"Since key personal traits that make a good leader are formed during one's childhood and youth, formal training can only refine rather than cultivate true leaders."
Explain what you think this quotation means and discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with it. Develop your position with reasons and/or specific examples drawn from history, current events, or your own experience, observations, or reading.
-----------------------------------------------------
Companies are in constant need to find new leaders. Each new initiative, product, or division needs a competent leader. The challenge for companies is to identify people who possess the interest and the ability to be leaders. The author claims that, while many companies attempt to cultivate leaders from within, true leaders have been leading since their youths. While the author's claim has some merit, I ultimately must disagree because this opinion takes responsibility off the person and puts it on their upbringing, and it doesn't account for the value of cultivation programs for children who possess these traits, but who don't have the confidence to act out their leadership traits.
I disagree with the author primarily because his opinion takes responsibility off the person and onto their upbringing. If his theory was adapted, then children who happen to possess an abitrary list of traits would likely be groomed for leadership, while those children who don't happen to possess those traits would likely be assumed unlikely candidates for leadership. In the former scenario, the child with the traits is taught that he or she is a good leader, even without having to demonstrate compentency. This is a dangerous thing to teach a child in a world that weighs results over anything else. What's going to happen to his ego when he's made the quarterback of the high school football team because he's a "leader", but can neither garner the respect of the team nor encourage their best performance? By taking the responsibility off the person, this action could set them them up for failure. In the later scenario, the child without these traits is taught that he or she is not a good leader. In response, the teachers, coaches, and other school personnel don't encourage he or she to pursue leadership opportunities, nor seriously consider them for open leadership positions. Maybe a "non-leader" child would have been the best quarterback, but instead is stuck at wide receiver.
My secondary reason for opposing this opinion is that it assumes that if a child possess an arbitrary list of traits, that they will automatically be successful. A child could possess these traits and could be a successful leader, but lack the confidence to be a leader. Therefore, a corporate program that "cultivates true leaders" would be an invaluable asset to this person. The corporate program can teach the person to be confident in their leadership, and give him or her opportunities to be a leader. As one would cultivate a plant, the company would cultivate the person to come out of their seed and germinate, knowing all along that the person had the traits to be a good leader. This level of encouraging goes far beyond mere "refinement", which suggests the natural leader has already been successfully leading for years and just needs a little adjustment.
However, the author's argument does have some good points. In all likelihood, many leaders have been leading since they were children. Although not a leader, Warren Buffet was already starting successful business ventures and looking for ways to make money as a child, indicating that some traits are formed and cultivated during child hood.
In conclusion, the author wants to believe that an arbitrary list of leadership traits, formed during childhood, is a better measure to use to find true leaders than existing cultivation methods. I disagree because it takes the responsibility off the person, possibly setting them up for failure or destroying their confidence, and even if leaders are "born", that cultivation programs still have value for those leaders who don't have the confidence to express their born traits.
Explain what you think this quotation means and discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with it. Develop your position with reasons and/or specific examples drawn from history, current events, or your own experience, observations, or reading.
-----------------------------------------------------
Companies are in constant need to find new leaders. Each new initiative, product, or division needs a competent leader. The challenge for companies is to identify people who possess the interest and the ability to be leaders. The author claims that, while many companies attempt to cultivate leaders from within, true leaders have been leading since their youths. While the author's claim has some merit, I ultimately must disagree because this opinion takes responsibility off the person and puts it on their upbringing, and it doesn't account for the value of cultivation programs for children who possess these traits, but who don't have the confidence to act out their leadership traits.
I disagree with the author primarily because his opinion takes responsibility off the person and onto their upbringing. If his theory was adapted, then children who happen to possess an abitrary list of traits would likely be groomed for leadership, while those children who don't happen to possess those traits would likely be assumed unlikely candidates for leadership. In the former scenario, the child with the traits is taught that he or she is a good leader, even without having to demonstrate compentency. This is a dangerous thing to teach a child in a world that weighs results over anything else. What's going to happen to his ego when he's made the quarterback of the high school football team because he's a "leader", but can neither garner the respect of the team nor encourage their best performance? By taking the responsibility off the person, this action could set them them up for failure. In the later scenario, the child without these traits is taught that he or she is not a good leader. In response, the teachers, coaches, and other school personnel don't encourage he or she to pursue leadership opportunities, nor seriously consider them for open leadership positions. Maybe a "non-leader" child would have been the best quarterback, but instead is stuck at wide receiver.
My secondary reason for opposing this opinion is that it assumes that if a child possess an arbitrary list of traits, that they will automatically be successful. A child could possess these traits and could be a successful leader, but lack the confidence to be a leader. Therefore, a corporate program that "cultivates true leaders" would be an invaluable asset to this person. The corporate program can teach the person to be confident in their leadership, and give him or her opportunities to be a leader. As one would cultivate a plant, the company would cultivate the person to come out of their seed and germinate, knowing all along that the person had the traits to be a good leader. This level of encouraging goes far beyond mere "refinement", which suggests the natural leader has already been successfully leading for years and just needs a little adjustment.
However, the author's argument does have some good points. In all likelihood, many leaders have been leading since they were children. Although not a leader, Warren Buffet was already starting successful business ventures and looking for ways to make money as a child, indicating that some traits are formed and cultivated during child hood.
In conclusion, the author wants to believe that an arbitrary list of leadership traits, formed during childhood, is a better measure to use to find true leaders than existing cultivation methods. I disagree because it takes the responsibility off the person, possibly setting them up for failure or destroying their confidence, and even if leaders are "born", that cultivation programs still have value for those leaders who don't have the confidence to express their born traits.
