LEADERSHIP-IS IT UNTAUGHT AND UNTEACHABLE

An address delivered at the University Club in Boston before the second annual conference of the Department of Education and Vocation.

Dean of the Tuck School and Trustee of Dartmouth College

My assignment is to attack the question as to whether leadership is being taught or can be taught, with particular reference to the contribution of the college to the development of leaders and the cultivation of leadership. With no further instructions and on my own responsibility, I shall assume that the college is to be considered in the generic sense of the word to cover all institutions of higher learning.

The terms in which my subject is stated came from a flash of memory back to my first contact with a great and beloved teacher of my undergraduate generation. We called him ''Clothespins" —in his case a title of deep respect and affection, whatever its origin may have been. According to "they say"— that most infallible of campus authorities —this professor was a master of his subject, interesting, possessed of a quaintly keen sense of humor, and lenient with his classes. Strange as it may now appear, that reputation did not deter my classmates and me from electing his courses en masse.

It was a course in English Literature. The opening lecture began with something like this question: "Is literature untaught and unteachable ?" I don't recall how the question was developed. Something may have been said about leading a horse to water or making silk purses. But I think not, for our "Clothespins" never resorted to the trite nor the commonplace.

The point of it was, of course, that knowledge and appreciation of literature are priceless possessions, the attainment of which depends infinitely more upon the susceptibilities and zeal of the learner than upon the ability and efforts of the teacher.

That was a statement of a fundamental truth in the philosophy of education. It is fundamental whether applied to the cultivation of literary tastes or creative writing, or whether we are considering that infinitely more intangible and elusive combination of human qualities and equipment which we call leadership. At any rate, what I have to say on the development of leadership, either in the colleges or in industry, hangs on the implications of that opening sentence of an undergraduate course known in those distant days as "English 15."

In broaching this subject here, may I enter a disclaimer of any thought to do more than raise a few leading questions and possibly to clear away some of the underbrush that seems here and there to cover some of the regions of popular notion and discussion?

First of all, ought we not to take some common ground as to what we mean by leadership, especially in commerce and industry, and what sort of people the leaders are? Certainly, we must not classify under either term too narrowly. May it not be assumed, for one thing, that the specifications of leaders and of leadership are subject to changes brought about by the passing of time? We need not go far back in industrial history to discover founders of great fortunes and great family names winning titles to industrial leadership under the early factory system, partly through the exploitation of an ignorant and helpless laboring population living and working under conditions which are now considered unspeakable and intolerable.

During the growth of American commerce and industry, leadership was earned by varying combinations of inventive genius, native shrewdness, rare courage, and the sheer force of dominating individualities, that not uncommonly partook of absolute, one-man dictatorship, but with slight regard for modern ideas of organization and management. Much of that type of leadership has had its day and now has its place mostly in the pages of history rather than in present-day councils of industry. Nowadays, although there is still place and need for all the force, imagination and courage that were the dominant traits of pioneer generalship of earlier times, the emphasis seems to have shifted with the changes in times and conditions.

Appraisal of the distinguishing characteristics of the types of leadership now emerging will reveal, I believe, a striking trend toward evaluation in terms of breadth of intellectual perspective; international mindedness; high sense of social values and responsibility; wholesome respect for the precepts and methods of science, both pure and applied; together with the capacity for disciplined judgments joined with refinements of ethical and cultural appreciation. Whether or not we have an abundance of leaders who measure up to that schedule is not now in point. But in so far as this is an approximate measure of the qualities discernible in the best we have of leaders and leadership in the world of affairs, are we not entitled to assume that the qualities enumerated are more typically personified in the leadership of today than in the leading figures in the industrial world of yesterday?

Dangerous as it always must be to classify and to generalize where the human factor is concerned, may we not also infer that, in contrast with earlier times, the emphasis has shifted to measurement of capacity for leadership in terms of breadth and depth of intellectual equipment and high quality of intellectual performance? Does it not also appear that we have reached a time when candidacies for leadership are subject to a selective process that demands and exacts higher standards of intellectual stature, reach and versatility than ever before?

Here, then, we are able to identify the distinctive attributes of the newer leadership with those qualities of mind that best grow and thrive under the broadening and enriching processes of the higher education. It is by no means to be inferred from this that the only sources of such highly developed intellectual equipment are to be found in the curricula of the college, the university, or the professional school. It has always been true, and probably always will be so, that not a few of our most broadly and soundly educated men of afifairs win place among the intellectually elect through the slow, sometimes difficult, but always sure methods of self-discipline and selfinstruction.

