a high school student who has watched my friends and fellow classmates quickly jump through the rings to take on positions of high importance in the clubs they join, I also agree with the article.
What's wrong here is our definition of leadership. Many of these kids think that since they're the president of a club, they're the ones in charge when really they're being told what to do by the club advisor or sponsor. Many don't actually have what it takes to lead the group onward, hence, though they are in the position of a leader, they're really just another follower.
Nothing shows me how off track the value system of our Ivy League is in defining leadership as the fact that George W. Bush was a graduate of Yale and the current communist dictator of China, a graduate of Harvard.
2
What the world needs is not leaders, and not followers, but competent administrators. Those are the people who gave us all the successes of the modern world. Whatever you are, be a good one.
5
An overlooked aspect of leadership is having the interest in working effectively ("caring, creative and committed") with all those who as followers make the leader possible -- and successful. Too often having power means using it, whatever the outcome: bullying, bravado, the right to "push and shove us little kids around." Having true leadership skills means knowing one has the power but also knows it can be used sparingly, compassionately, meaningfully without destroying the fellowship that followers require.
There is great power in Milton's words, "They also serve."
Doug Giebel
Big Sandy, Montana
There is great power in Milton's words, "They also serve."
Doug Giebel
Big Sandy, Montana
I'm sorry, but this essay is just another overwrought contribution to the mythology surrounding US college admissions. First of all, most US colleges accept the majority of their applicants, and some will take anyone who can cut a check. As for the elites, a talented musician or artist who has demonstrated real achievement has a much better shot at admission to Harvard than the president of 20 dubious high school clubs. MIT doesn't care if you were the Boss Hogg of your senior class. It cares about your academic chops, your intellectual curiosity, and your creativity. Elite colleges know all about resume padding, and what they recognize as leadership is not the kind of adolescent bossiness the author is decrying.
There is certainly an argument to be made that Americans in general misunderstand true leadership and confuse it with being a wealthy blowhard, but, please, let's not make this argument in the context of college admissions.
There is certainly an argument to be made that Americans in general misunderstand true leadership and confuse it with being a wealthy blowhard, but, please, let's not make this argument in the context of college admissions.
3
Good!
It would also be good if we could see past the leader/follower duality and realize there are more ways to relate in this world.
For lack of a better phrase I will coin the "self-starter". This is the truly creative individual who conceives and does the work and does not need to be guided or pushed to do it.
As a manager myself, and a seasoned "leader", those are the people I most preferred to work with. The greater the extent I could give them free rein and have confidence in their results, the better we did.
It would also be good if we could see past the leader/follower duality and realize there are more ways to relate in this world.
For lack of a better phrase I will coin the "self-starter". This is the truly creative individual who conceives and does the work and does not need to be guided or pushed to do it.
As a manager myself, and a seasoned "leader", those are the people I most preferred to work with. The greater the extent I could give them free rein and have confidence in their results, the better we did.
3
" leaders" exhibit A: the Presidential Apprentice. No, thanks. Seriously.
2
I am often responsible for hiring entry-level staff in a prestige field (literary publishing). I get swamped with the CVs of recent grads from a wide range of colleges. I've gotten to the point where I almost always set aside the resumes from Harvard, Stanford, Amherst, etc. in favor of the kids from flagship state schools like Wisconsin, Texas, Illinois, Minnesota. Why? Because the kids from "elite" private colleges almost always possess a pathological competitiveness that compels them to try to dominate every situation and every relationship. By contrast, the state-school kids offer the same intelligence with humility and cooperativeness. For me, it's become a no-brainer where to go for recruitment.
577
Then you are also overlooking the noncompetitive, humble and cooperative students who got accepted to "elite" private colleges. They had it hard enough getting through those schools and their fellow students. Do not generalize; there are a diversity of students at every college. I knew some students at state universities who strategized that by going to an easier school, they could shine more than if they were in the middle of the pack(or lower) at more rigorous institutions.
2
Goodness, that's just as biased as not looking at the state school graduates.
2
So sad that we are surrounded by families who try to game the system, but I know there are plenty of students who are presenting their real selves to the colleges and become wonderful, accomplished and contributing adults.
This is why State schools breed more well-rounded down-to-earth hard working normal types. I'd rather employ a Midwestern agricultural college kid with a 3.8 GPA than a coastal ivy league kid with a 4.0 any day.
8
I am afraid to say we need philosophy because our culture is so devoid of it that we no longer possess any knowledge or respect for its value. I don't want anyone to scoff. But philosophy teaches how to think, question, and judge value. In its void, we experience the inanity of 'leadership.'
7
I agree we need more followers, but the thing is, we already have them. The 80/20 rule applies here. Only about 20% of any culture are leadership material and leaders need followers. The real problem is that WAY TOO MANY people are going to college so it has diluted the value of college. It has just become 4 more years of school that employers can "demand" to land your first job for the 80%. Many of the 80% "careers" do not need a college degree. School counselors and teachers need to stop the madness.
6
As the article alludes to - leadership has multiple dimensions. The conventional conception of leadership - dominance and its ally, manipulation, is a single dimension that when lacking broader social purpose combined with empathy is quite destructive.
This is the vision pioneered by the likes of Dale Carnegie. It is driven by the present economic system's unquenchable drive for the circulation of capital expressed in the formula M-C-M'. Money invested in the production of commodities can only be recaptured in the form of profits upon the successful sale of the commodity and M' must exceed the initial investment M.
It does not matter whether C is a lung transplant, beefsteak, or a B movie - the production of a commodity only finds justification in the circumstance of its profitable sale. This places a premium on those types of personalities that can get than done. All social considerations are completely subordinate.
That's a perverse conception of leadership. Money has evolved from being a tool of circulation (C-M-C) into being the final goal. That explains the emergence of people like Robert Mercer - Renaissance Technologies produces nothing of intrinsic value - as the power brokers of the 21st Century. This leadership and their political minions are completely parasitic.
Consider Abraham Lincoln. The man according to Keirsey-Bates was an introvert. Lincoln's concept of leadership was driven by a social perspective. We need less Trumps and more Lincolns.
This is the vision pioneered by the likes of Dale Carnegie. It is driven by the present economic system's unquenchable drive for the circulation of capital expressed in the formula M-C-M'. Money invested in the production of commodities can only be recaptured in the form of profits upon the successful sale of the commodity and M' must exceed the initial investment M.
It does not matter whether C is a lung transplant, beefsteak, or a B movie - the production of a commodity only finds justification in the circumstance of its profitable sale. This places a premium on those types of personalities that can get than done. All social considerations are completely subordinate.
That's a perverse conception of leadership. Money has evolved from being a tool of circulation (C-M-C) into being the final goal. That explains the emergence of people like Robert Mercer - Renaissance Technologies produces nothing of intrinsic value - as the power brokers of the 21st Century. This leadership and their political minions are completely parasitic.
Consider Abraham Lincoln. The man according to Keirsey-Bates was an introvert. Lincoln's concept of leadership was driven by a social perspective. We need less Trumps and more Lincolns.
4
We witnessed, despite stellar grades and AP scores, community service and volunteerism, as well as excellent teacher recommendations in other areas, a low score in the "Leadership" category will deny a high school student admission to the National Honor Society. Along with this being the high price to be paid for being introverted, this is also a particular "kick in the face" now that we have a President with almost no "honorable" characteristics. We have many "leaders" in the corporate and political venues that are, to put it bluntly, despicable.
36
This is a great op-ed piece and I couldn't agree more. Somehow high school students seem to think that strong leadership means that their thoughts and ideas are the best - by virtue of the fact that they are "the leader". I have also noticed that most don't know how to compromise or entertain ideas different from their own. Why compromise when you are "the leader". We also see evidence of this mindset at work in Washington right now and we all know how well that is turning out. Rather than show examples of leadership, I wish admission committees would value students who demonstrate the ability to compromise. Finally, as the author points out - you don't have to be a leader to come up with a new, ground breaking idea. In fact, many new discoveries in the sciences, seem to come about when people work collaboratively.
6
I cannot agree with the admissions emphasis on "leadership" by elite colleges (I graduated from Wesleyan and Yale); many of these so-called leaders are mere demagogues. We need independent thinkers now more than ever.
9
Thank you once again to Susan Cain for taking the time to identify and discuss the complexities of our modern-day values and concerns with fairness for all. As she did with her book Quiet and its related TED talk, Cain brings sweeping insight and powerful suggestions for solutions to her subject matter. She leaves us all better informed and equipped to participate in and contribute to cooperative endeavors and meaningful success for ourselves and for others.
3
Whether a person is a leader or a follower or something else--or more unkindly, someone who should just get out of the way?
I knew at quite a young age I was no leader. So I pretty much followed. I am not sure when young a person can distinguish between anything other than leading or following--which is to say no alternatives to the two are readily apparent. I knew why, among other reasons, I was a follower because nobody looked up to me but I loved certain other boys. By "love" of course I do not necessarily mean anything gay, but rather hero worship. Some guys were just the guys we all loved; they were the easy and obvious leaders.
As I got older I became less and less a follower but did not become a leader; I just found it hard to follow, increasingly difficult to find men to love. I became more discerning, neither rising to leadership nor easily finding men worthy of my following. I became interested in writers, artists, musicians, scientists and stories of great leaders of the past. I decided to became an alternative to a follower but perhaps I will follow if I can find a truly great leader.
It seems society finds it much easier to produce quick and easy leaders--leaders on the cheap--and to constrain the rest of people into narrow followers rather than to make people discerning followers not to mention into the many alternatives to easy following such as lone wolf art and science types, and perhaps most difficult of all is to arrive at the truly great leader.
I knew at quite a young age I was no leader. So I pretty much followed. I am not sure when young a person can distinguish between anything other than leading or following--which is to say no alternatives to the two are readily apparent. I knew why, among other reasons, I was a follower because nobody looked up to me but I loved certain other boys. By "love" of course I do not necessarily mean anything gay, but rather hero worship. Some guys were just the guys we all loved; they were the easy and obvious leaders.
As I got older I became less and less a follower but did not become a leader; I just found it hard to follow, increasingly difficult to find men to love. I became more discerning, neither rising to leadership nor easily finding men worthy of my following. I became interested in writers, artists, musicians, scientists and stories of great leaders of the past. I decided to became an alternative to a follower but perhaps I will follow if I can find a truly great leader.
It seems society finds it much easier to produce quick and easy leaders--leaders on the cheap--and to constrain the rest of people into narrow followers rather than to make people discerning followers not to mention into the many alternatives to easy following such as lone wolf art and science types, and perhaps most difficult of all is to arrive at the truly great leader.
2
This piece caught my attention, because years ago, on high school graduation, the valedictorian and I (the salutatorian) had to each make a speech. My colleague chose Leadership as a topic. I, inevitably, chose Followership. I didn't mean blind following, but rather simply being an active, contributing citizen. We can't all be the leader, after all -- and who would leaders lead if all wanted to be Top Dog?
