The Uniprez: A Socratic Dialogue
What does it mean to train a leader?
Businesses take great care both to develop their mission statements and then to indoctrinate their employees with Scientology-like rigor. The lore coming out of Google and Amazon.com are easy examples. Colleges and universities, by contrast, do not take their mission statements so seriously. Many faculty and students could not tell you the first thing about them. Yet most make a grandiose claim about the role of the university in promoting leadership. My own Howard University has this to say:
With an abiding interest in both domestic and international affairs, the University is committed to continuing to produce leaders for America and the global community.
Note the influence of the business metaphor: we don’t train leaders; leaders are our products. Howard is not unique. If you like, you may peruse the similar claims about training leaders from the top universities or the top colleges “That Change Lives.”
Yet if we believe at all in such mission statements, we should be asking one question again and again:
How do you prepare a student in four years to hold diverse leadership roles, across the globe, not only upon graduation but decades into the future?
Many faculty and students feel frustrated that they don’t have the opportunity to take up questions like this with the administrators who control the resources necessary to carry out its mission. Fortunately, the format of the dialogue, popularized by the fifth-century Athenian philosopher, Socrates, allows us to imagine what such a discussion might look like.
For my part I think Socrates would feel a rush of eager inquisitiveness were he ever to encounter a university president bent on convincing him that universities produce leaders. I would entitle this dialogue the Uniprez, after its main interlocutor, whom Socrates might meet on the campus of just about any American university, on his way to another alumni/ae fundraiser or cocktail reception.
On Universal Leadership Training
Socrates: Hello, good sir! Where are you headed so quickly and crestfallen across the verdant plains of this charming campus, with its classical architecture and chattering students?
Uniprez: Oh, hello, Socrates. I’m on my way to a board meeting to discuss our recent decline in the U.S. News and World Report rankings. On top of that, I’m dealing with a spate of honor code violations from our bowling team. And a professor in the geology department is about to be put on leave for offering unconventional extra credit opportunities.
Socrates: I’m sorry to hear that. It must bring you some consolation that you continue to turn out remarkable students, the best and the brightest of their generation, to judge from your mission statement and its attention to excellence. I wonder if you would allow me to understand this process better? For anyone who can do what your university claims to do would be conferring a tremendous benefit, not only on the students but, indeed, on all of humanity.
Uniprez: Sure, Socrates, I’m always happy to talk with you, especially if it will give me an excuse to be late to this meeting. Shall we stroll around the grounds?
Socrates: I would consider it a privilege to partake of your wisdom. So, to return to your mission statement. I’m particularly interested in the part about leaders. If there is one thing the world agrees on it is that we don’t have enough good leaders, whatever they happen to be. What I want to know first is this: do you train leaders to be leaders in every possible human enterprise for which there is leadership, or only in one specific enterprise?
Uniprez: In every leadership enterprise, Socrates. A leader is a leader.
Socrates: So, a biology major or an accounting major will not only be able to lead others in the study of biology or in the practice of accounting, but also in coaching, teaching, military command, statecraft, university administration, the conducting an orchestra, and the many other leadership roles?
Uniprez: No, that’s not what I mean.
Socrates: What do you mean, then? For it seems you are conferring upon your students a most worthy skill.
Uniprez: I mean that all of our graduates will be able to able to make a significant impact on the world wherever they end up.
Socrates: So you seem to mean two things. One, that the measure of leadership is “making a significant impact” and, two, that a graduate of your university will be able to do this in any field of human endeavor?
Uniprez: Yes, I mean that the student will make a broad impact in whatever endeavor the student chooses to pursue, because the student will have a better sense of who she is after attending our university.
Socrates: A very interesting assertion, my dear sir. So, let me ask you this. Assuming that you are correct that your graduates are able to do these two things, namely make a significant impact and do so in any field they choose, I am curious as to how your students acquire this skill, especially when they don’t all take the same courses or study the same fields. Do they all take a course in leadership?
Uniprez: No, not usually. Sometimes a history professor or a political science professor will talk about leadership.
