Stephen Krewson | Following the (steps to be the) leader

A pervasive idea in modern thought is that Western culture faces a pressing shortage of "leaders." Rare indeed is the organization which does not purport to "train up the leaders of tomorrow" or "equip people to lead."

An entire industry has developed expressly for the manufacturing of leaders. What differentiates this industry from its historical ancestors - the aristocracy, military and priesthood - is its pedagogical nature. Schools have become the primary breeding ground for the "leaders" of the future.

This shift has triggered an algal bloom of leader-oriented institutions. My favorite? The Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls-South Africa. Founded in 2007, TOWLAGSA "supports the development of a new generation of women leaders who, by virtue of their education and leadership, will lead the charge to positively transform themselves, their communities and the larger world." Note the neat, looping fashion in which young women lead by virtue of their leadership! Upon reflection, it makes as much sense as the notion that any of these girls will grow up to become "leaders" of Oprah's ($2.5 billion) caliber.

In higher education, the phenomenon exhibits itself in specialized departments and degrees. The department of leadership studies at Fort Hays State University in Kansas, for example, offers a BA in leadership. The first course objective for LDRS 300 is as follows: "The student will recognize the importance leadership plays in groups, organizations, communities and societies" [Emphasis theirs]. There's something odd about requiring students who are training to be leaders to recognize the importance of, well, leaders. Somehow it feels smug, self-serving.

I don't mean to disparage the teaching such schools are doing nor the lives they impact. Rather, I wish to show that increased reliance on leadership as a discursive mode is counterproductive. My contention is with rhetoric - not practice.

Carolyn Segal of Cedar Crest College recently lamented the shift of her school's mission from creating "critical thinkers" to creating "leaders":

"Leadership has several advantages as a marketing strategy. For example, being a leader is much more visible than being a thinker. And who wants to be a follower? Let those few sorry individuals who want to be mere followers go to another college - if they can find one that doesn't have leadership in the mission statement."

The fear that Segal articulates is that following - which is just as important as leading - will be systematically devalued. Overemphasizing leaders places an unhealthy emphasis on authority, creating a system of many lions and few sheep.

Penn is hardly immune to the leadership craze. Wharton maintains a Center for Leadership and Change Management. The current issue of its Leadership Digest contains this autobiographical gem from Jon Huntsman himself:

"I reminded myself in the midst of this turmoil how grateful I was that I had been chosen to lead the company at this time because I was convinced I could guide our company through this unprecedented siege. This company would not be seized by corporate lawyers, bankers, and highly paid consultants with all the answers. Not on my watch. Not one of them could truly comprehend my notions of character and integrity."

Nor can I!

Consider, also, the Fox Leadership Program, whose alliterative mission statement promises to "enrich," "excite" and "equip" burgeoning Penn leaders for all sorts of "human excellence."

Mercifully, actual campus leaders are less overblown.

Junior class president Arthur Gardner Smith defined good leaders as "good listeners." According to him, leaders "understand the importance of being the voice of others who may not be able to speak for themselves." Although falling back on a well-worn topos, Smith avoids the self-justifying (I am training to be a leader so leaders must be important!) and messianic (I have been chosen to lead the company!) language of the leadership discourse. The leader-as-listener sounds reasonable to me.

Chuck Brutsche, associate director at Fox, gave this assessment: "We need more leaders who lead with their hearts and have a clear sense of civic purpose. Many students at Penn are on the leadership treadmill. They're juggling too much, with little time for genuine self-reflection."

Self reflection is the key and the operating word is "self." We're talking about leaders, after all. The cure for the current leadership fetish is to couple "self" with "reflection" - not "aggrandizement" or, even worse, "service."

Stephen Krewson is a College junior from Schenectady, N.Y. His e-mail is krewson@dailypennsylvanian.com. The Me Speech Zone appears alternating Thursdays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.