Best Learn by Observing

Unless one believes that some of us are born leaders, while others could never become leaders, the answer to the question is obvious: "Leadership can and should be taught." However, unless I am mistaken, the question has an underlying connotation: "Can leadership be taught didactically?" On this latter reading, I think that the jury is still out. It certainly can't hurt to read about leadership, to talk about what it takes, to master Clausewitz or Machiavelli or to absorb Warren Bennis, James McGregor Burns or David Gergen. But will such a course make a significant difference?

I think that leadership is more likely to be learned if one has the chance to observe effective leaders up close, ask them questions, interact with them, and receive counseling and mentoring from them as one moves into leadership positions. This is the process that was followed by Jack Welch in business, by Bill Bowen and Rick Levin in academics, by Sam Rayburn in the Congress, George Marshall in the military, etc. Also, traditionally, in military (e.g. the McCain's) and political families (e.g. the Kennedy's), promising younger persons were drawn into the leadership fold.

I don't know enough about the military academies to have an informed opinion on what they achieve in leadership and in other areas. But after many decades of functioning, we ought to have good data on this question -- which is better, the Petraeus track or the MacArthur track?

By Howard Gardner

 |  April 20, 2009; 11:34 AM ET
Category:  Teaching Leadership Save & Share:                 
Previous: The Highest Example | Next: Some Skills Cannot be Taught

Posted by: bryan-hilferty | April 20, 2009 4:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: anotherperspective2 | April 20, 2009 2:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The comments to this entry are closed.