I don't think the speech was particularly well received, and it probably wasn't very good. This article expresses much better what I had in mind.
The opposite of a good follower is what we have seen in the past year -- crowds all chanting in blind unison to support a would be idol who would lead us all. That is not what a democracy needs. Instead, we should have many people expressing themselves in exchanges of well thought out opinions rather than belligerent outposts. Good followers choose good leaders.
I don't think the speech was particularly well received, and it probably wasn't very good. This article expresses much better what I had in mind.
The opposite of a good follower is what we have seen in the past year -- crowds all chanting in blind unison to support a would be idol who would lead us all. That is not what a democracy needs. Instead, we should have many people expressing themselves in exchanges of well thought out opinions rather than belligerent outposts. Good followers choose good leaders.
3
There's a simple solution to turning wannabe leaders into good followers: pay them almost as much as the leaders. In case you hadn't noticed, leaders are paid enough to put them in a class above followers. Few people are going to volunteer to be second class.
IMHO, step one is to view leadership as role, and not a rank. Good followers should follow their leader(s) in defined situations, but they should not owe them social deference or significantly larger compensation. Of course, leaders have an outsized say in what people get paid.
Our society is increasingly a star system; if you're not a standout or a leader, you're a nobody. Fix that, and the rest will fall into place.
IMHO, step one is to view leadership as role, and not a rank. Good followers should follow their leader(s) in defined situations, but they should not owe them social deference or significantly larger compensation. Of course, leaders have an outsized say in what people get paid.
Our society is increasingly a star system; if you're not a standout or a leader, you're a nobody. Fix that, and the rest will fall into place.
434
If, by leaders, Harvard and Yale mean people who distinguish themselves with the quality and usefulness of their work, then I agree we need more of those people. But that's not what they mean. What they mean is that they need people who, in pursuit of an admission to Harvard and Yale, have wrangle for themselves leadership positions. We definitely don't need any more of those. In fact we need to dump a significant chunk of that cohort.
176
The ońly thing worse than trying to find the students who are "the best leaders" would be trying to find those who are "the best followers" or "the most compassionate." How would you judge it? Number of hours spent in soup kitchens? Guess who's going to have the time to spend in soup kitchens--the rich kids--and who isn't--the kids who need to work part time jobs.
Worse, it would lead to a situation of competitive proving of one's compassion. Maybe it would have some good effects, like getting kids to see other aspects of life, but some of that is there already in current expectations of public service.
As to artists, you just can't tell at age 17 who's going to be great. The poetry prize winners *do* get into the Ivy League, but it's not clear that they're the ones who are going to grow into the next Shakespeare.
The real problem is making this consequential decision so early in life. The problem isn't the specific traits by which we judge, it's that we judge at all. But if we are not going to have a huge overhaul of the system, emphasizing leadership, that is, creatively identifying and trying to solve problems, seems about as good as any other way.
Worse, it would lead to a situation of competitive proving of one's compassion. Maybe it would have some good effects, like getting kids to see other aspects of life, but some of that is there already in current expectations of public service.
As to artists, you just can't tell at age 17 who's going to be great. The poetry prize winners *do* get into the Ivy League, but it's not clear that they're the ones who are going to grow into the next Shakespeare.
The real problem is making this consequential decision so early in life. The problem isn't the specific traits by which we judge, it's that we judge at all. But if we are not going to have a huge overhaul of the system, emphasizing leadership, that is, creatively identifying and trying to solve problems, seems about as good as any other way.
84
I think it would be much better if we were all required to take a "civil service break" after graduating college, wherein we participate in something like Americorps or the CCC. It might give us time to get to know ourselves and contemplate our role in society.
1
It is inevitable that people will look for the way to game the system, no matter what the criteria, and that people with more resources to marshall will have an advantage.
However, seeking ways to diversify the qualities of character that schools look for, and looking more broadly at how those might be illustrated in a person's life, may have two great benefits. First, we could significantly reduce the ridiculous amount of stress on students and families to be the right kind of perfect, which has real world consequences. Second, a broader search for character could actually benefit youth who may have less means to participate in multiple activities by allowing them to write about what is valuable in their life. For example, a young person that works or takes up adult responsibilites like child care to support their family could reflect on the value of those efforts.
The biggest challenge I see here is placing more emphasis on admissions essays or portfolios to allow students to reflect on their lives. First, this process can also be gamed by those with more resources. Second, colleges and universities would be required to spend more time and money on reviewing these kinds of applications or conducting interviews to a wider number of students to capture the best in each applicant. After all, checking off a set of a bullet point list of leadership positions is much easier than reading an essay.
However, seeking ways to diversify the qualities of character that schools look for, and looking more broadly at how those might be illustrated in a person's life, may have two great benefits. First, we could significantly reduce the ridiculous amount of stress on students and families to be the right kind of perfect, which has real world consequences. Second, a broader search for character could actually benefit youth who may have less means to participate in multiple activities by allowing them to write about what is valuable in their life. For example, a young person that works or takes up adult responsibilites like child care to support their family could reflect on the value of those efforts.
The biggest challenge I see here is placing more emphasis on admissions essays or portfolios to allow students to reflect on their lives. First, this process can also be gamed by those with more resources. Second, colleges and universities would be required to spend more time and money on reviewing these kinds of applications or conducting interviews to a wider number of students to capture the best in each applicant. After all, checking off a set of a bullet point list of leadership positions is much easier than reading an essay.
1
Elite colleges are looking for students who have achieved at an extremely high level in any capacity, and the students who are most clued into how the game works already know that "leadership" doesn't necessarily mean being president of the student council. It's generally the ones who *don't* understand how the intricacies of the admissions system works that try to stuff their resumés with conventional leadership roles. I understand the point the author is trying to make, but is it really better to encourage students to become "the best poet of the century" (whatever that means) than just resume padders? Either way, you end up with stressed out 18 year-olds trying desperately to present themselves as the Next Great Thing in whatever field. Abandoning the focus on this type of achievement would be exactly at odds with the type of students elite colleges exist to attract; they're not about to jeopardize their position in any substantive way. Call me cynical, but I've worked in the test prep and admissions industry for a while. Even if colleges officially started de-emphasizing the importance of conventional leadership, no elite admissions office would turn down a member of the national physics team in favor of a kid who simply sat in her room and solved math problems for the pleasure of it.
6
Too many leaders (alpha) spoils the broth. in corporations, there is typically only one CEO and a single Capitan of the ship. Most everyone are required to follow or not get paid.
"What if we said to college applicants that the qualities we’re looking for are not leadership skills, but excellence, passion and a desire to contribute beyond the self?" Passion is just as overemphasized. It conflicts with the virtues of moderation, prudence, and introspection. But it's hard to find universities these days that don't require applicants to demonstrate it (or fake it).
44
Whether explicitly or not, colleges are selecting the students who later in life are most likely to donate big money and wield political influence. Even the most successful novelist or artist is very unlikely to donate for (or lobby for) the new sports complex - or help pay the next star football coach.
71
Leadership should be a selfless act in which one creates an environment that nurtures the best in everyone, provides opportunities and resources for individuals to do their job well, and serves as a advocate.
I agree that not everyone should be a leader. Our goal is to promote excellence in the workplace, and everyone has a role to play in this regard.
I agree that not everyone should be a leader. Our goal is to promote excellence in the workplace, and everyone has a role to play in this regard.
27
Maybe higher education is leading the way, but this bias goes far beyond the campus, as Paul Ryan and John Boehner can attest. The idea of loyally following a leader seems to have fallen out of style and may be partly responsible for the chaos we're currently experiencing.
11
An organizational psychology professor that I once had defined leaders as people who are the voices, the visionaries and the motivators of organizations. They champion the organization's narrative and mission, paint their vision of a progressive future and enlist others to help them realize it.
He estimated that only about 3% of the population can truly be defined as leaders. The rest of the population falls into categories of managers who organize resources around those goals, technical innovators who apply their experience and creativity to differentiate and better the organization's products, and the worker bees who are essential to support the human infrastructure of the organization. However, if everyone was a leader, nothing would get done because even the grandest vision is just a dream without a team to realize it.
Students who are true leaders should definitely be well trained to develop their creative and communication skills to make the biggest (positive) impact with their ability to energize people around their big ideas. But schools should also help students of the other three varieties find their best skill fit so that they can make their greatest impact and not burn out on trying to be something that they are not. As long as these students are taught to think critically and ethically and to not follow their leaders blindly, together they can build the most coherent and positive world of tomorrow.
He estimated that only about 3% of the population can truly be defined as leaders. The rest of the population falls into categories of managers who organize resources around those goals, technical innovators who apply their experience and creativity to differentiate and better the organization's products, and the worker bees who are essential to support the human infrastructure of the organization. However, if everyone was a leader, nothing would get done because even the grandest vision is just a dream without a team to realize it.
Students who are true leaders should definitely be well trained to develop their creative and communication skills to make the biggest (positive) impact with their ability to energize people around their big ideas. But schools should also help students of the other three varieties find their best skill fit so that they can make their greatest impact and not burn out on trying to be something that they are not. As long as these students are taught to think critically and ethically and to not follow their leaders blindly, together they can build the most coherent and positive world of tomorrow.
5
The K-12 school system and other public institutions really ought to give young people meaningful experience as both leaders and followers to prepare them for adult life. For example, a follower at work also needs to be a parent/leader within the family.
Unfortunately, as long as public institutions view children as sheep, as threats, and/or as competition to adults, this isn't going to happen.
Unfortunately, as long as public institutions view children as sheep, as threats, and/or as competition to adults, this isn't going to happen.
1
As argued by this essay, leadership manifests as another major factor by which America has lost its way.
It's high time to divest ourselves of exceptionalism in every sense--to promote the rule and good of All.
It's high time to divest ourselves of exceptionalism in every sense--to promote the rule and good of All.
1
This wonderful article gets to its key point at the end when the author writes, "If we’re looking for the students and citizens most likely to attain wealth and power, let’s admit it. Then we can have a frank debate about whether that is a good idea." Prestigious universities want famous alums and especially rich alums who will contribute money. The universities named in this article have been called hedge funds with universities attached since the managers of their endowments are paid more than the entire arts and sciences faculties at Harvard, Yale and Princeton. Perhaps in the Trump era the vulgarity and social destructiveness of the pursuit of wealth will become obvious enough to shame these universities into valuing different qualities for their incoming students and for themselves.
25
WS Gilbert knew all about this issue in The Gondoliers. We don't reward people for a job well done. The big bucks and the accolades are for the top dog who never seems to be there when he has made a mess, And one or more of the followers has to clean it up. I never understood why the investment "leaders" of 2008 had to be paid such high salaries to actually do some of the clean up of their own mess.
4
It is indeed unfortunate that we often value leadership over citizenship. We do need people with the skills needed to help groups of people work effectively towards a common goal, but the most valuable people are most often the “good citizens” – those who see what needs to be done and then do it, getting satisfaction from a job well done, not the accolades of others.
