4 August 2012:
Are leaders born or are leaders nurtured?
Previously when Mr G was still vice-principal, he used to ask us this question. It wasn't an easy question to answer to. And I suppose Mr G would be secretly happy that no one was able to give him a perfect answer, so he could continue to intrigue people with this question.At a leadership seminar last year, TK asked the speaker this exact question. Frankly speaking, I do not remember the answer that the speaker gave then. However, this question does stick in my mind, and it will continue to do so for a long time.
Today while reading Straits Times, I saw this article by Mr Lawrence Lien. (It's on page D6 if you're interested and haven't already unsubscribed from Straits Times.) He asserts that leaders can be nutured.
The original question asked by Mr G was whether they were nutured; the assertion Mr Lien gives is that they can be nutured. However, I believe I can draw a parallel between the two since they are quite similar.
Our first prime minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew believes that leadership is there from the genes. He thinks that not much can be done to further nurture the person if it is just not in his genes.
Mr Lien believes otherwise. He thinks that while to some extent leadership is within a person's genes, at least one-third of a person can be nurtured for him to be a good leader.
I think this debate over whether it's in the genes or through external grooming is indeed an interesting one. Personally, I am more inclined to support Mr Lien.
In 1984, LKY started the Graduate Mothers' Scheme. It encouraged graduate mothers to pick similarly qualified partners and 'go forth and multiply'. This gained widespread criticism, and after witnessing a huge slide in vote share in the elections on the same year, the GMS was removed a year later.
The GMS shows much LKY believes that talent, and leadership, is in one's genes. He thinks that if graduate women choose graduate men, their children would be born to be smart and proceed to contribute much more to Singapore. Does this reasoning hold?
In some sense, this is related to social mobility. A society with a high social mobility score would mean that people of different classes in society may easily rise or fall to other classes. What does LKY's scheme do to the social mobility of Singapore?
If graduate women listen faithfully to LKY and only look for graduate men, Singapore will see a sharp decline in social mobility.
It is for a fact that children who belong to graduate parents will do better in life. However, this is not related much to their genetic arrangement. Graduates, especially then, have it better than non-graduates. This notion of having a degree is pretty much ingrained in Singaporeans.
Graduates then typically earned more from non-graduates. Simple reasoning will put you through. Companies would prefer graduates because the degree somehow ascertains that they are more capable than those who do not even have the degree. Needless to say, graduates would have better-paying jobs.
From better-paying jobs, the amount in their bank account would be higher than non-graduates who work in, let's say, blue-collar jobs. When their children is born, they would have more money to support them.
And by support, I would mean in terms of sending them to various classes and enrichment programmes. Whereas non-graduate parents can only support their children to a basic level, fulfilling their basic needs while occasionally providing them with other bonuses.
Hence, it is no doubt that most children of graduate parents will perform better than children of non-graduate parents, due to the lack of equal opportunities. However, this is in contrast to LKY's reasoning that it has to due with the genes.
Although I have not done research in the correlation of intelligence and inheritance, I believe that our genes only provide us with traits. Intelligence and values are things that we pick up as we grow older.
If the above mentioned child from non-graduate parents was given equal treatment as the other child (equal tuition, classes, programmes) and the former still performed badly, then yes we may attribute it to genetic traits.
However, this still does not mean that these people are stupid or anything, or that they will not do well. There are always cases of successful entrepreneurs who failed most classes in school, yet grew up and created a booming business.
They are probably just have traits that dictate they are not inclined academically, but in other fields, which entrepreneurship does much to breed such talent.
Going back to the issue of social mobility, our society will just become more and more fragmented if GMS was not removed after a year. There will be distinct classes of children, those belonging to graduate parents and those not. How tragic would that be?
Chances are, children of non-graduate parents would not be able to climb up the social ladder. Most would feel bad about themselves as being the lower class, and would rather believe that they are destined to never succeed much in life.
Bring this whole chunk back to the thing of leadership, does it mean that children will grow up to be better leaders if they enjoy better genes, which in LKY's belief means coming from graduate parents?
I don't think so. I'm sure not every minister or chairman from the government or civil service enjoyed 'good genes', since they came from backgrounds that weren't very fabulous as well. Yet, most were able to perform well and do a good job, which in some ways show they were good leaders.
I agree more with Mr Lien. Good leadership is more nurtured than born. Yes, it is indeed true that some people do have traits that may spur them to work hard and in turn be a better leader.
Just as what Mr Lien pointed out someone who has stellar results in school may eventually end up being a mediocre manager because of his lack of leadership skills. If he gets promoted, it's because of confirmation bias or something similar, unknowingly practised by their bosses.
Values are what people obtain after birth. Values such as determination and perseverance were what LKY had in great amounts, and this helped him helm Singapore in the beginning. Was it as much of a gene thing for him?
A constant observation made by anti-PAP netizens would be that there would be rife nepotism in government bodies. Somehow, this minister would be linked by blood or marriage to that director, and this list goes on and on. While I do not deny this since there are very obvious cases, it was just now that I though of a possible explanation why this was so. (Call me slow if you may.)
Back then when LKY held on to much (perhaps too much) power, he often controlled the HR of various government bodies. With his notion that only an elite few would be able to govern Singapore since only they have the best genes, it is no surprise then that he would try to seek people related by blood.
By his belief, I suppose he is trying to retain as much of people with as good genes as him to serve Singapore. While this idea of his certainly was very noble (to get the best people to serve Singapore), sadly, he developed this flawed judgement and even extended the misjudgement to the creation of GMS.
All in all, leaders are more nurtured in my opinion. Through the previous examples and anecdotes, you may or may not be convinced by me. This post was completed over an hour and a half, during which I was distracted by some comics. Hence, you may notice my track of thoughts waver all over the place. Certainly not good for expository, but oh well.
TTFN.
Incidentally, this theme of 'born or bred' also ties to the 'cause' of homosexuality. Some firmly insist that people choose to be gay because they are perverse, while others simply believe that gay people were born this way, as Lady Gaga would have put it. More food for thought here, on how these two - homosexuality and leadership - seems to be tied to a same central question.