Socrates: Then, do the students all participate in student government or do they belong to a student organization that shows them how to make a versatile and broad impact on the world?
Uniprez: Some participate in these organizations, but most do not.
Socrates: Well, then, from where do they learn this “art of the significant impact”? Who are the teachers of this art?
Uniprez: Everyone, Socrates, professors, staff, alums — even other students.
Socrates: What a wonderful environment for your students to be part of! So, you are saying that everyone at your university knows the art of making the broad impact, even though they do not teach this art in their actual courses?
Uniprez: Yes, that is what I am saying, apparently.
Socrates: So, a professor of, say, sports medicine will not only teach a student about sports medicine during class but on other occasions will teach about making a significant impact in the world?
Uniprez: Yes, that is exactly what I’m saying. This professor will teach students how to heal injured athletes of all types, and healing is a kind of leadership.
On the Transferability of Leadership Skill
Socrates: That is very true, but that is not what I was asking just now. I can see how the art of sports medicine can “lead” injured athletes into a place of better health. But we were talking about making a “significant impact” on the world in any field. Do you claim, for example, that a leadership expert in sports medicine would also be able to conduct an orchestra, which is another kind of leadership?
Uniprez: No, of course not, Socrates.
Socrates: Well, then, in what fields other than sports medicine would someone who has studied under an expert of sports medicine be able to make an impact?
Uniprez: In any field he chooses, provided he has undertaken sufficient study.
Socrates: So, you mean that after studying sports medicine, a student is so well-trained in the art of studying something that he could study music and eventually become a musical conductor?
Uniprez: Yes, that is what I mean.
Socrates: By Zeus! Now we may be on the verge of a much better understanding of how your university teaches the art of leadership. You are saying that all of your classes teach students the art of studying and that this art is the basis for becoming a leader in whatever field the student chooses. Is that correct?
Uniprez: Yes.
Socrates: What, then, is this art of studying that apparently all professors teach and that administrators and students somehow reinforce? What are its parts?
Uniprez: I don’t understand what you mean, Socrates.
Socrates: I mean, what is the art of studying? How does someone come to be an expert in it?
Uniprez: First by being interested in something new and then trying to learn more about it.
Socrates: And what does someone do to “learn more about” something?
Uniprez: By reading about it, talking to experts, and taking tests, writing essays, and making presentations that demonstrate comprehension.
Socrates: I see. And can a sports medicine professor, for example, offer expert knowledge and testing in an area of study other than sports medicine?
Uniprez: No, not usually.
Socrates: So, a sports medicine professor cannot, for example, teach someone the study of calculus or assess whether a student is good at calculus, or even potentially good at calculus, right?
Uniprez: No, probably not.
Socrates: How, then, does studying sports medicine prepare someone to make a significant impact in another field?
Uniprez: Don’t you see, Socrates? The student learns how to study one field very well and can apply this study to another field.
Socrates: I do see. But I want to return to your earlier statement about how one learns the art of studying. You said that one learns it by being interested in something new and then trying to learn. Is that correct?
Uniprez: Yes.
On Becoming Curious
Socrates: I understand what you say about learning, but I am interested in the process of becoming interested in something new. Do you believe that a professor in one field, say, mathematics, can cause a student to be interested in another field like geography?
Uniprez: Not unless the mathematics professor is so offensive that the student is driven screaming to another field!
Socrates: Ha! That very likely happens with professors of many different fields. But I am interested in the designs and practices of your university, not in chance encounters. How does a student become interested in another field, so that she may then achieve the goal of becoming proficient in the art of the versatile and significant impact, which is how we have been characterizing the art of leadership?
Uniprez: By taking courses on different subjects.
Socrates: And, so, by taking courses on different subjects a student can decide where she would like to make an impact?
Uniprez: Yes, that is what I mean.
Socrates: And do students take courses in all fields of study at your university?