It would be a far-fetched conclusion, however, to assume that the self-educated are enabled to reach intellectual greatness because they have foregone or been denied the helpful advantages of institutional education. Is it not rather that such men are entitled to credit for having achieved in spite of the fact that they have not drawn upon the formal agencies of education? Given the same fibre of mind, the same force of character, and the same urge of ambition, is it to be doubted that the same man, permitted to capitalize the resources of college or university life, would have arrived at an even greater intellectual stature without the expenditure of time and strength that goes with the uncharted and unaided efforts of the lone-worker?

Quite apart from the changing influences of time on the character of leadership and on common acceptances of its meaning, I suspect that most of us, if our views were to be canvassed, would be found far from common agreement on what constitutes leadership in the world of affairs. The result, I venture to say, would be a composite picture made up of so many diverging lines that the image produced would be one of blurred surfaces with no clearly distinguishable features.

T hat being the case, may we not accept the fact and agree that the leadership of today does not lend itself to any fixed or sharply defined system of indexing? Some may lead through the sheer force of sound thinking and sound judgments, but may, at the same time, lack the aptitude for transmitting ideas into action. Creative power behind affairs of great moment is sometimes strangely inarticulate.

On the other hand, conspicuous ability for the execution of great and difficult projects is not always attended by marked originality or depth of thinking. Yet this, as well as many other types, may be entitled to high rank among those who lead.

By the use of different yardsticks, we may discover many orders of leadership. Some lead by the power of straight thinking; others by the energy and influence of strong and magnetic personality. Some are explorers and promoters; others make their contributions in terms of consolidating or stabilizing or coordinating situations in the making of which they have had no part. The problems inherent in the great undertakings of our complex system become daily more varied and constantly more needful of leaders of many types and diverse abilities. As time goes on, the leader may again prove to be a different sort of person from the types with which we now associate the term. He may partake less of the qualities of his traditional prototype.

Incidentally, I have an idea that, as some of our rising generation of incipient leaders strive to develop what they believe to be a technique of leadership, they are likely to be deluded into mistaking the form for the substance. It is easy to assume that the manner in which great men conduct themselves in the process of influencing men or events, somehow plays an important part in their achievement of great deeds. Perhaps it does, here and there, now and then.

But there is reason to believe, here too, that leadership is attained in spite of, rather than because of, some of these outward or surface manifestations of temperament or individuality. Because sortie of the powers-that-be are known for their strongly marked ways of doing things, it does not follow that, in order to become a power-that-be, one must be a human dynamo, a dictator, a go-getter, a hard-boiled egg, or any of several other combinations not uncommonly associated with the attributes of generalship. It may well be that men so habituated have earned high rank as great builders and as the motive power in great affairs. Too often, however, where the dynamics of a single dominant personality have played such a part, time has shown that he has builded only for the day; and that with his passing, unless a quite different individuality is then brought into the picture, decay is likely to set in and dissolution to follow.

The point of it is that we are engaged in affairs so intricate, so delicately adjusted, so far-reaching that we cannot afford to be diverted by traditional notions from the- realities of what is going on. Our specifications of leadership must be kept in line and in tune with the changing requirements that are continually evolving.

Just as our appraisal of the leadership of the present must give greater weight to scope and refinements of intellectual equipment, as compared with the more elemental attributes of leadership in former times, so must our present conceptions be prepared to give way before the exactions of a future order. There will be less room for pioneer exploration of untouched regions; less occasion for strong-handed exploitation of undevel oped resources; fewer situations calling for rough-shod methods of getting quick results and large returns.

Tomorrow's case is certainly to call for abilities to be focussed upon an infinitely more complex and confusing arrangement of affairs. Sufficient unto the day will, as never before, be the evil thereof. The objective must be for growth, balanced and coherent; for nicety of adjustment and control; for elasticity and coordination; for stability and continuity.

There will be greater need for outlook beyond local and national horizons; for clear sense of direction through the twilight zone between the areas of private privilege and public interest; for grasp of relationship between the play of fundamental economic forces and the couise of practical administrative policy; for intelligent understanding of, and a decent respect for, the laws of ethics and social obligation.

