One of my friends brought to my notice this topic for a debate that took place recently in a business school. What are my thoughts about it?
I believe that leadership is the ability to guide a group through difficult situations without seriously compromising the cohesion of the group and keeping in mind the long term consequences of the actions. Extrapolating it a bit further, I would say that leadership is a direct function of the willingness to take responsibility, decisiveness, perseverance, clarity of thought, empathy, self-awareness, reasoning, integrity, openness to change, ability to moderate tense discussions and lack of hubris (please feel free to add if you think I missed something!). And this, I believe, cannot be taught though it can be learned, i.e. somebody who wants to become a leader can possibly cultivate these traits over a long time, but you cannot teach them to somebody in a year or two. Leadership, talking in mathematical terms, is the vector resultant of a personality that cannot be altered overnight.
Elite B-Schools attract top-notch talent, but does it really translate into great leaders for the society? Let me play the devil's advocate and talk about the possibility that business schools are indeed not producing as many business leaders because they do not need to produce that many leaders: not all roles assumed by MBA graduates require strong leadership skills. How much of a leader does an Investment Banker needs to be? Similarly being a technically brilliant manager is not always the same as being a natural leader. A people-person could excel and even grow in sales, marketing or HR without actually being a good leader. An analytical, people person could excel as a consultant. And so on. Leadership is good to have, but is it mandatory for graduates to be economically successful? Moreover, elite B-Schools can, and do, build a mentality of entitlement in their graduates which can be totally anti-leadership. Hence, in all possibility, the assertion may be quite true: B-Schools are indeed failing to produce business leaders for the simple reason that they were built to educate brilliant people to contribute meaningfully to a business, and many such functions can be achieved without strong leadership skills.
I think that business schools are excellent facilitators of the talent. In fact, they can nurture it and provide an excellent network to support some brilliant minds. Hubris, however, can be the bane of elite business school graduates. Most of the people would like to think of themselves to be leaders, but very few really are. Of those that are, very few would like to take the hassle of exercising it. In fact, fat salaries and corporate growth is possible without good leadership. Business schools can be excellent learning grounds for people willing to grow as a leader, but I am not sure if that would really happen. Good leadership is simply a scarce commodity.
I believe that leadership is the ability to guide a group through difficult situations without seriously compromising the cohesion of the group and keeping in mind the long term consequences of the actions. Extrapolating it a bit further, I would say that leadership is a direct function of the willingness to take responsibility, decisiveness, perseverance, clarity of thought, empathy, self-awareness, reasoning, integrity, openness to change, ability to moderate tense discussions and lack of hubris (please feel free to add if you think I missed something!). And this, I believe, cannot be taught though it can be learned, i.e. somebody who wants to become a leader can possibly cultivate these traits over a long time, but you cannot teach them to somebody in a year or two. Leadership, talking in mathematical terms, is the vector resultant of a personality that cannot be altered overnight.
Elite B-Schools attract top-notch talent, but does it really translate into great leaders for the society? Let me play the devil's advocate and talk about the possibility that business schools are indeed not producing as many business leaders because they do not need to produce that many leaders: not all roles assumed by MBA graduates require strong leadership skills. How much of a leader does an Investment Banker needs to be? Similarly being a technically brilliant manager is not always the same as being a natural leader. A people-person could excel and even grow in sales, marketing or HR without actually being a good leader. An analytical, people person could excel as a consultant. And so on. Leadership is good to have, but is it mandatory for graduates to be economically successful? Moreover, elite B-Schools can, and do, build a mentality of entitlement in their graduates which can be totally anti-leadership. Hence, in all possibility, the assertion may be quite true: B-Schools are indeed failing to produce business leaders for the simple reason that they were built to educate brilliant people to contribute meaningfully to a business, and many such functions can be achieved without strong leadership skills.
I think that business schools are excellent facilitators of the talent. In fact, they can nurture it and provide an excellent network to support some brilliant minds. Hubris, however, can be the bane of elite business school graduates. Most of the people would like to think of themselves to be leaders, but very few really are. Of those that are, very few would like to take the hassle of exercising it. In fact, fat salaries and corporate growth is possible without good leadership. Business schools can be excellent learning grounds for people willing to grow as a leader, but I am not sure if that would really happen. Good leadership is simply a scarce commodity.
No comments:
Post a Comment