13
I'm in my second year of college, and even with the admissions essays of my high schooler friends I can attest to the immense pressure to fit such narrow ideals of "leadership" and "success." I was lucky enough to receive a substantial scholarship, so securing extra finances for school has never been a concern of mine. But for my friends, they're constantly trying to spin their experiences into those that they think the judges or employers will want to hear. It's the same experience I have when I'm filling out "character assessments" for retail or fast food jobs--everyone wants the people who will completely subscribe to their values, but the landscape is homogeneous.
2
The outcomes of this are visible at the prestigious Bay Area university I work at.
You would think that at one of the most prestigious institutions in the United States that the students would be supremely coordinated and organized to accomplish common goals that are of significance to them. Instead, they seem to be 'overled,' splintering into small factions each independently and unsuccessfully attempting to solve the same complex problems.
The emphasis on leadership has resulted in a system where students who have interests that are 90% aligned but 10% different refuse to work with one another, forfeiting collective strength for the opportunity to lead a much smaller and less effective contingent whose interests are 99% aligned. It also means that they are more likely to begin their own redundant student organizations than join established organizations concerned with the same problem - all for the sake of having more control.
The abundance of leaders has meant that leadership is impossible. Without willing followers to contribute effort to the cause, we have a campus full of leaders that are helpless to effect the change they desire to see.
You would think that at one of the most prestigious institutions in the United States that the students would be supremely coordinated and organized to accomplish common goals that are of significance to them. Instead, they seem to be 'overled,' splintering into small factions each independently and unsuccessfully attempting to solve the same complex problems.
The emphasis on leadership has resulted in a system where students who have interests that are 90% aligned but 10% different refuse to work with one another, forfeiting collective strength for the opportunity to lead a much smaller and less effective contingent whose interests are 99% aligned. It also means that they are more likely to begin their own redundant student organizations than join established organizations concerned with the same problem - all for the sake of having more control.
The abundance of leaders has meant that leadership is impossible. Without willing followers to contribute effort to the cause, we have a campus full of leaders that are helpless to effect the change they desire to see.
15
The problem here is the implied and persistent binary that suggests leaders are not good team players and that people not specifically deemed as leaders don't also have a responsibility to lead. The most successful organizations I've had the pleasure to work with have had a "first among equals" philosophy about the leaders and have expected everyone to take responsibility in leading to some extent right down to whoever might be imagined to be the lowest ranked person on the "team." The millennial students I work with on a regular basis seem to understand this intuitively all while being touted as leaders on their admissions applications. Those that don't, eventually run aground in their "leadership," either because of hubris or the boredom others feel in such contexts. Successful leadership will look different in 30 years.
4
"...it was not the smart people, not the creative people, not the thoughtful people or decent human beings that scored the application letters and the scholarships, but the leaders."
Excuse me, but as someone who earned awards and scholarships in high school and university for leadership, I am (and was back then) smart, creative, thoughtful, and a decent human being!
Excuse me, but as someone who earned awards and scholarships in high school and university for leadership, I am (and was back then) smart, creative, thoughtful, and a decent human being!
2
There's nothing that would educate American youth as well as two-and-a-half years of mandatory, can't-get-out-of-it, military service before being permitted to enroll in a four-year college or university. The way that people best learn to be followers is to be forced to follow. The country ended the draft before I was eligible for it, and it is something that I have come to regret.
There are many kinds of leaders in society and placing expectations of one kind of leader to lead in a field, venture or other social construct outside his or her expertise and personal commitment rarely succeeds. I would not expect a person who is a leader in the oil industry to be the best leader for an organization dedicated to reducing fossil fuel dependency. Nor would I place my trust in a religious leader to guide a society that is not monotheistic but greatly secular. If we ask, as suggested, "Take this role only if you care desperately about the issue at hand", anyone passionate about denying a woman's right to choose could technically make the case that they "care deeply" about the subject. And though not the best example expecting Donald Trump to run the country like a business was genuinely misguided and proves the lie, as we are seeing clearly today.
It seems there is a huge difference between people who think they are leaders and people who can actually lead.
Anyone who has been on a board of directors of anything knows that there are only a few types of people: the ones who will use any excuse to promote themselves and gain attention; the ones who will do the hard work without asking for much recognition; and the rest of people who are happy to go along with the majority as long as not much is required of them.
When the last group starts seeing the first group as leaders instead of the second group, things generally go bad pretty quickly in my experience. That's the situation our country is in right now, which is no surprise given the culture that is described in this article and that has been so dominant at least since I was in high school in the 1980s.
Anyone who has been on a board of directors of anything knows that there are only a few types of people: the ones who will use any excuse to promote themselves and gain attention; the ones who will do the hard work without asking for much recognition; and the rest of people who are happy to go along with the majority as long as not much is required of them.
When the last group starts seeing the first group as leaders instead of the second group, things generally go bad pretty quickly in my experience. That's the situation our country is in right now, which is no surprise given the culture that is described in this article and that has been so dominant at least since I was in high school in the 1980s.
106
To rephrase the article in a different way: why do we value extroverts more than introverts? Is the former personality-type intrinsically better than the latter?
57
A true leader is one that gets the job done: by following or leading, solo, or team. In military, every one is trained to be a good follower as well as a leader, depending on the situation a private should take charge, or a captain should fall in line and follow orders.
We are overly promoting Trump style dictatorship leading to promote the leader than leading to get the job done.
We are overly promoting Trump style dictatorship leading to promote the leader than leading to get the job done.
2
Good followers need good leaders. I see few of those coming along.
Leadership is a fine skill but being an independent thinker is just as important. The great thinkers of our time spent huge amounts of time alone just pondering the mysteries of the universe, of life and philosophy. Without independent thinkers we would not have the great inventions of our time, wonderful novels or rapturous music. I hope that colleges and universities understand this.
61
One of the best things I've read in a long time.
Forcing people, especially adolescents, into extroverted, dominant roles is counterproductive, and wastes the hidden power of introverts.
We need fewer people who want to "change" things to prove themselves, and order other people around. We need a lot more people who are team players, and who are devoted to goals that will help others, not just themselves.
Forcing people, especially adolescents, into extroverted, dominant roles is counterproductive, and wastes the hidden power of introverts.
We need fewer people who want to "change" things to prove themselves, and order other people around. We need a lot more people who are team players, and who are devoted to goals that will help others, not just themselves.
28
Thank you for this article and for pointing out what's happening in higher education. It is a sad state of affairs and I hope that the 'leaders' in these institutions will see your article and re-evaluate their behaviour.
However, leadership should never be underestimated. In my first book If it's to be: It's up to me, I detail a model I've developed which helps EVERYONE to develop their inner leader. We all have one and it doesn't matter what you call it; it is essential that human beings are assisted to develop in whatever capacity that is important to them.
The model is called a Personal Development model (PDM) and can be used by anyone at any level of society. The main thing is that we do not shy away from development and think that our life will just roll out the way we want and that we will live happily ever after.
Living a life we love takes work - much work and is always a work in action. When we develop these skills and maintain our life, then we can move into areas that we feel passionate about and put the energy and effort into developing those skills.
However, leadership should never be underestimated. In my first book If it's to be: It's up to me, I detail a model I've developed which helps EVERYONE to develop their inner leader. We all have one and it doesn't matter what you call it; it is essential that human beings are assisted to develop in whatever capacity that is important to them.
The model is called a Personal Development model (PDM) and can be used by anyone at any level of society. The main thing is that we do not shy away from development and think that our life will just roll out the way we want and that we will live happily ever after.
Living a life we love takes work - much work and is always a work in action. When we develop these skills and maintain our life, then we can move into areas that we feel passionate about and put the energy and effort into developing those skills.
Not sure if this really rational interpretation of the effect of college admissions on society.
I remember very distinctly that when my sister was touring colleges that they explicitly said they want followers. (In addition to leaders) late 80s early 90s
I don't really believe this is about the colleges wanting leaders. It is about a high level of competition overall to get into college. Access to education relative to the overall population has significantly increased. As such there are just many more qualified and exceptional students. Kids who get into any given college today are likely to be smarter and more accomplished than the alumni from 10 years prior, and so on and so forth. I got into MIT in the 90s. I know I would be highly unlikely to be accepted in today's environment.
So you have to stand out somehow but like grades they have to rank that as well and obviously the student class president will get more weight.
the world is a competitive place. And the competition is worse for younger generations. Competing more fiercely for much less. I just paid close to 2 million for a house my parents could have bought in the 70s for 40k. I have a job while people just 5 years younger and highly educated are stringing together here and there jobs. To credit college admissions as the sole reason for the rise of the alphas is missing the bigger picture.
I remember very distinctly that when my sister was touring colleges that they explicitly said they want followers. (In addition to leaders) late 80s early 90s
I don't really believe this is about the colleges wanting leaders. It is about a high level of competition overall to get into college. Access to education relative to the overall population has significantly increased. As such there are just many more qualified and exceptional students. Kids who get into any given college today are likely to be smarter and more accomplished than the alumni from 10 years prior, and so on and so forth. I got into MIT in the 90s. I know I would be highly unlikely to be accepted in today's environment.
So you have to stand out somehow but like grades they have to rank that as well and obviously the student class president will get more weight.
the world is a competitive place. And the competition is worse for younger generations. Competing more fiercely for much less. I just paid close to 2 million for a house my parents could have bought in the 70s for 40k. I have a job while people just 5 years younger and highly educated are stringing together here and there jobs. To credit college admissions as the sole reason for the rise of the alphas is missing the bigger picture.
It starts with college admissions, but it then expands into everything. Real estate, yes, is one of those competitive things. If you can't pay $2 million (in the best, top markets), then you cannot LIVE in the "right" community where all the people with the "right jobs" live. You will be an outcast.
Leaders rise to the role naturally. It's taking charge in a crisis situation, it's stepping-up to perform a job no-one else wants to do, or seeing a problem or issue that exists and taking steps to address and solve it. True leaders don't act because they were asked, cajoled, or waved a carrot in the form of some future reward, they do it because they are called or compelled on their own or by circumstances.
All these artificially manufactured leadership schools, programs, and objectives only teach kids to get to the top for the sake of being on top and impressing others. They are not internally motivated and that's why these leadership credentials checked off on the resume or college application not only seem inauthentic but somehow become devoid of their meaning.
Shame these colleges that want to produce the next generation of leaders are looking for ready-made ones instead of helping students become the leaders of their own lives.
All these artificially manufactured leadership schools, programs, and objectives only teach kids to get to the top for the sake of being on top and impressing others. They are not internally motivated and that's why these leadership credentials checked off on the resume or college application not only seem inauthentic but somehow become devoid of their meaning.
Shame these colleges that want to produce the next generation of leaders are looking for ready-made ones instead of helping students become the leaders of their own lives.
4
Thank you for this insightful article. I have never exhibited the slightest bit of leadership skills, have never been elected to a leadership position, nor do I talk loudly or a lot, and I don't have opinions that are more more important than other people's. But today I am the CEO of a multinational company.
