In the Spring of 2014 in Berlin, Germany, I had the opportunity to attend a small conference where Nicolas Sarkozy (former president of France), among other speakers, discussed contemporary politics.

When Sarkozy gave his speech, he broke from French into English for one word: Leadership. This struck me as odd. There are a number of ways to refer to the person in charge in French: “la direction” (“sous la direction,” or “under the direction/leadership”); “le chef” (the one in charge); “l’aptitude á diriger” (the ability to lead). Or, “le leadership.”

Why did Sarkozy use the English term to describe “leadership?” Typically, when we use the foreign word rather than a translation, the word itself encompasses more than can be adequately translated. It’s a bit different than words melding into another language – take the French word “coup” – although a linguistics expert may be able to tell us whether or not there was a similar process of language assimilation hundreds of years ago.

The real shocker for me was months later, towards the end of my stay in Berlin, when a fellow American classmate mentioned something to do with my “being a leader” (or something of that nature). I had heard this at times growing up and held a very US-centric idea of what a leader was. My own ideas about leadership have changed over the years, and my year abroad was a big turning point in this process.

When my classmate made this remark, my German professor Reinhard Isensee reacted, “Kelly doesn’t want to be a leader!” I was surprised by this, and asked, “Well, what do you think I want to be?”

I wish I could remember what Herr Isensee said – it was something along the lines of “bringing people together to cultivate collaborative engagement.” It made more sense, in part because it actually described the action rather than merely leave it at “leadership.”  

In Germany, “leadership” is shied away from because it is associated with hypermasculinity and with Hitler. As part of the long recovery process after the Holocaust, most of the Germans I have met do not aspire to what we might consider excellent leadership in the United States, because where it led their country was disastrous for the world.

I taught a section of a Career Management course last week, and I asked my students what defines “leadership” here in the US. One student mentioned “charisma.” He is absolutely right: citizens of the US are particularly drawn to potential leaders who are “charismatic.”

I took a class the final semester of my undergraduate degree about Leadership Theory. Our professor questioned whether or not charisma is even exits – what is charisma, anyway? In the Spring of 2016, here is what I wrote in response to reading Max Weber’s idea of Charisma in “The Theory of Social and Economic Organization,” and Robert Solomon’s “The Myth of Charisma”:

“Solomon points out a couple of issues with charisma. The first is that it cannot be analyzed because there are so many emotions involved in the relationship between the charismatic leader and the follower.[1] The second is that by acknowledging charisma as a powerful leadership trait, we ignore analyzing the emotional relationships between leaders and followers, particularly that of trust.[2] I agree that charisma is a term that encompasses larger networks of emotions and relationships that should be observed on their own. Furthermore, I think charisma of an individual is the ability of that individual to connect with peoples’ passions and generate both trust in the charismatic leader and action according to the goals the leader puts forward. This idea of trust comes from Solomon’s definition of charisma and the idea of action is inspired by both the concept that charismatic leaders can hone in on how their followers are motivated and Weber’s point that followers are obedient to authority.”

After breaking down what charisma actually is, I later discussed in my essay how “leaders” and “followers” should consider charisma as a trait:

“The goal of leaders should not be to “be charismatic” because that doesn’t really mean anything. Important aspects of being an effective leader, rather, are the relationships between leaders and their followers that are clouded by the concept of charisma: emotional and trust based relationships. As followers, we have a more important role. It is our responsibility to question authority and to question our emotional connections with those in power. It is often rational to feel certain emotions – the problem is when we act irrationally based on those emotions. For this reason it is important to reflect on our emotional connections with people, especially those in charge, and be sure that we agree with both what those people in power are saying and with how those people are acting.”

Shampa Biswas, a professor at Whitman College, wrote an opinion article for The Chronicle of Higher Education titled “Stop Trying to Cultivate Student Leaders.” I find many points of her argument compelling as she ultimately is addressing the need to stop encouraging young people to develop the same characteristics that Germans shy away from: “assertiveness, aggressiveness, hypermasculinity.”

I too question the idea of “teaching leadership” – I questioned it in high school, finding it odd that there would be a “leadership course,” although upon reflection I’m not sure I fully understood why it seemed odd. It may also be a reflection of my own upbringing, likely on raised on the “you are a special” diet that Biswas refers to.

Perhaps a leadership theory course, however, could be useful, or modeling “leadership programs” based on a curriculum designed to demonstrate the different forms of organizational structure could be compelling. In such a curriculum, analysis of leadership structures with strict hierarchy could be compared with more lateral structures. Combined with negotiation skills training and theory, and perhaps a bit of political and historical background thrown in the mix, perhaps this would be a way to mentor young people to think critically and question the systems around them – which is ultimately what I think Biswas is pushing educators to do.

Biswas is right – we need people to be compassionate and to think about the impact of their actions on the world around them. And encouraging them to reach for more power rather than to question larger systems and those already with power is detrimental to societal progress.

But let’s remember that there are other leadership structures out there. We are not confined to one leadership or organizational system, nor are we confined to one type of leader. Encouraging questioning, as Biswas encourages, is the first step towards redefining our future “leaders” and reimagining what this world might look like.

[1] Robert C. Solomon, “The Myth of Charisma,” 203.

[2] Ibid, 203 and 206.