Listening to a recent Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) radio show called Ideas had me thinking about leadership, a concept that we attempt to teach our students, and we hope they will develop in themselves. We talk about servant leadership, ethical leadership, and leadership in school, on teams, and in life after graduation. However, we rarely explain what we mean by the term. We treat the definition of the word as it is obvious; unfortunately, in the process, we may hinder rather than help students become leaders in their own right.
In this episode of Ideas, called “Walking In Space,” the host interviewed Canadian astronaut Dave Williams, who has walked longer in space than any of his peers. At one point, the narrator of the show says, “ Because they’re working with advanced technologies in life-threatening conditions, each member of the Endeavor Team is a 21st century leader, collaborating in an invisible web of character, competence, honor, intelligence and courage. All of it is laced with random and excessive acts of kindness and a self-mocking sense of humor. For Williams and his crewmates, leadership and exploration are the same, their way of thinking about the wonder and beauty of natural and human-made worlds and their way of accepting difficult challenges and developing the mental dexterity needed to solve 21st century problems.”
We know that there are many types of leadership, and we know that different situations require different styles of leadership. In my class last year, my students and I discussed styles of leadership and leaders ranging from Osama bin Laden to Nelson Mandela to Colin Powell. We watched movies like Invictus and wrestled with what it takes to be a leader in various fields. While we never arrived at one definition of leadership, we were all clear that it is a term with many facets.
We know intuitively that the concept of leadership in 2011 differs vastly from 1911 or even from 1991. Changing times require changing leaders, and we need to teach our students that leadership is a fluid concept. Where earlier notions of leadership may have demanded a leader stand alone and realize that she might be wrong, but should never be in doubt, the definition outlined above demands collaborative skills and a self-effacing nature.
While some of this definition is a by-product of our times, we also know that there may be some elements that are timeless. Was Genghis Khan “thinking hard about the wonder and beauty of natural and human-made worlds” as he conquered Central Asia, or has this become more important as we grapple with climate change and the impact mankind has on our planet? We know that Abraham Lincoln could tell a joke about himself better than any politician (his line “If I were two-faced, would I be wearing this one?” comes to mind), and we still speak about George Washington’s character in terms of whether he actually chopped down a cherry tree or not. Leaders have always had to accept challenges (if they didn’t, would they be leaders?), and they needed to be as resilient as their times demanded.
Many times, we watch our students in class, in the school at large, and on the playing fields, and we recognize our student leaders. However, how many times do we miss the potential leaders in our student body because we don’t approach our studying and teaching of it with the same conviction and purpose as the other lessons we teach our students? If we want our graduates to lead, we need to teach them, and we need to be intentional in our aims and analytical in our methods. As there is both an art and a science to leadership, there is a creative and methodical way in how we instruct our students in leadership. The potential among our students is there; it is up to us to help them become the leaders they were meant to be.