Uniprez: By no means. Only in a few fields. In fact we try to reduce the number of courses students will take because we want them to graduate in six years or fewer, with minimal debt. We also encourage students to take many courses that will prepare them for a specific career in a specific field, so that they may pay off their debt to society. This, too, limits the range of fields they might study.
Socrates: Well, my good sir, we will need to revise your earlier claim about how your university trains leaders.
Uniprez: I don’t know what you mean, Socrates.
Socrates: You said before that even though your university does not teach courses on leadership, you still train students to make a versatile and significant impact in whatever area they choose.
Uniprez: Yes, that is what I said.
Socrates: But what you are now saying is that students will only have a few areas from which to choose, for example, sports medicine, mathematics, or geography, according to the courses they happen to take at your university. They don’t study the whole universe at your university, do they?
Uniprez: No. Even the physics majors don’t always study astronomy.
Socrates: So if a student becomes a baseball coach after being a math major, it will likely be because she became interested in coaching baseball while she was somewhere other than your university — and not because she took courses in baseball?
Uniprez: Yes. So what?
Socrates: So, your mission statement should say something more like:
We train students to be leaders in the particular field that they major in. Students may become interested in other fields while at our university. But because students will have learned the art of studying from their major field, they will be enabled to become leaders in these other fields only by happenstance. Otherwise, the impact they make on the world is independent of our institution.
Is that a more accurate statement?
Uniprez: Your revised mission statement, Socrates, is not likely to convince parents to pay $50,000 per year for their children to go here, but I believe it reflects more accurately what we do.
On the definition of leadership
Socrates: I want to return now to our definition of leadership and focus on the another aspect of it. You described it before as the ability to make a “significant” impact. Is that correct?
Uniprez: Yes, all leaders by my definition make a larger impact on the world than those around them, the non-leaders. Researchers, for example, are leaders because they make discoveries that others learn about and thus follow.
Socrates: And, so, there is presumably a specific kind of impact that a leader in given field makes. The mathematician makes her impact by introducing new ways to measure things. The business major makes his impact by discovering new ways to acquire money. The English major makes an impact by writing a new story or proposing a new interpretation of an old one. Is that correct?
Uniprez: Yes, that is correct, Socrates.
Socrates: But what I want to know now is whether any kind of impact counts as leadership.
Uniprez: Yes, as I said, all leaders make a large impact.
Socrates: Yes, but I want to know whether all “large impacts” count as acts of leadership.
Uniprez: Yes, I believe they do.
Socrates: Well, what do you say about the president of a tobacco company who discovers new chemicals to make cigarettes more addicting — or new marketing techniques to make cigarettes more appealing to young people? Does such a person make a large impact?
Uniprez: Yes.
Socrates: So, is such a person a leader?
Uniprez: Yes, very much so, for it is sometimes very hard to convince people to inhale harmful chemicals. It takes great charm and cunning, both of which are traits of a leader. And their followers, the stockholders, are grateful to them for their leadership.
Socrates: So, when you claim that your mission is to train leaders, you are thinking of a type of leader who is charming and cunning and can profit followers by getting others to do things that are harmful to them?
Uniprez: Yes, apparently, that is what I mean.
Socrates: To apply your definition to the realm of statecraft, then, do you mean that your mission is to train students to make any kind of large impact on society, even the kind made by the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini?
Uniprez: Yes?
Socrates: So your university’s mission is to train students to become experts in harming others for the benefit of some? That is your understanding of leadership?
Uniprez: I think I may need to reconsider what I said, Socrates.
Socrates: Would you like to qualify what you mean by the “impact” your student-leaders are meant to have?
Uniprez: Yes, I mean that we train leaders who are able to make a good impact on the world in a broad range of areas, and of course they avoid making bad impacts.
Socrates: Excellent point, my good sir. What, then, are the “good impacts” that leaders make?
Uniprez: There are many kinds of good impact, Socrates. A leader may make a good impact by making someone healthier, safer, more prosperous, prouder, wiser, more inspired. The list is very long.
Socrates: That is very well said. And will a graduate from your university know how to make all of these good impacts or only a few? Will, for example, the student who majors in sociology know how to make others healthier?
