Leadership Schmleadership

Elana Levin

Leadership Schmleadership

This post is by guest blogger Quinn Wilhelmi who is currently on the road and has asked me to post this on his behalf. So unfortunately I can't take credit for this great piece, (perhaps its an early MLK Day musing?) I'm just the roadie. - elana

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

My aunt develops websites for colleges and is regularly driven crazy by admissions officers who demand to label every program they have as constituting "leadership development". With all the attention it is given, the sense in the education community seems to be that "leadership", though tragically ambiguous, is the greatest quality any person can possess.

So too is it the case in politics. Politicians, political operatives, partisan hacks, and those in the non-profit sector all give incredible lip-service to "leadership development". It's not surprising that this is, and likely always has been, the state of affairs in politics. The annals of civilization focus extensively on stories of great men and women and less so on faceless popular movements or on the goals that inspired them in the first place. We seem to be more naturally drawn to other people than to events or ideas. It's hero worship.

Yet we all know that heroes are fickle things and can't be trusted to rise and fall consistently. We love to remember JFK and Dr. King but sometimes when our fond memories turn to nostalgia, we run the danger of believing that we need heroes in order to advance society.

In a time when our political and social system is growing ever more top-heavy (be it the expansion of the executive branch or the broadening of wealth inequality), it is incredibly important that we recognize that we are not a country built on the work of a few demigods but on the backs of millions of dedicated civilians collectively advancing our ideals in their every day lives.

So I ask the following: let's make 2006 not a year of heroes or leaders, but a year of outstanding citizens. If we recognize that our political heroes are the exception and not the rule then why focus on always drawing out peoples' leadership qualities? Saying to the next political generation "We are going to train you all to be great leaders!" is like saying to a high school basketball team "We are going to train you all to be in the NBA!" It's not only unrealistic, it's dangerous, and it misses the point.

The point is that we want a better society and that we should do what we can to achieve it sooner rather than later. To focus exclusively on leaders is to value the summit of the pyramid infinitely above the masses below it. A leader isn't much good without a strong base to help him do the work.

In practical terms this means engaging everyone - not just the talented few - in the political process. It means requiring civic education in classrooms, shifting from teaching "leadership" to teaching "citizenship" in conferences and workshops, and diverting money from lucrative fellowships to broader-based organizing. A leader will always need a following to support her, but a community of willing partners doesn't always need a leader to motivate or organize them.

As progressives, we believe fundamentally that "us" is stronger than "I". It is perhaps our most uniting philosophy. To focus so constantly on leadership development is to take an "I" approach to politics. Only focusing on the "us" - on citizenship - is in line with our most basic values.