The only things I ever had going for me, is that I have always been committed to personal excellence, development of skill and knowledge, and that I feel a boundless passion and curiosity about what I do.
The only things I ever had going for me, is that I have always been committed to personal excellence, development of skill and knowledge, and that I feel a boundless passion and curiosity about what I do.
But some won't follow and won't get out of the way either. What you do with them is a great question.
I agree with the premise that we need to encourage more followers, and teach and celebrate the principles of good following.
But I disagree that looking for leadership on college applications is a wrong-headed idea.
The truth is that we all go through phases of following and leading in all roles in our lives. Sometimes, oftentimes, we are leaders in one area of life, while simultaneously being a follower in another. So we might be supervising employees below us, while we report to supervisors over us. We might be a leader in our family, but a follower in a charity we volunteer with. All of are called to handle BOTH roles.
Every college then, should indeed be interested in whether or not applicants are good leaders. While also looking for evidence of good following as well.
But I disagree that looking for leadership on college applications is a wrong-headed idea.
The truth is that we all go through phases of following and leading in all roles in our lives. Sometimes, oftentimes, we are leaders in one area of life, while simultaneously being a follower in another. So we might be supervising employees below us, while we report to supervisors over us. We might be a leader in our family, but a follower in a charity we volunteer with. All of are called to handle BOTH roles.
Every college then, should indeed be interested in whether or not applicants are good leaders. While also looking for evidence of good following as well.
1
The author hit the nail on head, regarding admission to prestigious universities, by stating, "What if we were honest with ourselves about what we value? If we're looking for students and citizens most likely to attain wealth and power, let's admit it." My priorities as a parent to my (now adult) children were to have them do well in school (so they became educated, employed and independent of me), have manners, read every day, play an instrument, be physically activite, be exposed to the world outside of where I raised them, particpate in social justice via charitable work, but also allow them free-time to be children, as in running around the yard or quietly playing with toys. As teens they got jobs to learn team work, time and money management. Teachers said my children were "kind and respectful," values I consider as important as good grades. Their childhood "resumes" were not padded enough for admission to renowned universities, which disappointed them. My husband and I then thought we had done a disservice not forcing them into a structured, frantic childhood of advanced classes, mutliple acitivities, and "leadership" roles. My children bloomed on their own, though, my daughter with neuroscience and software engineering degrees; she also helps females learn how to code, my son is pursuing his doctorate to help with social programs- a passion he developed as part of the Jesuit Volunteer Corps after college. My children are caring, creative and called to service.
11
While problem solving, networking or looking for feedback, we should go around the room and encourage everyone to contribute 'something' from their very own heart and soul.
I went on a tour of Harvard and the student intern leading our group refused to listen when we told him he was going the wrong way, until he led us all into a closet with no way out but the way we came in. Perhaps he felt that being 'in charge' meant that he had to lead even if he didn't really know what he was doing.
Also, like Grandma said: When you keep putting your hand up in class, to impress your teacher and fellow students, you block your ear and stop listening while you are anxiously waiting to take center stage, even if the point you want to make has become moot or otherwise inconsequential.
I went on a tour of Harvard and the student intern leading our group refused to listen when we told him he was going the wrong way, until he led us all into a closet with no way out but the way we came in. Perhaps he felt that being 'in charge' meant that he had to lead even if he didn't really know what he was doing.
Also, like Grandma said: When you keep putting your hand up in class, to impress your teacher and fellow students, you block your ear and stop listening while you are anxiously waiting to take center stage, even if the point you want to make has become moot or otherwise inconsequential.
My son wrote about service and leadership in his application to Princeton. He discussed the idea of servitude and his own development of what he thinks this means - that it's not about racking up volunteer hours for the National Honor Society, but through attempting to live a life of integrity that recognizes the other and values selflessness - and the difficulties in achieving such lofty ideals. As a soccer player - center mid - who prides himself with his ability to get the assist over the goal, he is well aware that this under-appreciated characteristic is overlooked more often than not. We hope to hear back next week if indeed any of the highly selective colleges agree.
This essay seems to depict a distorted view of the very definition of leadership. In the military, I learned that following was not the opposite of leading. Following is a part of leading. In life, everyone is under the authority of someone else and almost everyone exercises some authority over others. Our response to both relationships requires the same skills: integrity, empathy, reason, commitment, determination, etc. If we teach our kids to be good leaders, we are teaching them to be good followers and vice versa.
When I was a junior officer, my commanding officer asked me how important leadership was to success. Thinking he was talking about me (I had been put in charge of a company for a few months at the time), I said I thought the company would succeed regardless of the leader. A bit too late, I realized that my answer failed to give him any credit for our battalion's success. Later, in less than four months under his successor, I saw how quickly a unit could degenerate under poor leadership.
I think it is natural for 'elite' colleges to recruit students based on leadership potential. After all, they will be reaping the benefit of opportunities their peers do not have. They need to understand the obligation to society that brings. If there is a problem, it is not that we over value leadership, it is that we don't know what it looks like.
When I was a junior officer, my commanding officer asked me how important leadership was to success. Thinking he was talking about me (I had been put in charge of a company for a few months at the time), I said I thought the company would succeed regardless of the leader. A bit too late, I realized that my answer failed to give him any credit for our battalion's success. Later, in less than four months under his successor, I saw how quickly a unit could degenerate under poor leadership.
I think it is natural for 'elite' colleges to recruit students based on leadership potential. After all, they will be reaping the benefit of opportunities their peers do not have. They need to understand the obligation to society that brings. If there is a problem, it is not that we over value leadership, it is that we don't know what it looks like.
1
I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what leadership is. It most definitely is not authority, dominance, or the ability to order people around. In my opinion, the best leaders do not choose their role. Instead, once they become ready, leadership roles are thrust upon such people. So-called followers locate a person they can trust, a person whose vision they share, and select that person to ask for advice or to lead their group. To be an effective leader selected in this natural way, one must have good character traits, independent thinking skills, and a vision.
6
I think leadership experience required by higher education is there to make sure that that the undesirables are not admitted. Why admit a student with straight A when is he is not the captain of the Football team. It seems to me that since leadership qualities are not easy to compare across candidates that makes the job of admitting non deserving students.
1
Beautiful piece!
I disagree a little about the culture of science. The vast majority of science requires team work. However, most of the credit is usually given to the "senior author", the one who secures the funding, the one who generally presents the work in seminars, and the one who basically coordinates the work of the team. When it comes to promotions, middle authorship doesn't count for much. When it comes to prizes, only selected few of these "senior" figures out of many are given further credit for the collective work in the entire fields. Virtually no credit is ever given to the critical members of the team.
I disagree a little about the culture of science. The vast majority of science requires team work. However, most of the credit is usually given to the "senior author", the one who secures the funding, the one who generally presents the work in seminars, and the one who basically coordinates the work of the team. When it comes to promotions, middle authorship doesn't count for much. When it comes to prizes, only selected few of these "senior" figures out of many are given further credit for the collective work in the entire fields. Virtually no credit is ever given to the critical members of the team.
1
Sweet perspective and right on. The leadership imperative on selective college admissions applications is a stinking red herring, polluting the process of college entry into a race to collect empty status roles. It's also hilariously/sadly ironic, since the leadership imperative creates a long line of lemmings acting in unison toward a single goal of something called leadership.
2
Don't follow leaders. Watch the parking meters.
3
"She says admissions officers fail to define leadership as “making advances in solving mathematical problems” or “being the best poet of the century.” "
Neither of those things is likely to result in a big check to the university down the road, and that's really what motivates a lot of this stuff. I mean if you could show you were going to win a Nobel prize down the road I'm sure they'd deign to let you in...but only 1 of the 10,000 kids aiming to be the best poet of the century will. Much better to admit a "leader" who will probably reliably end up in a position to give money to the university in the future, even if he only ends up as a vice assistant VP somewhere.
Also, if you are a follower but your parents are "leaders" who can cut a big check...you're not going to have any trouble getting in to whatever school you want, whether you have any "leadership skills" or not. Or maybe having parents who can write a million dollar check *is* leadership skills.
Neither of those things is likely to result in a big check to the university down the road, and that's really what motivates a lot of this stuff. I mean if you could show you were going to win a Nobel prize down the road I'm sure they'd deign to let you in...but only 1 of the 10,000 kids aiming to be the best poet of the century will. Much better to admit a "leader" who will probably reliably end up in a position to give money to the university in the future, even if he only ends up as a vice assistant VP somewhere.
Also, if you are a follower but your parents are "leaders" who can cut a big check...you're not going to have any trouble getting in to whatever school you want, whether you have any "leadership skills" or not. Or maybe having parents who can write a million dollar check *is* leadership skills.
Well said. I spent ten years as part of the senior management team of a REIT -- I was the only non-A type -- and often found that I learned much more from speaking with the maintenance people at the properties than I did from the regional managers. Their feet were on the ground and their daily interaction with our tenants provided valuable insight into what was really happening -- and they really appreciated my asking naive questions because those often opened the door to fruitful leaning for all of us. Suzuki Roshi's advice to his students, "in the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's few" served me very well as I held the space for the team's efforts so find solutions to truly difficult challenges.
4
Leadership means nothing unless it is coupled with knowledge, judgement and understanding. You have to have someplace to lead people. Colleges would be better off trying to evaluate the latter qualities.
Thank you Susan for this insightful article. Like most of your readers I have watched your TED talk as well as far your book. It is heresy in corporate culture to declare oneself to be a "follower". The code word we use instead is "team player".
True leaders however do acknowledge and promote team players. The one thing that I have observed is that team players give their 100% if and only if they believe in the overarching goal. What passes for leadership or "Type A" personalities would've been called "loud mouths" a me decade ago.
True leaders however do acknowledge and promote team players. The one thing that I have observed is that team players give their 100% if and only if they believe in the overarching goal. What passes for leadership or "Type A" personalities would've been called "loud mouths" a me decade ago.
Great article. As a college essay coach, I encourage students to develop a story unique to them, without attempting to follow any recipe for success. Just as there is no "right essay topic", there is no "ideal profile".
Part of being a good leader is knowing when and how to lead, and when and how to follow. You are not always the best leader; it changes with every group and every situation. This is mastery of the art of leading, that you know when not to.
2
The writer may have her argument somewhat in a state of disorientation: colleges, to the extent they are even reliable or competent arbiters of leadership, are overwhelmed with followers. But as Mr. Hill, a commenter here from New London, apparently from General Dynamics EB division, smartly notes, or implies, it depends on the context. Leadership is specific, not general. Colleges especially, are notorious for breeding not only followers, as it feeds and nourishes the academy, but for also condemning those intellectually independent--what if not a leader--as deniers, or truthers or theorists. A significant gap in this op-ed is that leadership is not defined. There are not too many leaders; there are not enough. Leadership does not mean necessarily leading other people, but leading thinking. Leadership is both vital, but also disrupting, and academics, and especially the educational institutions and corporations they inhabit, find that threatening. As writers, thinkers and leaders from our Western past have emphasized for us, from Aristotle, Archimedes to Copernicus or Newton, one independent, leading mind can utterly advance understanding, science and art, for an entire population of followers. The op-ed writer is expressing a rather shallow sentiment.
