The best way for a society to prepare its young people forleadership in government, industry, or other fields is byinstilling in them a sense of cooperation, not competition.

Whenever people argue that history is a worthless subject or that
there is nothing to be gained by just “memorizing a bunch of stupid
names and dates,” I simply hold my tongue and smile to myself.
What I’m thinking is that, as cliche as it sounds, you do learn a
great deal from history (and woe to those who fail to learn those
lessons). It is remarkable to think of the number of circumstances
and situations in which even the most rudimentary knowledge of
history will turn out to be invaluable. Take, for example, the issue
at hand here. Is it better for society to instill in future leaders a
sense of competition or cooperation? Those who have not examined
leaders throughout time and across a number of fields might not
have the ability to provide a thorough and convincing answer to
this question, in spite of the fact that it is crucial to the future
functioning of our society. Looking closely at the question of
leadership and how it has worked in the past, I would have to agree
that the best way to prepare young people for leadership roles is to
instill in them a sense of cooperation.
Let us look first at those leaders who have defined themselves
based on their competitiveness. Although at first glance it may
appear that a leader must have a competitive edge in order to gain
and then maintain a leadership position, I will make two points on
GRE General [This footer should NOT be printed.] 5/15/2012 LT18-PracTest3_Sampleresp-rev_02
-13-
this subject. First, the desire to compete is an inherent part of
human nature; that is, it is not something that needs to be “instilled”
in young people. Is there anyone who does not compete in some
way or another every single day? You try to do better than others in
your school work or at the office, or you just try to do better than
yourself in some way, to push yourself. When societies instill
competitiveness in their leaders, it only leads to trouble. The most
blatant example in this case is Adolf Hitler, who took competition
to the very extreme, trying to prove that his race and his country
were superior to all. We do not, however, need to look that far to
find less extreme examples (i.e., Hitler is not the extreme example
that disproves the rule). The recent economic meltdown was caused
in no large part by the leaders of American banks and financial
institutions who were obsessed with competing for the almighty
dollar. Tiger Woods, the ultimate competitor in recent golfing
history and in many ways a leader who brought the sport of golf to
an entirely new level, destroyed his personal life (and perhaps his
career -- still yet to be determined) by his overreaching sense that
he could accomplish anything, whether winning majors or sleeping
with as many women as possible. His history of competitiveness is
well documented; his father pushed him froma very early age to be
the ultimate competitor. It served him well in some respects,
but it also proved to be detrimental and ultimately quite destructive.

Leaders who value cooperation, on the other ahnd, have historically
been less prone to these overreaching, destructive tendencies. A
good case in point would be Abraham Lincoln. Now, I am sure
at this point you are thinking that Lincoln, who served as President
during the Civil War and who refused to compromise with the
South or allow secession, could not possibly be my model of
cooperation! Think, however, of the way Lincoln structured his
Cabinet. He did not want a group of “yes men” who would agree
with every word he said, but instead he picked people who were
more likely to disagree with his ideas. And he respected their input,
which allowed him to keep the government together in the North
during a very tumultuous period (to say the least).

My point in choosing the Lincoln example is that competitiveness
and conflict may play better to the masses and be more likely to be
recorded in the history books, but it was his cooperative nature that
allowed him to govern effectively. Imagine if the CEO of a large
company were never able to compromise and insisted that every
single thing be done in exactly her way. Very quickly she would
lose the very people that a company needs in order to survive,
people with new ideas, people ready to make great advances.
Without the ability to work constructively with those who have
conflicting ideas, a leader will never be able to strike deals, reach
consensus, or keep an enterprise on track. Even if you are the
biggest fish in the pond, it is difficult to force your will on others
forever; eventually a bigger fish comes along (or the smaller fish
team up against you!).
In the end, it seems most critical for society to instill in young
people a sense of cooperation. In part this is true because we seem
to come by our competitive side more naturally, but cooperation is
more often something we struggle to learn (just think of kids on the
playground). And although competitive victory is more showy,
more often than not the real details of leadership come down to the
ability to work with other people, to compromise and cooperate.
Getting to be President of the United States or the managing
director of a corporation might require you to win some battles,
but once you are there you will need diplomacy and people-skills.
Those can be difficult to learn, but if you do not have them, you
are likely to be a short-lived leader.