Having Leadership vs. True Leader
I don't know whether the military academies effectively teach leadership (I've given guest lectures at both West Point and Annapolis, but don't have a good sense of the overall curriculum at either institution), but yes -- leadership can be taught. The key is to remember the difference between trying to teach one to "be a leader" (impossible) and teaching one to exercise leadership (which is quite doable).
A "charismatic leader" -- Weber's definition of one who inspires followership by virtue of personal talents or characteristics -- is: a) so much a rarity as to make reliance on his or her availability a rather futile exercise and, b) potentially quite dangerous (do the names Adolf Hitler, Jim Jones or David Koresh mean anything to you?) One can, of course, attempt to teach students to exercise more gravitas (stand straight, lower your voice, use a pre-tested motivational vocabulary) or, conversely, to become more charming (can you make your eyes twinkle?) But why bother: When it comes to being "a natural leader," you've either got it or you haven't.
So what does that leave? The particular techniques, skill sets, and structures that allow one to lead. It's a matter of "doing," not "being." For example, if one wishes to lead an organization in pursuit of a goal, it is helpful to know how to clarify one's vision, develop a clearly-understood "message," form alliances around common goals, create an effective decision-making structure, analyze potential strategies and choose the best ones, etc.
We live in a society in which individual or collective non-governmental action can provide the catalyst for serious change. The labor movement, the woman's movement, the gay rights movement, the California tax rebellions all benefited from having identifiable spokesmen, but there were no Gandhis in the bunch. They had leadership, not leaders (holding an office in an organization does not make one a "leader"; it only makes one the holder of an office). Does one seriously think of Howard Jarvis, Kate Michelman, or Walter Reuther as a great leader? All fit the mold of committed advocates who exercised the tools of leadership.
Which is where Ricks is wrong: If the academies are not teaching leadership, that doesn't mean they can't. Closing the academies is one option, but properly understanding leadership training is another option and maybe the better one.
Posted by: harrumph1 | April 21, 2009 12:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Posted by: harrumph1 | April 21, 2009 12:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.