Contra view on Leadership

Everytime I read some management quote, I am amazed at the stress laid upon leadership and associated skills. Even self-help books and articles make use of a lot of leadership quotes. 'A leader not only knows the way, but goes the way and also shows the way.' or 'Be the change you wish to see in this world.' or 'Leader leads by example.' the list goes on and on. I got a few on this Republic day as well which got me thinking. 

I wonder if leadership is really so important as it is portrayed. I ask you here 'What is leadership?', 'Who is a leader?' Think of some great leaders you know of or admire, from whatever fields you want to think of. I will mention a few I can think of from various fields. From politics - Sardar Patel, Gandhiji, Modiji; from Indian history - Maharana Pratap, Rani Laxmibai, Shivaji Maharaj; from Cricket - Kapil Dev, Sorav Ganguly, MSD; from the business world - Mr. Ratan Tata, Mrs. Sudha Murthy and Mr. Murthy, and there can be many fields and many more examples...

I urge you to consider the reason why and how these people become great leaders. Is it or was it only about them?  I do not intend to discount any of the exceptional leadership qualities that these extraordinary leaders possessed or still possess. I want to ponder upon and also make you think about the importance of followership. Were your list of awesome leaders not sincere followers first? 

Imagine if each of us literally decided to be a leader, how would the world be then? Would it be paradise on earth or a living hell? I let you decide your answer to that question. After all making correct choices is a leadership skill. Let us explore this thought of followership further. The reason why Gandhiji could become such a phenomenal leader was because people were ready to follow him. We must realise that even the iron man of India was an ardent follower of Gandhiji. History gives you more than enough evidence of the same. Chacha Nehru was also a leader and so was Jinnah. What happened then is an evidence of the side effects of so called 'Leadership'. 

In our life also, we are advised to become leaders. Teach and train our children to be leaders. Are we sure of what we believe in is the correct thing? 'Be the change you want to see in this world.' Think of what happens when some religious fanatics take this seriously. We know how it hurts the world.  Whether it is a school, college, a corporate organisation or a social organisation, a lot of impetus is given to leadership skills. 

I ask you to think of all the great leaders once again. I reiterate, weren't they good, sincere, obedient followers first? For instance - Sardar Patel. He was to be the first PM of India, wasn't he? But he followed his ideals and his idol. I strongly feel that one needs to be an ardent follower first to become a true leader. There is a fine line between leadership and the greed for power and dominance. A true leader understands the difference; example - Sardar Patel. We need to understand that followership is as important as leadership, maybe even more. 

An ideal follower is not the one who inactively and blindly follows orders. Rather she/he is the one who takes directions mindfully, discusses his concerns and then implements wholeheartedly. To make our younger generations true leaders, we need to train them to be ideal followers. To prove my point let us take an example.

Think of Pandavas from Mahabharat. Weren't they ideal followers first? Arjun voiced his concerns to his guide who enlightened him and us with guidance during the war. If Arjun were an inactive, blind follower, the world would would have missed out on so much knowledge and wisdom. By the way, even Duryodhan thought he was a great leader but was he? The difference lay in how they were as followers. 

I choose to try and be an ideal follower and thus train myself to be a true leader for my family and others who think of me as worthy of being a leader. I believe one should Follow First and Lead Later and also leadership follows the one who has been an ideal follower (example - our honourable Prime Minister). I thank you for having followed me in reading my contra opinion and letting me lead you through my thoughts. I welcome your opinions and thoughts on the same. 

School Education and objectives

Being a teacher for more than a decade now, I should be quite clear about the answer to the question "What are the objectives of school education?". The more I teach, the more I study, the more I spend time with my students, the more doubt I suffer regarding that question. 

I feel that education should help students and the educated to make correct choices in life. It should help them to improve their lives (at least) through language literacy, numerical literacy, informed decision making,  ethics, morals, skills that help them being employed, a higher emotional quotient not just higher IQ, financial literacy, a sense of patriotism, a sense of world citizenship, empathy towards nature, etc. 

The reason why I doubt is that I am not sure whether these objectives are actually being achieved especially in secondary and higher secondary sections. By the time a child reaches secondary section, one expects the student to know well at least the basics of Math, Science, Languages and Grammar. Well in my observation, I have seen more uninformed, less knowledgeable students than expected. However, that is okay as the passing marks are only 35% so some candidates may not know so much. 

Owing to the lengthier and complex course curriculum in secondary and higher secondary section, it becomes difficult to achieve those real objectives of education. With the timeline given, education becomes limited to completing the course, learning or memorising and testing. So much is lost here.

Moreover, in today's world of information free flow, students learn from myriad sources. Parents, schools and tuitions are not the only sources of education. Social networking sites, OTT platforms, films, search engines, electronic media, print media (probably in that order), expose one and all to a lot of information and perceived knowledge. The resultant effect is that people have become financially more ambitious (not literate), competitive with one another (unreasonably), materialistic - more than ever, opportunistic - which can be perceived as contrary to EQ and to a large extent immoral and unethical. All this is in stark contrast  to the objectives of education, isn't it?

Education at school, as a whole, must be considered, treated as foundational on which a character would be built. In any case, employment in organised sector relies mainly upon higher education, skills and experience. At school level, the focus should be more on language skills, math functions, speaking skills, better reading exposure, psychology and empathy through history rather than just memorising facts and concepts that generally become useless over time. 

Another major issue that I feel is rampant in our educated youth is that either they are extremely liberal (oxymoron, isn't it?) or extremely strong headed. Shouldn't education help in distinguishing between the right and wrong? Nowadays, there are people who seem to be confused in the grey area. Not everything can be passed as grey; not everything SHOULD be passed as grey that is extremely liberal. Education should teach that anything in extreme quantity is harmful and creates problems. Education should help form informed opinions, promote healthy discussions and respect disagreements. 

As a language teacher, I try to touch upon EQ through the beautiful stories I get to teach in class. My attempt is also to promote opinion forming, expressing opinions, discussions, agreements and disagreements, perspective building, some critical thinking, creative writing, etc though the complex and lengthy course does limit a teacher to explore more. 

I feel that there is a need to teach less chapters but in more detail. Let our education be deeper rather than wider. Whatsay?