2
excellent perspective in the article... I'd add, "thoughtful followers are more valuable to the entire society than reactive followers who go along solely to be/remain included in a group"
1
I'm a ways out of undergrad, but I do remember the constant onslaught of praise for / encouragement of 'leadership', and I remember hating it. The ability to intelligently, firmly, and politely direct a group of people to efficiently coordinate on a task is extremely useful - for a few people to have. I'd rather work in a group devoid of leadership than one where everyone considers themselves leaders. (Especially the type of person who consistently sought out "leadership experience" in school).
Thanks for writing this piece; I hope it gets some real attention. I think a backlash in this direction has been a long time coming.
Thanks for writing this piece; I hope it gets some real attention. I think a backlash in this direction has been a long time coming.
5
An appropriate article, as corporate America is rife with an overabundance of managers masquerading as "leaders ". The top heavy nature of many organizations often leads to lower morale due to the amount of micro managing and the reduction in budgets for improving employee pay and for strengthening teams that need more doers. Usually then you get a lot of managers who are disconnected from the true business purpose and simply want to control everything.
3
Thank you so much for this article. I always had the sinking suspicion that I was at a disadvantage in undergraduate and medical school admissions because I knew that I wasn't a 'leader'. (I ended up getting in, but not in the kinds of schools that are so invested in leadership qualities.) I'm the kind of person who steps in where I'm needed, which means that I tend to do the kind of non-glamorous background work that isn't considered impressive, but is still so essential. However, I cringed internally when you call people who are not leaders 'followers' - it has a connotation of brainlessness or lack of independence. I don't follow leaders, I work with my team. Maybe adopting that terminology instead of the leader/follower dichotomy will encourage more introverted people to contribute to causes they care about, and allow everyone in an organization to take responsibility for what the organization does.
9
Ms. Cain needs to widen her definition of leadership. I define a leader as someone who is consciously creating her world or as someone who leaves a situation better than he found it. There are MANY ways to lead.
3
As a serial entrepreneur who has built a number of businesses that employ in the several 10's of thousands, I have been struck by the ready acceptance of a society and education system that demands conformity and trains people who aspire to a life of 9-5 work, punctuated by regular raises and occasional improvements in responsibilities, leaving time for weekends with friends, ultimately ending with a retirement of golf and friends. It encourages a life not of leadership but of follower status. Society's function demands that most conform. I see it in recent college grads who aspire to working for Facebook or Google and give me a blank look when I tell them that these companies are now "The Man". They are the GM's and GE's dressed in blue jeans with a contemporary social setting but nonetheless they are what they are. The result is that we have experienced a 40 year decline in entrepreneurship/start ups/business formation. In 1977 ~600K businesses were started. Today it's about 500K. With as few as 425K in our last recession. This is remarkable considering the focus on entrepreneurship and the fact that there were only 220M Americans in 1977 vs ~320M today. Susan Cain is wrong. We need more people willing to buck the system, take risk, and make the rules not follow them. Unfortunately, while higher ed admissions is right in concept, they have been remarkably unsuccessful in actually generating leaders. Instead, they need to review their faculty and curriculum.
2
Despite the hooey about leadership....as you say correctly, big companies and universities that everyone swoons over are now "The Man" -- the Establishment, as we used to say in the 60s-70s.
Young people today are lined up to become "company men/women" just as their grandfathers did in the 50s. Few are really entrepreneurs or creative "out of the box" thinkers.
The problem is the stakes are so high today. ONE mistake and you are finished. When everyone get all A grades -- EVERYONE is in AP and IB classes -- you cannot take a risk. You dare not take a class you won't ace. Failure is grounds for being a "loser" the rest of your life. One "B" grade will finish your chances at Harvard or Yale or Stanford or MIT.
And part of that "320 million vs 220 million" is that today, we must fight amongst ourselves for SCRAPS. There are far too many people, all chasing the same things. In 1977, only about 20% of high school grads went on to college (that was OK, because you could still get a good blue collar job if you didn't go). Today, the blue collar jobs are mostly gone, and EVEN A DEGREE -- from a less than Ivy school anyhow -- won't get a good middle class job anymore. It now takes a graduate degree or higher, and ONLY in certain subjects like STEM.
People squabbling over the scraps, are not people who will create new businesses or paradigms or change the world. You don't see any hippies, these days either. 90% of high school kids I meet are little corporate robots in the making.
Young people today are lined up to become "company men/women" just as their grandfathers did in the 50s. Few are really entrepreneurs or creative "out of the box" thinkers.
The problem is the stakes are so high today. ONE mistake and you are finished. When everyone get all A grades -- EVERYONE is in AP and IB classes -- you cannot take a risk. You dare not take a class you won't ace. Failure is grounds for being a "loser" the rest of your life. One "B" grade will finish your chances at Harvard or Yale or Stanford or MIT.
And part of that "320 million vs 220 million" is that today, we must fight amongst ourselves for SCRAPS. There are far too many people, all chasing the same things. In 1977, only about 20% of high school grads went on to college (that was OK, because you could still get a good blue collar job if you didn't go). Today, the blue collar jobs are mostly gone, and EVEN A DEGREE -- from a less than Ivy school anyhow -- won't get a good middle class job anymore. It now takes a graduate degree or higher, and ONLY in certain subjects like STEM.
People squabbling over the scraps, are not people who will create new businesses or paradigms or change the world. You don't see any hippies, these days either. 90% of high school kids I meet are little corporate robots in the making.
If you are a top student trying to get into an elite college, every single class, every grade, every extracurricular activity is weaponized. Kids (and their parents) literally have to plan strategy and market themselves from eighth grade onward. This is in addition to the student getting straight A's, actually doing all the work of the extracurriculars, and don't forget the mandatory charity work. All the while demonstrating "leadership" and "passion." It is grueling for the children and the parents. (Of course, if you can donate a new building, that helps, too.) The application itself is a minefield. This is why wealthy families hire professionals to help with the process.
I'm sure the obligatory comments will follow about how needless, counterproductive, and harmful the rat race is, or maybe how the writer got into Harvard (in 1960) without doing any of it. But I can assure you, there are thousands of parents out there who know exactly what I'm talking about.
I'm sure the obligatory comments will follow about how needless, counterproductive, and harmful the rat race is, or maybe how the writer got into Harvard (in 1960) without doing any of it. But I can assure you, there are thousands of parents out there who know exactly what I'm talking about.
2
Rather than just leaders and followers, we are divided into collaborators and competitors. The "Leadership" model these colleges value is one of competition. That produces a few winners, but a great deal of stress. Collaborators, loving to work together for a common goal, can offer servant leadership when a team needs it. A good leader inspires others to wish to commit to the common task.
Quakers have no hierarchy, but we have leadership: it is just that people in the group provide leadership when the group needs it, and anyone may be called to that role for a short time.
Quakers have no hierarchy, but we have leadership: it is just that people in the group provide leadership when the group needs it, and anyone may be called to that role for a short time.
1
Leadership comes in many varieties. Unfortunately, the variety that is most easy to achieve and demonstrate is also the most valued by college admissions officers. This easy variety is the 'charismatic leadership' style. In contrast, one can argue that our society needs more 'thought leaders' who change the way we think about things. The society also needs 'servant leaders' who take up positions with a sense of duty and service to a broader community. However, such leaderships take much time to mature and manifest. Of course the ideal leader would embody thoughtfulness, service and charisma. The article is correct in pointing out that 'leadership' has become a commodity.
5
Having just gone through this with my child, I agree 100%. Every college's merit scholarship application, every honors program, and many of the application essays ask over and over about leadership.
There is no room on the apps to discuss type of involvement or meaningful experiences within an given activity--only the room to list titles you've accrued. We were told constantly that admission officers preferred depth of involvement within a pursuit, not lists of activities. If this is true, why make students appear as if they don't measure up unless they can list multiple offices? A glance at the Common App proves this truth.
Even my son's ninth-grade application for Honor Society asked for leadership roles during high school. How this was supposed to happen within the first few months of school? Each year, his application was turned down because of 'lack of leadership.' He refused to apply at all his senior year. I don't blame him.
He has applied for various leadership opportunities at school to no avail--understandable as there are plenty of students doing the same thing. He was not popular enough to be voted captain of his sports team. Finally, when everyone on his Quiz Bowl team graduated, he was appointed co-captain. He has leveraged the experience into everything he can, but it is still a challenge.
There is no room on the apps to discuss type of involvement or meaningful experiences within an given activity--only the room to list titles you've accrued. We were told constantly that admission officers preferred depth of involvement within a pursuit, not lists of activities. If this is true, why make students appear as if they don't measure up unless they can list multiple offices? A glance at the Common App proves this truth.
Even my son's ninth-grade application for Honor Society asked for leadership roles during high school. How this was supposed to happen within the first few months of school? Each year, his application was turned down because of 'lack of leadership.' He refused to apply at all his senior year. I don't blame him.
He has applied for various leadership opportunities at school to no avail--understandable as there are plenty of students doing the same thing. He was not popular enough to be voted captain of his sports team. Finally, when everyone on his Quiz Bowl team graduated, he was appointed co-captain. He has leveraged the experience into everything he can, but it is still a challenge.
20
The majority of people will be followers. Very, very few of the students admitted to these highly competitive colleges will rise to the peak of their professions. Most will have honorable careers in roles where they will manage people, so I guess they will technically be leaders. But that's not really the impression that kids applying to college are trying to convey. They're looking to convince admissions officers that they're all Lake Wobegon residents when it comes to "leadership", i.e. above average. And they're aided and abetted by the admissions officers, who are rarely (if ever) looking to stop outside the lines in their choices. College admissions officers are looking for a diverse CLASS, not individual students that have diverse experiences or ideas. And so applicants try and guess what an individual college is looking for in the year they're applying. Leadership was the buzzword for years. Emphasize followership (if that's a word) and every kid will claim it
2
This is about the oppression of introverts by extroverts. I was a programmer for 20 years and did consulting at a dozen or so companies. I never met a good programmer who would make a good leader. They were all studied, shy, highly focused, introverts. Meanwhile the extroverts were the ones that were "promoted to their level of incompetence", and really, that's the way it should be. If they wanted to feel good about themselves as leaders, great, as long as they did it way down the hall and out of our hair.
12
In high school, I became President of the Thespians Club and Vice-President of the National Honor Society. I loved acting in the school plays and often nabbed choice roles, and I succeeded academically, but I absolutely detested "wasting" time in administrative roles like President and Vice-President. I had no interest in the responsibilities of the offices, just in the titles. I felt guilty about my lack of effort in these roles, but then the college acceptance letters came and it didn't really matter.