This may sound like an attempt to draw up a schedule of capabilities attainable only by the super-man. But I submit that if our present order is to continue on its course of building a system of limitless magnitude and complexity, the most critical point in the whole structure is bound to be at the centers of direction and control. Either the requisite brainpower will be made available, or the monster that will have been created will pull the whole structure down upon our heads.

What has all this to do with our colleges and universities? Only this: that the whole matter seems to come down to a question of zvhat we are to require and how we are to get those dimensions of creative and directive capacity that are so urgently called for by what lies about and ahead of us. The answer seems to be that what we need most is an abundance of facilities for the highest possible development of brain-power in all its most significant forms and degrees. And again, the answer is that, so far as brain-power is susceptible of cultivation through the capitalization of an almost unlimited range of facilities, our institutions of collegiate and professional rank offer the equipment, the material and the organization, specifically and lavishly provided for the purpose. Where else and in what form are the ways and means for realizing the central objective so freely available, for so many purposes, and with such an abundance of offerings?

It is not my function to catalog the educational stocks-in-trade that are spread out in almost unlimited array for the accommodation of almost every conceivable type of seeker for knowledge and training. Nor is it my purpose to enlarge upon the many new developments and constructive movements that are now absorbing the best minds and efforts of progressive educators in the liberal colleges and professional schools. I must content myself with the flat assertion of a strong conviction that, whatever of material, facilities and cooperation the aspiring and potential leader may ask or need for bringing into fruit the resources of intellectual equipment which must be the first essentials of his preparation for leadership, those materials, those facilities and that cooperation are his for the asking and taking.

But of these he cannot expect quick or automatic delivery; nor is title to be acquired on terms of "net 30 days, 2% 10." The stock-in-trade of any worth while educational exchange is the product of long and arduous processes of intellectual exertion—and it must be paid for in kind.

As the President of Yale has recently put it: "In the last analysis, the final educational outcome always comes back to the amount of ordered intellectual effort put forth by the student himself ... .Essentially education is always selfeducation."

To the satisfaction of at least one member of this company, then, it has been established that, within the boundaries set by the limitations of one's aptitudes, one's capacities, and especially one's inclinations, leadership is being taught and is therefore eminently teachable.

Meanwhile, lest we soar too high into the thin air of generalization, it is prudent to keep an eye on the matter-offact ground which affords us both takeoff and landing. Allowance must be made for at least some of the plain limitations of the case. Certainly, no institution can profess either to plant or produce the essence of leadership in the individual who is deficient in those qualities that must be inherent, in some measure at least, in the make-up of the potential leader. As well try to fashion a skyscraper from sand or train a truckhorse for the Futurity. Either might be interesting experiments, but the results can hardly prove profitable.

Here, of course, reside only a few of the perplexing obstacles to the success of all educational attempts to develop capable leaders or even intelligent followers for any great field of human activity, whether the effort is made by the colleges or in the later realities of practical experience. How to determine the nature of individual fitnesses for particular requirements ? How to detect special aptitudes and talents ? How to segregate and make appropriate provision for the group whose bents are still embryonic and unidentified? These are questions that are unescapable, as yet unanswerable, and they weigh heavily on every project looking toward a training devised for any specific objective.

The psychologists are at work on the problem, and they have uncovered many promising indications, but they seem to hold out scant promise of giving us formulas applicable to those ranges of human attributes with which we are here concerned.

Business has too generally relied on the methods of hunch and rule-of-thumb, with trust in luck and the probabilities of chance. Here and there are signs of enlightened interest in the problem of saving the wastes of misdirected manpower. Associated with the name following {nine on this program, there are records of sound investigation and hopeful results. But I take it that Mr. Mills and his associates of the Bell System consider themselves still at work on their search for the formula.

There are professional analysts of individual aptitudes, who psycho-analyze or read prognostic charts of your physiognomy. As to the Scientific basis or meaning of their methods, I am not informed.

The amateur readers of character and capacities are legion—most of us here included. Each of us yields to no one in confidence of ability to separate sheep from goats and to consign each to the niche for which nature intended him. Few of us, however, take the trouble to keep a careful score-card of our hits and errors.

The colleges have been slow to attack the problem. So far, their approach has been diffident and tentative. But they recognize, I believe, that the issue is a major one, of very fundamental bearing, and therefore not to be composed overnight by short-cuts or by any method that does not make abundant information and objective analysis the main channel toward working conclusions.