Uniprez: She might. The discoveries she makes by studying healthcare trends might help hospitals diagnose diseases earlier or better organize the healthcare system.
Socrates: That is true for some majors in sociology. But will all sociologists know how to make others healthier?
Uniprez: No, Socrates.
Socrates: Then how about the history major? Will she be able to lead others to better health, safety, or prosperity?
Uniprez: Again, each will be able to help in one or two of these ways, the same as the sociologist.
Socrates: So, you mean that the history major will be a leader in health, if she studies the history of health, and a leader in education, if she studies the history of education, and so on?
Uniprez: Yes.
Socrates: So, each graduate of your university will be a leader in whatever field he or she chooses to study.
Uniprez: Yes, apparently.
Socrates: This, you will recall, is what we already said before when we agreed that students will be leaders in whatever major they happen to focus on and that they may become leaders in other fields only if they happen to take classes in them and become interested. Do you remember that we agreed to this?
Uniprez: Yes.
Socrates: What I want to understand now is whether there is a difference between having knowledge of a certain field, like mathematics, and being a leader. Is it always the case that the person who knows the most about mathematics is also the one who knows how mathematics can make others healthier, safer, more prosperous, and all the other “good impacts” that we said leadership can bring to others?
Uniprez: This is sometimes the case, Socrates, but not necessarily so. Some of the best mathematicians have their head in the clouds — or even the stars — and it is a very long time before their study of mathematics ever comes down to earth, so to speak. Moreover, mathematicians are often the worst at convincing others to devote themselves to the study of mathematics.
Socrates: So, we are in agreement then, that while it is possible for those who know a great deal about mathematics to become the kind of leader your university claims to train, there is something else that one must possess other than the art of mathematics. Do you agree?
Uniprez: I do agree.
Socrates: Well, then, what other skills does the mathematics student need to acquire in order to become a leader, that is, someone whose knowledge of mathematics makes “good impacts” or someone who at least can convince others to study mathematics and make such impacts?
Uniprez: It is simple, Socrates. He must know about what is good for human beings.
Socrates: What a wonderful answer, my dear sir! Presumably, you mean the same goods we described above, namely, health, prosperity, wisdom, and so on. To put it another way, the student must know what health, wisdom, prosperity — and all the other goods — actually are in regards to human beings. For if someone does not know what health is or what health even looks like, he is not very likely to make others healthier. Is that something like what you mean?
Uniprez: I do mean that.
Socrates: We agree, then, that it is not sufficient for a student to have knowledge of some part of the non-human world, say mathematics, biology, or chemistry. And we agree that a student must have knowledge of the “human goods.” But let me ask you this: how will a leader know when she has actually reached the goal of health, prosperity, and safety that she has been striving to bring others to? For we would not consider someone a good leader who merely claims to produce these goods but does not actually deliver them, correct?
Uniprez: That is correct, Socrates.
On Measuring Leadership Success
Socrates: So how does the mathematician, for example, know when the science of mathematics has actually led to a human good? For we already agreed that skill in mathematics is not the same thing as knowing what is good for others.
Uniprez: These ideas of what is good for humans are very hard to come by, Socrates. They must be reached through careful study and conversation within many different fields of human interest: the study of the past, including what previous cultures have found to be “good,” the study of the human mind and the human body, and the study of humans in different societies. Even the study of animals that resemble humans can help us understand what is good for us. Primates and mammals, for instance.
Socrates: That is a most marvelous answer, my good sir. What you are saying, it seems, is that students at your university should spend time mastering one field and spend time investigating the ways in which that field may contribute to one of the goods of humanity. Presumably, they also spend time thinking about what the greatest goods are?
Uniprez: I don’t know what you mean, Socrates?
Socrates: Well, take the example of dog care. There are many things that benefit the dog, including proper nutrition and shelter but also positive stimuli like love and encouragement. The person who cares for the dog tries to keep her from fear, humiliation, sorrow. Is that true?
Uniprez: Yes, that is true, Socrates.