But of course it did, in that it taught me some valuable lessons. Leadership is not something you earn once and then wear like a beauty pageant tiara; instead, it's a characteristic demonstrated at all times by those who are really passionate about the topic. Sometimes it ebbs and flows. Projects become overwhelming, people burn out, interest wanes...but a "true" leader would rather become a follower and let somebody else take charge than carry on by phoning it in. Stepping aside is not necessarily a sign of weakness, incompetence, or being over one's head, even though we're trained to think that. Instead, it might be the sign of somebody so dedicated, that they are willing to make their ego subordinate to the mission.
It's silly to try picking out "leaders", as if it's something innate or, once achieved, immutable. Perhaps if we spent more time cultivating passions, leadership would take care of itself.
But of course it did, in that it taught me some valuable lessons. Leadership is not something you earn once and then wear like a beauty pageant tiara; instead, it's a characteristic demonstrated at all times by those who are really passionate about the topic. Sometimes it ebbs and flows. Projects become overwhelming, people burn out, interest wanes...but a "true" leader would rather become a follower and let somebody else take charge than carry on by phoning it in. Stepping aside is not necessarily a sign of weakness, incompetence, or being over one's head, even though we're trained to think that. Instead, it might be the sign of somebody so dedicated, that they are willing to make their ego subordinate to the mission.
It's silly to try picking out "leaders", as if it's something innate or, once achieved, immutable. Perhaps if we spent more time cultivating passions, leadership would take care of itself.
2
We need to teach, and to value, not followers but consensus building and active team participants out of which some real leadership will arise naturally. The drive to make "leaders" is rooted in the dreaded "group project" debacles of our schooling where the work is done by one or two and the others participate little if at all. Leadership is not taking charge, but is creating focus and drawing others into active participation. It was a learned skill for me, almost anathema to the do it all myself take-charge oldest child. I learned it through service activities: scouts, student government,etc.
The universities that stress service as leadership, "men and women for others" are the ones who are recruiting for and instilling leadership as it should be taught.
The universities that stress service as leadership, "men and women for others" are the ones who are recruiting for and instilling leadership as it should be taught.
2
Thank you for this article! I have a high-school junior eying that mountain called college entrance. I have often struggled with how to best support my introverted, intense daughter, knowing what the world seeks and what she offers seem at odds. "What if we said to college applicants that the qualities we’re looking for are not leadership skills, but excellence, passion and a desire to contribute beyond the self?" Yes!
2
Donald Trump is the epitome of the kind of hollowed-out leadership that Susan Cain rightly disparages. He has no commitments to anything other than "being great," winning (at anything, by any means), and securing applause. True leaders inspire by their commitment to a vision that their followers can embrace and to which they can dedicate their own efforts, whether from in front or from behind. We should be deeply distrustful of those seeking "leadership" as an empty goal in itself.
1
I often teach Plato. One of the chief points I hit, is that happiness is a function of belonging and contribution. One of Plato's common example is of the ship captain: he argues the ship captain is happy not when he/she is happy, but when the crew is happy and the ship is doing well.
But you are correct about the current fetishization of the idea of "leadership."
I would argue, "becoming part of a virtuous whole" is actually the goal, but that does not translate well into Americanese.
But you are correct about the current fetishization of the idea of "leadership."
I would argue, "becoming part of a virtuous whole" is actually the goal, but that does not translate well into Americanese.
4
There is certainly something annoyingly smug about labeling oneself a "leader." It connotes not necessarily the best or most needed qualities, and certainly having a team where each person sees themself as a "leader" would be disastrous. The best true leaders sometimes are the quiet people in the group who rarely talk, but when they do everyone drops silent to make sure they hear every word. And they have meaningful impact. At other times, everyone on the team needs to be a team player first and foremost, but at times also a leader, interchangeably (for example, when there is a variety of expertise in different areas represented). Creativity, flexibility and empathy are necessary characteristics of real leaders, but they rarely seek the label.
An accomplished leader doesn't tell others what to do. An accomplished leader gets others to do what he/she wants them to do, because they think they want to do it.
3
My understanding is that leaders are able to instill confidence in others, a gift I do not possess. Gemeinschaftsgefuhl seems to be the motivator for the few true leaders I have known. Personal glory at the expense of others the base motive of many wannabee leaders. I hope we have more of the former than I recognize.
It's a true truism that leaders succeed only by having followers. The mix is essential to any group endeavor. Ira Chaleff has been writing about "courageous followership" for years. Robert Greenleaf wrote about "servant leadership" - people in leadership roles serving and supporting those they are expected to lead.
"Leadership qualities" is the scariest thing for a lot of introverted high school students, and for those who prefer to do their own thing, rather than jousting to become a club president. A non-leader's resume can be twisted and massaged to showcase something that smells of leadership, but I am pretty sure college admissions officers can see right through that. It is time for colleges to admit that not everyone is going to be a leader, and that non-leaders can also be incredibly smart and interesting people definitely worthy of a good college education. Why does a mathematician or a writer need to be a leader?
I would not have been able to become a valued technical professional that I am today if my university way back when cared about my leadership abilities. I have none, and truly hate leading anything. However, I do very well as an individual contributor and as a team member.
I would not have been able to become a valued technical professional that I am today if my university way back when cared about my leadership abilities. I have none, and truly hate leading anything. However, I do very well as an individual contributor and as a team member.
306
It was bound to happen. Overusing anything makes it less powerful or important. Individuals need to know when to lead and when to follow. Finding the means to the end or the goal through teamwork and cooperation usually makes the most sense.
2
There's another way to think about this. Instead of a leader / follower dichotomy, why not think of "self-leadership" -- everyone is responsible for leading themselves. The young woman who was freed from this dichotomy was able to practice self-leadership, discover what she was good at and wanted to do, and begin to fly really high.
3
Amazing essay. This problem is not limited to school admissions. In corporate America we are constantly pushed to develop "leadership" qualities. Everyone in the organization, regardless of role, is evaluated on them and promoted based on them. We are compensated by our place in the corporate heirarchy instead of by our contribution. The emphasis at some companies can be so strong that they would not value LeBron James or Michael Jordan as they are mere players with nobody reporting to them. To get ahead they'd need to be "promoted" to team manager or coach. There is no doubt that we need vocal leaders in our society and our organizations, but we also need team players who can think up the ideas, do the work, be trusted, and reliably execute plans. Many of the best leaders don't direct or control others through their position, office, or assigned authority. Rather they're informal authority comes from earned respect, trust, or admiration so that without even an intent to lead they unwittingly encourage and inspire those around them to be better or do more. I guess we call that leading by example. And now I've fallen in the trap of describing every good attribute in terms of leadership.
1
Leaders & Followers are both fundamentally flawed.
Students should be encouraged to neither aspire to dominance nor believe in those who crave power. Both postures are corrupt & inevitably lead to abuse.
Being 'caring, creative & committed' is not a group decision any more than being hardhearted & competitive is. Excellence is a quality of individuals.
Teach to cultivate a healthy suspicion of both those who crave the power of authority & those who submit to blind belief. Develop skepticism of all who profess power, particularly anyone that smells of the old-school patriarchy.
The qualities that should be encouraged in students are independent inquiry, avoiding the arrogant quest for dominance & control, & not to reward those who corruptly crave power with self-sabotaging capitulation.
Students should be encouraged to neither aspire to dominance nor believe in those who crave power. Both postures are corrupt & inevitably lead to abuse.
Being 'caring, creative & committed' is not a group decision any more than being hardhearted & competitive is. Excellence is a quality of individuals.
Teach to cultivate a healthy suspicion of both those who crave the power of authority & those who submit to blind belief. Develop skepticism of all who profess power, particularly anyone that smells of the old-school patriarchy.
The qualities that should be encouraged in students are independent inquiry, avoiding the arrogant quest for dominance & control, & not to reward those who corruptly crave power with self-sabotaging capitulation.
4
Our ELEMENTARY SCHOOL administration is obsessed with "Leader In Me," a sorry excuse for values education based on "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People," or as I like to call it The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Elementary Schoolers. Talk about emptying leadership of its meaning. It's a pathetic excuse for solving a problem that doesn't exist and wastes class time on 1980s simplistic self help rules to live by. Our school district "leadership" has opted to follow the slick marketing of Franklin Covey Publishing rather than allow our teachers to use their actual leadership skills to do their job. By the time these kids get to college, I cannot imagine what "leadership" will mean.
At Berkeley in 1964 I had the opportunity of watching Mario Savio go from being a follower to being a leader. Mario had a severe stutter. He also had a brilliant mind and believed passionately in right and wrong. He became the moral center of the Free Speech Movement recognized by all the factions for his wisdom. In a group of some of the very best minds of his generation, he was picked as the one to turn to to resolve differences. His humility was part of the equation. He had no interest in wielding power-- only in stopping injustice. When he gave a speech about the things he believed in his stutter fell away. He was able to push to the core of problems and find resolutions.
Universities may need to rethink what leadership really is. Sometimes what is needed is the problem solver who is more interested in resolving a problem than personal aggrandizement. Sort of the antithesis of what is going on in the White House.
Universities may need to rethink what leadership really is. Sometimes what is needed is the problem solver who is more interested in resolving a problem than personal aggrandizement. Sort of the antithesis of what is going on in the White House.
24
Excellent article. These days colleges and corporations are obsessed with "leadership," narrowly defined, at the expense of traits like excellence, thoughtfulness, and creativity. Meanwhile, for most of us, our lives alternate between leading and following--we work as part of a team to advance a business goal, we gain consensus behind the scenes, we teach others, and we learn from others. We often follow more than we lead, and good leaders have followed in others' footsteps.
A thriving society contains all types of people who look after one another--something our current administration would do well to note.
A thriving society contains all types of people who look after one another--something our current administration would do well to note.
3
I like this idea. Very few people have what it takes to be a successful leader, and some essential characteristics like charisma cannot be taught.
I've been a follower my entire life with no need or desire to change. The key is knowing how to find either a good leader to follow & admire or a bad leader to manipulate for personal gain without getting attached.
I've been a follower my entire life with no need or desire to change. The key is knowing how to find either a good leader to follow & admire or a bad leader to manipulate for personal gain without getting attached.
2
Really weary of hearing about "thought leaders" too. If everybody's a leader, nobody's a leader.
4
I absolutely agree with this essay. Taking initiative and being "a leader" are not the same thing. Sometimes that initiative means supporting others - just as crucial to society. And yes, sometimes spending time creating or reading or experimenting or traveling and talking to strangers does not make you a leader. But it adds value to your life and allows you to give back in all kinds of way. I wasn't the "leader" of anything in high school. I did well, had adventures, played sports (badly but had fun), tutored, and was on student council. Outside of maybe tutoring, nothing I did cried "leader." But back then, I still got into my hard-to-get-into college even though I had no "leadership" credits. I wish it were the same today.
1
Thank you, Susan Cain! It's time to give a shout out to the introverts and independents, many of whom have grace and grit in spades. Those are your team players – the people you can count on.