In my opinion, the best evidence of the seriousness with which the colleges are taking their responsibility in this connection, is the development, in one form or another, of agencies whose main functions shall have to do with assembling and making usably available the facts and means that will assist students in arriving at a better sense of direction regarding their individual fitnesses, likes and dislikes, in relation not only to their courses of study, but to their future vocations and avocations. Whether these agencies are called personnel officers or bureaus or departments, or whatever they are called, I believe that they are among the most significant and promising projects that the colleges have undertaken in many years. The fact that we are. here for this conference is gratifying proof, also, that the whole matter is to be recognized and treated as much more than an academic question.

I wish that I could do more than raise the question as to whether business is doing its full part in the finding and effective utilization of the materials of prospective leadership. If for nothing more than to invite contradiction, I would hazard the opinion that industry has not yet made more than a fair beginning toward realizing its opportunity and recognizing its own self-interested obligation for discovering and capitalizing the latent qualities of leadership in the college and university graduates now entering business in such unprecedented numbers.

The number of employers that have made any considerable progress in this direction appears to be so limited that the few stand out as conspicuous exceptions to the general rule. Yet in. the material that our colleges are supplying, business must presumably find the chief sources of the man-power to be required for the great tasks of management and administration. Executive personnel becomes increasingly the most vital but most elusive resource of successful enterprise.

By the expenditure of vast sums of money and unlimited experimentation, plant, machinery, tools, designs and processes are developed and maintained with the highest degree of completeness and efficiency. So far, however, business has not more than begun to tackle the problems of ensuring adequacy of man-powesupply with anything like the same thoroughgoing study that it lavishes on inanimate mechanisms and processes.

Thoughtfully conceived and elaborately organized plans of recruiting and training personnel have, it is true, been worked out and painstakingly put into operation. Too often, with the first signs of failure to realize the complete success which had been anticipated, the whole plan is thrown overboard, and practice again reverts to the old hit or miss, haphazard way of muddling along. The difficulties of the task and the exasperations in dealing with the raw recruit breaking into business are not to be minimized. But just so long as the difficulties and the exasperations are permitted to postpone the time when the problem of ensuring the maximum development of man-power for industrial leadership is recognized as a major issue, then just so long will waste of the most vital essential to well-ordered industry be allowed to continue.

The colleges, business schools and the other institutions that are feeding men into business have a long way to go before they will contribute their full share to the great enterprise of ensuring an adequate supply of well-processed material for leadership in the world of affairs. I believe that these institutions have few delusions regarding their shortcomings and limitations. I believe that they are moving in the right direction, in line with sound principles, and with all the patience and persistence that must go with the scientific advancement of all great and difficult undertakings.

I regret that I cannot say as much for all too many business organizations that, in other particulars, have earned high rank for enlightened and far-sighted policies of administration. But I venture to predict that the time is soon to be here when all progressive managements, either through consciousness of an unserved need or moved by the evidence of successful results brought about by other organizations, will be impelled to find ways and means of developing their own resources of human material for fullpowered leadership.

When that time comes, I am confident that business and the colleges will uncover many more areas of common interest and mutual profit than either party has heretofore perceived. For, after all, this is a joint venture in the realm of education, with joint responsibilities, and with substantial dividends jointly to .be earned.

May I deliver myself of but one more thought. The college generation of the day has taken unto itself an attitude of mind that it chooses to call the intellectual revolt of youth. It purports to declare war upon tradition, dogma, authority, paternalism, repressions and prohibitions. In its symptons it is likely to seem irreverent, naive, incoherent, callow or excessively self-conscious, according to the point of view from which it is observed. At its worst it becomes silly, obnoxious, and a cover for lack of restraint and for self-indulgence. At its best, on the other hand, it may well be the most healthful and promising development in the history of education. To the extent that it glorifies and promotes intellectual freedom, open-mindedness and a genuine passion for the truth, it opens the way for a great educational renaissance.

It remains to be seen whether our institutions of higher learning and the world of business together are to grasp the full meaning of the phenomenon and to seize upon the opportunity of turning these pestiferous freshets of brand new intellectualism into well-ordered channels that may well lead to a great reservoir of potential powejr for the making of a new and greater order of leadership.

Reed Hall