Socrates: Well, within this set of goods, some are greater than others. Proper nutrition is a greater good for the dog than a fancy dog-collar made of leather and jewels. The dog, and even the owner, might take pride in such a collar, but the dog’s nutrition is more important. Would you agree?
Uniprez: Yes, certainly.
Socrates: Moreover, even though there are many delicacies we might serve to a dog, it is probably better that the dog be tended by loving owners, ones who will groom her and look out for her and generally take delight in the dog’s happiness. Is that your understanding?
Uniprez: Yes, I see what you mean, Socrates.
Socrates: Well, then, at your university do students engage in a consideration of “greater goods”? Do they take thought for the goods that, as graduates, they will produce, whether they take up careers as electrical engineers, sports medicine practitioners, or historians? And do they spend time weighing and ranking such goods as money, friendship, health, spiritual and intellectual growth, service to the community, even political leadership?
Uniprez: We at this university are in agreement that the fields that bring the greatest good to humanity are the ones that make the most wealth, which are also the ones that produce new technology.
Socrates: I see. So you are thinking of business majors and those who practice in the so-called STEM fields, namely, science, technology, engineering, and math? Is that correct?
Uniprez: Yes, those are the most important fields and their leaders are the most important leaders. They have mastered the art of the “good impact,” to use your language, Socrates.
Socrates: So, you believe that whatever a businessperson does to acquire money or whatever piece of new technology someone invents will make a “significant and good impact” on the world, in the way we have been describing?
Uniprez: I see what you are doing, Socrates, and I won’t fall for it again. No, I do not believe that every dollar made or every device invented will automatically be good for humanity. And I understand that the art of making money and the art of inventing things are distinct from the art of being a good leader.
Socrates: I am delighted that we are in agreement on this. It seems that we are dealing with an issue of balance. Can you tell me how much does one need to devote oneself both to the practical arts of business and STEM compared to the art of discovering what exactly is beneficial for humans? For this seems to be the right kind of training for the creation of the kinds of leaders we have been searching for. How, then, does your university know if it has reached the right balance?
Uniprez: Your question is easily answered, Socrates. We at this university use a very simple metric: jobs. Whenever we can, we admit students that we think have a very good chance of landing a job, especially ones who come from families with connections to job opportunities.
Socrates: I’m not sure I understand you.
Uniprez: I mean this: if a graduate lands a job after graduation, especially if it is a job with a high salary and one that has been determined by society to be prestigious, then we know we have been training the right kind of leader. This is also a very democratic way to approach leadership training, I believe.
Socrates: But, my good sir, doesn’t this metric contradict what you were just now saying?
Uniprez: What do you mean?
Socrates: You said that it was not necessarily the case that making money was proof of leadership, specifically of benefiting others. Correct?
Uniprez: Yes, I did say that.
Socrates: Would you also agree that a job’s prestige is not a guarantee that it will consist of the kind of true leadership you claim to offer your students? For surely you do not mean for your mission statement to read something like this, “We train students to make a great impact on the world by landing a high-paying, prestigious job.” That is not what you mean, is it?
Uniprez: No, Socrates. As I say, I already understood your earlier point that acquiring money and prestige are not the same thing as true leadership.
Socrates: Well, then, how can you decide whether you have arrived at the balance you seek for your future leaders, namely, knowledge of what is good for humans and the expertise in some field that will bring about that good?
Uniprez: I don’t know, Socrates. But I do now see that the answer does not lie in measuring our success in terms of jobs, money, or prestige. Yet I still contend that it is possible to make money, have prestige, and benefit others in significant ways.
On the Motivation to Lead
Socrates: That may be, but let me ask you this further question: would you agree that there exist people who have knowledge of a particular field and who understand how that field can bring about human good but who nevertheless do not ever do any good?
Uniprez: That would be a very strange sort of person indeed, Socrates.