5
Thank you for this. Twenty five years ago when applying to college I did not get into my top choice school despite being an A student at top private prep school and above average SAT scores, and I'm pretty certain it was because I wasn't captain of this and editor of that. I did a great deal of community service in my city and was recognized for that, but I was never a mover and shaker who galvanized the masses. I didn't want to be. I still don't want to be. I spent a decade in a large company feeling bad for myself that I was never promoted to a directorship while others half my age were successfully climbing the corporate ladder until one day I realized, wait a minute, I don't want their life. I'm a consultant now and it's great. My clients are not the boss of me and I am not the boss of them. We work on projects collaboratively without my having to tell people what to do or how to do it. It suits my personality perfectly.
7
Very refreshing perspective.
I work in a second tier London-based law firm (called the "magic circle" in the UK). It's now all about "leadership" over intellect or creativity. Everyone has to be a leader, and no one seems to know the law anymore. And guess what, the focus on "leadership" means that women, people of colour, LGBT, etc are all passed over because little boys follow only other little boys.
I work in a second tier London-based law firm (called the "magic circle" in the UK). It's now all about "leadership" over intellect or creativity. Everyone has to be a leader, and no one seems to know the law anymore. And guess what, the focus on "leadership" means that women, people of colour, LGBT, etc are all passed over because little boys follow only other little boys.
5
At my company we have recently abolished managerial positions with authority to create more room for leadership. Authority is power without requiring leadership. Leadership is power without requiring authority. In a complex, dynamic environment, true leadership will be the skill that is most valued in business as well as in other fields. Those who lead due to expertise, focus and awareness will find a clearer and more rewarding path than those who seek power through authority.
1
I took the Harvard tour for HS students, twice, and didn't like what I saw.
I saw (more precisely sensed), the RELENTLESS mono-culture of excellence / accomplishment/ achievement and actualization.
Quite grim / lightened only by snark
I saw (or sensed) nothing of the joy of learning, cultivation of curiosity, interest in cultural heritage, ours or somebody elses
and nothing of the play and interplay of ideas
this was boot camp, for All The Right Reasons,
=
the leader / follower dichotomy is false, if we assume an egalitarian multi-centered work space, which is indeed possible and not an abstraction, leadership rotating by context and expertise, situational, this is called horizontal organization, of course 'natural' leaders emerge
but then Group A's leader is group B's follower and so forth
=
At one school nearby, the guide said - this is a great place for people who live inside their head
I doubt many schools advertise thusly or even understand
so, so long as the catalog says so...
beyond that, admissions are all jiggered up on social engineering anyway, and not just interior v exterior education
I also the 'house' structure, which seems to define your four years, that if you were an outlier, you would be very out-lain
So leadership is only one factor
(I am Columbia '66, where all we had to do was learn, saving the world came later)
Schools vary, subjectively, walking-tour level, can we trust? who knows? - The zeitgeist speaks in tongue, if at all
I saw (more precisely sensed), the RELENTLESS mono-culture of excellence / accomplishment/ achievement and actualization.
Quite grim / lightened only by snark
I saw (or sensed) nothing of the joy of learning, cultivation of curiosity, interest in cultural heritage, ours or somebody elses
and nothing of the play and interplay of ideas
this was boot camp, for All The Right Reasons,
=
the leader / follower dichotomy is false, if we assume an egalitarian multi-centered work space, which is indeed possible and not an abstraction, leadership rotating by context and expertise, situational, this is called horizontal organization, of course 'natural' leaders emerge
but then Group A's leader is group B's follower and so forth
=
At one school nearby, the guide said - this is a great place for people who live inside their head
I doubt many schools advertise thusly or even understand
so, so long as the catalog says so...
beyond that, admissions are all jiggered up on social engineering anyway, and not just interior v exterior education
I also the 'house' structure, which seems to define your four years, that if you were an outlier, you would be very out-lain
So leadership is only one factor
(I am Columbia '66, where all we had to do was learn, saving the world came later)
Schools vary, subjectively, walking-tour level, can we trust? who knows? - The zeitgeist speaks in tongue, if at all
1
Oh my, my head almost fell off as I nodded yeses to this article. And, I would add that this pressure to market oneself is highly correlated with poor stick-to-itive-ness in STEM fields in high school and college.
2
The writer misses the point about colleges. The problem isn't that they are trying to attract "leaders"; that's just one form of expression of the real problem, which is that they cultivate narcissistic approval seeking. If tomorrow morning Harvard decided that they don't want "leaders" anymore but "humble followers whose goal in life is to serve humanity", they would be inundated with applications from young people striving to utter humility in the service of humanity, padded out by essays documenting their humble "followership" and recounting the many ways they have served humanity at the age of 17.
American society, including American colleges, promotes a shallow culture of the personality, approval seeking narcissism, not achievement. If achievement is what is asked for in return for the mark of distinction and approval, thenyoung people will achieve. If humble service of humanity is what earns you a star, then young people will humbly serve humanity. In all cases, it's an act, a performance.
American society, including American colleges, promotes a shallow culture of the personality, approval seeking narcissism, not achievement. If achievement is what is asked for in return for the mark of distinction and approval, thenyoung people will achieve. If humble service of humanity is what earns you a star, then young people will humbly serve humanity. In all cases, it's an act, a performance.
21
My father always said " There are too many chiefs and not enough Indians". My mother said " there is always a woman behind the man." My teachers said "If you want to get anything done, give it to a woman." All are now politically incorrect, but the message is really that the world needs followers and those who execute the leader's ideas and concepts. Please, let's use the phrase " use some initiative" rather than "be a leader". And bless the followers!
Thank you for this article. I'm a teacher and have had many talented, passionate, introspective and empathetic students who are not leaders. Moreover I have serious doubts about the qualities of many of the kids who are high school "leaders". High school kids don't always value what admissions counselors are hoping for when they elect someone president of this or that. In fact I question the values not only of many high school kids but of people in general. Just look at who we elected to head our executive branch. Being the president of something doesn't mean you are a person of virtue who will make positive change in this world.
9
This is a brilliant article and reminded me of a recent experience. Recently I applied to be an astronaut and made it quite far in the process before being cut. After being cut, I looked at the candidates that made it too the next round. From my perspective, there appeared to be a pattern emerging. Many of us did our best to take charge and be effective leaders. However, those of us who are "type A" personalities were the ones that were cut. The quieter people, no less competent, moved on to the next round. Why is that? Well, when you're in space, if a problem emerges, some highly specialized engineer on the ground tells you exactly what needs to be done, and it's probably best if you follow your instructions exactly, not come up with your own, "better" way of doing things.
42
"It needs leaders who are called to service rather than to status."
What a lovely idea. Not sure this is going to happen soon. I don't mean to be cynical, it is just that most of my students seem interested in serving only themselves. Not all, but most.
What a lovely idea. Not sure this is going to happen soon. I don't mean to be cynical, it is just that most of my students seem interested in serving only themselves. Not all, but most.
7
I agree. And not being a "leader" does not necessarily imply that one must be a dutiful follower either. We should ceaselessly question and challenge the kind of "leadership", both corporate and political, that has led us to this particular historical moment. It never ceases to amaze me how many wholly unqualified people see a true leader when they gaze in the mirror. Given the state the world is in, I'd say our personal obsession with "leadership" has, ironically, produced a generation of dismally poor leaders for the most part. If we are to have any hope of getting out of the mess we're in, we must not look to our so-called leaders for salvation. Sadly, most of them are in it for themselves.
"Our so-called leaders speak.
With words they try to jail you.
They subjugate the meek,
But it's the rhetoric of failure."
"Our so-called leaders speak.
With words they try to jail you.
They subjugate the meek,
But it's the rhetoric of failure."
4
We need for good collaborators. It is ethically dangerous to cede one's agency to a charismatic or powerful leader. Yes, "leaders" bribe or coerce us to do their bidding, but we are all better off when we make common cause as dignified members of our communties , rather than pledging fealty or "taking the shilling."
6
Great article. We need more followers in this world.
Leadership scholarship has gone way beyond touting the stereotypical traditional prototypes of command and control. Good leaders marshall the skills and collective intelligence of the whole group, organization, society or global organization. They are servant leaders, not power hungry demagogic narcissists, feeding on the delusions of their sheep and tweeting attacks on critics. Chaleff argues that good followers are like good leaders in their critical thinking and problem-solving skills. They challenge wayward leaders. We desperately need both good followers and good leaders. Our schools need to produce both of them. Susan Cain needs to study leadership more closely.
2
For the most part, people find the compulsive desire to command unattractive. Leave it to the valedictorian and varsity captain types. The rest of us are okay being on the outside. Not everyone needs to go to West Point or Annapolis either. Leadership often means nothing more than more work, more responsibility, and little reward. The dubious honor is frequently a burden born of necessity anyway. There's no else to do the job so guess what? You're doing the job. Sink or swim.
Most college professors understand the difference. You won't survive academia otherwise. If anything, smart professors find sophmoronic alpha-dominance tedious and oppressive. The admissions department isn't stupid either. They're taking a calculated risk with each student but sometimes they just want a base hit. I'm pretty sure I was accepted to my preferred school simply because I worked through high school and I liked to sneak away from my parents to go see concerts in New York. Life is strange that way.
Think of it this way: Would you rather have a student that's excited beyond their wildest dreams to attend your school or the leadership type that looks impressive but feels like they're settling? The follower wins almost every time. If you find yourself in the position where you need a leader, you'll find out whether that person can swim or not.
Most college professors understand the difference. You won't survive academia otherwise. If anything, smart professors find sophmoronic alpha-dominance tedious and oppressive. The admissions department isn't stupid either. They're taking a calculated risk with each student but sometimes they just want a base hit. I'm pretty sure I was accepted to my preferred school simply because I worked through high school and I liked to sneak away from my parents to go see concerts in New York. Life is strange that way.
Think of it this way: Would you rather have a student that's excited beyond their wildest dreams to attend your school or the leadership type that looks impressive but feels like they're settling? The follower wins almost every time. If you find yourself in the position where you need a leader, you'll find out whether that person can swim or not.
1
Let's be honest: schools want to be able to say "this or that famous person went here!" That is high status, and gets students to apply. Saying "Mark Zuckerberg went here!" is a big deal, while saying "Joe Blow, ordinary guy, went here" is not.
Also Mark Zuckerberg will later gift you with a billion dollar endowment, and Joe Blow? maybe $25 a year.
DO THE MATH.
Also Mark Zuckerberg will later gift you with a billion dollar endowment, and Joe Blow? maybe $25 a year.
DO THE MATH.
1
Thank you for this critique! I am so tired of the word "leader" and many of the people who claim this role that whenever I hear the word I mentally translate it to the German: lieder. A much nicer thought! I'd rather be on a boat of singing sopranos (a lieder-ship) than in some management class having this tedious and tired concept paraded before us yet again.
5
Case in point, the illustrator for this article in the mobile version of the NYT. I don't know whether he is a leader or not, but what a beautiful illustration to accompany this piece.
1
The elephant in the room here is the class system and the worship of capitalism, the economic order that demands society be organized in tight social classes based on wealth. Though the author is right in pointing out that it's business and politics, the two halves of the corporate world, which cultivates the cult of "leadership". And it very much is a cult, an irrational belief system, closed and taken on faith. You can't use logic to refute the belief that our political and corporate leaders are great people. Because like all cults, the cult of leadership is backed up by other cults which dovetail it, making up the "intellectual" foundation of our social structure. The cult of credentials buttressed both the Ivy League and the Fortune 500. The cult of competition acts as another determinant in choosing leaders. But none of our peculiar and aggressive culture can be understood without understanding that all 4 cults — leadership, credentials, competition and wealth — are used to define greedy people as good people, and selfish people strong people — thus giving us the many, many good, strong, american leaders currently on display within our executive and legislative branches of government.
331
And which lead to the abuses you see in the corporate and political worlds, such as the self-justifying leaders at Wells Fargo who permitted the (unethical, illegal, even criminal) generation of fake accounts to boost bonuses. The general excuse being, 'a badly structured incentive system encourages wrongful behavior'. What about the need NOT to commit a crime? That's concept's been watered down in a system that rewards the most aggressive, most confident with leadership positions.
5
Good comment. It's an impoverished ideology we live by in this country. So much for "the common weal".
1
You wrote they're nuts for leadership because they're preparing their students to jockey for power in the corporate world. Pretty much.
Not the life I ever aspired to because dealing with corporate types is one rung below getting daily spinal taps on the pleasure scale. But to each his own.
Better to have a life focused on family and fun and doing what you like to do in the limited time you have on this earth.
Not the life I ever aspired to because dealing with corporate types is one rung below getting daily spinal taps on the pleasure scale. But to each his own.
Better to have a life focused on family and fun and doing what you like to do in the limited time you have on this earth.
236
Too many gold stars, trophies, awards, honors, etc.
Can't imagine what it must be like to read college applications today.
Inflated, ghost written, puff pieces, self-congratulatory, super human feats and abilities and lies. This race to the top is a bit much. Most of us are just average.
Perhaps if people were just honest as the Vassar dad was they'd get accepted more easily. I am only guessing the admissions officers see right through it all.
Can't imagine what it must be like to read college applications today.
Inflated, ghost written, puff pieces, self-congratulatory, super human feats and abilities and lies. This race to the top is a bit much. Most of us are just average.
Perhaps if people were just honest as the Vassar dad was they'd get accepted more easily. I am only guessing the admissions officers see right through it all.
174
"This race to the top is a bit much. Most of us are just average."
Amen. It's exhausting for all and degrading for those who don't make the ever-shrinking "cut".
Amen. It's exhausting for all and degrading for those who don't make the ever-shrinking "cut".
1
Let's remember that was 1934. Things were different all over back then. Less competitive. Very few kids even went on to college -- rich kids, sure, but mostly those who were interested in academics. You could lead a good, successful life in the US -- up until around the 70s -- with NO college at all. (Today, you need a degree just to be a parking lot attendant!)
And that student was a young woman. There was far, far less pressure on girls to be stellar students (though obviously some WERE) -- you could go to college to get your "MRS." degree -- get married or engaged to a "college man" -- and that was not remotely shameful or embarrassing but considered good and practical. You could also study art or music or poetry or French or literature, and nobody told you "that's not practical, you won't get a good JOB unless you major in STEM!"
It was absolutely acceptable in 1934 (and again, up until about the 70s) for a young woman to state her life goal as getting married, having and raising children and being a homemaker. If you said that today, you'd be probably be excluded from EVERY college out there.
And that student was a young woman. There was far, far less pressure on girls to be stellar students (though obviously some WERE) -- you could go to college to get your "MRS." degree -- get married or engaged to a "college man" -- and that was not remotely shameful or embarrassing but considered good and practical. You could also study art or music or poetry or French or literature, and nobody told you "that's not practical, you won't get a good JOB unless you major in STEM!"
It was absolutely acceptable in 1934 (and again, up until about the 70s) for a young woman to state her life goal as getting married, having and raising children and being a homemaker. If you said that today, you'd be probably be excluded from EVERY college out there.
2
The entire educational system in America is completely broken. No one ever fails before college and once they get to college, they pay an over-inflated amount for "remedial" courses that they should have had in high school. And now, in America we have "leaders" saying that everything but business and perhaps math and science is a waste of time. We have a president who openly mocks the arts. With that kind of attitude, no wonder students are entering the job force with no business or life skills. It's a sad thing to witness and so easily remedied if people would just stop being lemmings.
1
PS -- Forgive me for posting twice, but I couldn't resist pointing out that in high school, I was editor of the school paper. Working for me? One follower, a reporter and copy editor -- Jill Abramson.
79
We don't need more followers. We need fewer leaders.
118
We need BETTER leaders. And "followers" is not precisely the right word. We need people who can work on a team, and contribute their best work, without feeling inferior or diminished because they are not the "boss" or top dog, not getting accolades or big bonuses.
1
Beautiful perspective, thank you.
As an engineer who has sometimes been thrust into leadership positions but for the most part preferred to stick to engineering, I've seen first hand how most significant contributions are made not by the folks with the key to the executive bathroom but by those who write code or play any of the many other roles crucial to the success of an enterprise. Indeed, my business partner and I closed down our successful engineering company because I preferred circuit design to talking to accountants and lawyers, and felt that I could make a more significant contribution by devoting my full attention to the technical side.
I respect the role of management and, honestly, I'm glad that there are people who do the things I don't want to so I can do the fun stuff. But the truth is, even a leader as capable as Steve Jobs could not design a computer or an iPhone. He would be like a conductor without an orchestra, able to make whizzing noises with baton but nothing more.
Without those engineers or musicians, the enterprise comes to nothing, and in general we need more education at a higher level of difficulty than those whose highest workplace challenge is figuring out Excel. It makes little sense that universities would focus admissions on students who run clubs while ignoring students who have mastered calculus or play the violin.
As an engineer who has sometimes been thrust into leadership positions but for the most part preferred to stick to engineering, I've seen first hand how most significant contributions are made not by the folks with the key to the executive bathroom but by those who write code or play any of the many other roles crucial to the success of an enterprise. Indeed, my business partner and I closed down our successful engineering company because I preferred circuit design to talking to accountants and lawyers, and felt that I could make a more significant contribution by devoting my full attention to the technical side.
I respect the role of management and, honestly, I'm glad that there are people who do the things I don't want to so I can do the fun stuff. But the truth is, even a leader as capable as Steve Jobs could not design a computer or an iPhone. He would be like a conductor without an orchestra, able to make whizzing noises with baton but nothing more.
Without those engineers or musicians, the enterprise comes to nothing, and in general we need more education at a higher level of difficulty than those whose highest workplace challenge is figuring out Excel. It makes little sense that universities would focus admissions on students who run clubs while ignoring students who have mastered calculus or play the violin.
286
True! Wozniak made the computers, and is much beloved among techies.
7
The whole idea of the college admissions process today is not to encourage young people to find a life that is rewarding both to themselves and others, but to fit into a Procrustian bed of expectations laid down by their elders. So "seeming" to be something socially admirable, such as a leader, is much more important than doing something well, whether it is leadership or followership or just going off somewhere to do some thinking. Rather than respecting the individuality that makes us all different and unique, the young are force-fed social roles that do nothing to contribute to a useful or happy life. They are slaves to their resumes, which they pad with often meaningless non-information (resume composition as a form of fiction is now quite well-established, even if socially disapproved of).
And the situation isn't getting any better. Contrast the calm, stoic and deliberate leadership of someone like Angela Merkel and the style of the person who now occupies the White House, a totally empty, shallow, amoral person.
And the situation isn't getting any better. Contrast the calm, stoic and deliberate leadership of someone like Angela Merkel and the style of the person who now occupies the White House, a totally empty, shallow, amoral person.
214
Two sentences in this comment struck me:
1) Contribute to a useful or happy life
2) style...a totally shallow empty amoral person.
We now have a 'leader' in the White House at the pinnacle of leadership achievement - probably the most powerful man in the world and possessing wealth well beyond the imagination of most. Is he useful? Is he happy?
Point of the article personified.
1) Contribute to a useful or happy life
2) style...a totally shallow empty amoral person.
We now have a 'leader' in the White House at the pinnacle of leadership achievement - probably the most powerful man in the world and possessing wealth well beyond the imagination of most. Is he useful? Is he happy?
Point of the article personified.
4
We can't, and we shouldn't, have any conversation about young people today without discussing economics. People are terrified that their kids won't end up in the middle class. They see the insanely rich, and they see the bottom half struggling. And they know there are fewer slots in the predicable, ordinary, secure middle class with a job you can count on and benefits that will see you through to death than there used to be. So kids and parents scramble to compete, hoping to get to the tippy-top where there is a presumption of greater safety. We need an economy that widens and creates more safety in the middle class. Sane tax laws, health care, labor unions, well-funded public education, Social Security and Medicare -- these were all ingredients in the past. Strengthen them and you won't watch the rest of society freak out in fear.
5
@paula: what you said. I agree with the article, but I think Ms. Cain missed the driving force -- the terrible fear that people will fall out of the middle (or upper-middle) class because they can't get the top elite jobs reserved for the top students from the top universities -- the kids who did "everything right" and excelled at literally everything.
It is no longer OK today to be "good enough" -- go to an average college, get average grades -- graduate and find a regular job that pays a decent wage. So many jobs have been lost. It is actually kind of giant, real world, real time game of "Musical Chairs" with hundreds of thousands "pushed out" each year with nowhere to go.
BTW: that is not JUSTIFYING this kind of rigidity and lock-step perfection leading to "the perfect career" -- but a means of explaining the thinking behind it.
It is no longer OK today to be "good enough" -- go to an average college, get average grades -- graduate and find a regular job that pays a decent wage. So many jobs have been lost. It is actually kind of giant, real world, real time game of "Musical Chairs" with hundreds of thousands "pushed out" each year with nowhere to go.
BTW: that is not JUSTIFYING this kind of rigidity and lock-step perfection leading to "the perfect career" -- but a means of explaining the thinking behind it.
3
As a "born follower" I try to remind my " born leader" children that finding good followers is the key their success. I am not always successful in doing so. High Schools and colleges tell these kids over and over again that they must be leaders. There is no other option. Almost of their " followers" are "wanna be" leaders and that doesn't not give the entities they are leading their best chances of success.
At work I have been lucky to have been able to be valued for my excellent " follower" skills: taking direction and carrying those out in the best and most efficient manner possible while being unafraid to tell " truth to power" who considers my opinion seriously because they know that it doesn't come from a desire to move up or undermine them.
At work I have been lucky to have been able to be valued for my excellent " follower" skills: taking direction and carrying those out in the best and most efficient manner possible while being unafraid to tell " truth to power" who considers my opinion seriously because they know that it doesn't come from a desire to move up or undermine them.
172
I thought a true leader should want to encourage and mentor his/her followers to become leaders. I don't want to work for someone who dismiss his/her followers as "wanna be leaders," but want to stay far, far away from them.