Socrates: Not at all. Such a person is just not a leader. Here’s what I mean. Imagine a citizen in a city full of corruption and disorganization. Such a citizen might be a graduate of history or of political science, who can see how the city is dysfunctional, through poor fiscal management, corrupt leaders, a distracted media, or an uneducated citizenry. This citizen might know how to make this city prosperous, safe, and even proud of itself. And yet the citizen chooses to do nothing for any number of reasons: she is too shy to speak up, she does not want to incur the disdain of the leaders in power, or she has a low opinion of her fellow humans and would not take much delight in seeing her city enjoy the many goods that humans can enjoy. Do you agree that such a person is possible?
Uniprez: Yes, I do, but again you are talking about a very strange sort of person. Why would someone with the knowledge of doing good not want to do it? At least this person could hope for rewards, privileges, and recognition for being a savior of the city.
Socrates: There are many reasons for not becoming a leader, but for now all I want you to acknowledge is that knowing what is good for humans and knowing how to get these goods are not sufficient to be a leader. A person must have some motivation to lead. And, in order to be consistent with your mission to “train leaders,” you must also devote yourself at your university to making students want to lead, and for the right reasons. For a leader who tries to lead for the wrong reasons may be worse for a community than a person who chooses not to lead at all. Do you do this at your university, namely, investigate the different motivations for leading?
Uniprez: I confess, Socrates, that there are many aspects to training leaders that I had not considered. Our mission statement was formulated over a hundred years ago, when having a college degree made you more educated than the majority of the population. A graduate’s motivation to lead came from feeling a sense of responsibility toward the many who did not receive such opportunities. Of course the satisfaction of feeling superior to others was also motivating. But I realize that that is not necessarily the noblest of leadership motives.
Socrates: Very well said. I am glad we are in agreement so far, even if we haven’t fully answered the question of how colleges and universities can hope to train their graduates to be “leaders,” in the broad way we have defined here. As you recall, we said first that a leader is someone with knowledge of what is truly beneficial for humans, then that a leader is someone with the technical know-how to reach the good, and finally that a leader is someone with the right motive for taking up the role — whatever that right motive happens to be.
Uniprez: Yes, Socrates. I have a much clearer understanding of what our mission should be, even if I don’t know exactly how to realize it yet. Now is there any way you can save me from going to this next meeting, lol?
Socrates: Sacrifice a cock to Asclepius?
Those are the kinds of questions I imagine Socrates would ask if he were confronted with a mission statement that claimed to “train leaders.” This is an “aporetic” dialogue in the sense that we have not reached any specific answers, only clearer questions. Yet there is evidence to suggest that Socrates’ mode of inquiry might itself put us on the track to training leaders. For example, just last week Richard Detweiler, the president of the Great Lakes Colleges Association, presented the preliminary results of his study on the the value of a liberal arts education for “being a leader, being seen as ethical, appreciating arts and culture and leading a fulfilling and happy life.”
Of interest for us is the correlation that Detweiler found between leadership and the undergraduate out-of-classroom experience:
“[I]n looking at whether people in the larger sample had leadership characteristics, [Detweiler] found that — depending on how many characteristics of an intimate education they reported — adults were 30 to 100 percent more likely to show leadership with the liberal arts background. The key factor appeared to be out-of-the-classroom discussions with faculty members (both on academic and nonacademic subjects).”
It would seem that time spent with a Socrates-like figure is a kind of leadership training, a conclusion that likely would have made the historical Socrates very happy. This Purdue-Gallup study from 2014 reaches a similar conclusion.
Socrates’ habits of inquiry as well as his very personality can at least train us to ask persistent and probing questions about the many assumptions made about the world by our leaders—our parents, politicians, religious figures, and pop culture icons. Noticing the care with which businesses take in their mission statements can certainly make universities more aware of what they are doing, but we must take the extra Socratic step in training leaders by continually asking are we actually doing good?
Norman Sandridge is an associate professor of classics at Howard University and a fellow in leadership studies at the Center for Hellenic Studies in Washington, DC. His research interests include ancient and modern leadership, personality disorders, the emotions, and digital humanities.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the views of the Paideia Institute.
