Vinh Nguyen Le ,

Thank you for explaining your position that "everyone is a leader." Mine is that "not everyone is a leader" for "some are born leaders." Both positions are, of course, legitimate and address the question asked by Muthana Makki Mohammedali

This is what happens in developed countries and countries that are keen to revive their people, but they fight in different ways so that they cannot reach administrative positions unless they have narrow common interests ... A case study of ............

Thank you for putting this up, Dr. Muthana Makki Mohammedali the respected

Randall Collins published an article on this issue a decade ago. He found that 3 kinds of political failure by intellectuals are prominent: (1) failure to attain political office; (2) failure while in office; and (3) failure of political influence from adoption of one’s ideas. Collins concluded that intellectuals are generally not good at politics. However, there are exceptions; I would suggest Merkel and Obama as recent examples.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1368431011417929?journalCode=esta

These are not good examples but more failures;

Maybe like Belkasım Haftar; or Emmanuel Macron or thinks he won,

he will never learn that he actually lost Abdülfettah his-Sisi

https://trtajans.eu

Maris Martinsons , thanks for the suggested article! I'll absolutely have a look at it. How frustrating to know it is "supposedly" confirmed. The concluding line of the abstract is worth noting: " The skills and pressures of the two spheres are too different."

An interesting observation, Muthana. I think there are numerous factors involved. For instance, non-academics tend to enter the workforce earlier, are exposed earlier to the practicalities of industry, and get on the generalist career ladder earlier. Academic types remain longer in education and enter the workforce later and they often enter as specialists. They may miss out on the early experience of leadership and responsibility for groups of employees. And they may not learn the practical nuts and bolts of operations. Their career track is more likely to be on a specialist/expert route rather than general management that would lead to senior executive positions. Even their language may be different - more abstract for instance - and that may affect the impression they make as 'egg-heads'. We can't minimise the difference too in team-working experience. Non-academic types have to learn how to work in groups in the pursuit of group objectives; academic types at college and university tend to be isolates focusing on their own special interests. Of course there are many individuals for whom my points do not apply, their are many exceptions of academic types who learn to be effective leaders and general executives. These are just speculative thoughts; I have no references or data to support them, but they would be interesting to research.

@Brian, thank you for your insightful notes. The inclination of non-academics to early start a practical route implies innate skills (talents also?) that underlay this tendency.

One added problem not really noted here is that intellectuals often find getting on with others difficult and by nature and education are not popularists.

I think the term intellectual here is used to mean people who inhabit intellectual environments such as universities. But many leaders in the past had immense intellectual equipment and engaged in intellectual pursuits such as Churchill whose Life of Marlborough is a distinct contribution to history. A claim can be made for Thomas Jefferson, and Quincy Adams. *Having said that I actually couldn't think of anyone else.

Muthana, you are quite right: individual differences such as skills and talent and temperament and psychological preferences have profound effects on choice of career route. As I wrote earlier there are many factors at play here. Another we haven't mentioned yet is opportunity; depending on family values, role models, socio-economic class and the quality of schooling available, a university education will be more available to some children than others. Poor kids on the whole are disadvantaged in this respect; poverty and economic pressures, the availability of books, peer-group norms and limited information available to children will significantly reduce their likelihood of a university or college education. So, whether someone is a 'worker' or an 'intellectual' in a work environment is a function of many s-e factors and individual difference variables. But perhaps such environmental disadvantages in childhood can lead to later career advantages in business with the 'worker' emerging as CEO and the 'intellectual' as a mid-range specialist! Isn't it a fascinating question you have raised? BTW another major factor we haven't mentioned is government policy and whether it is progressive or conservative, whether it promotes equal opportunities or not. I talk too much.

Further to the identification of Jefferson and Adams as leaders in both academic and non-academic environments, let us not forget Harold Wilson, leader of the Labour Party and PM of the UK twice and before that the youngest don at Oxford, aged 21. And doesn't Angela Merkel have a doctorate in chemistry?

@Stanley, thank you! Away from the core topic of discussion, Your observation of intellectuals as not being "popularists" is interesting, "introverts" can we say?! This highlights how challenging academic collaboration is for intellectuals, what do you think?! Well I think that academic networking in the west works better than in the east where I come from which makes the setting another playing factor.

Thanks for the interesting examples you provided.

@Dr. Brian, hat raised for your analysis! The worker's likelihood of becoming a CEO is quite a twist!

Government policy is a factor that reflects authority conflict in society of which few would like to talk about.

Academics are trained to be academics. Then why do you expect academics to be successful politicians or administrators without being trained and coached further to be so? I don't see that is an intellectual joke to say fish should know how to walk and if they don't, they are unsuccessful.

Le Vinh

Vinh Nguyen Le , Scientific management does make sense (theoretically speaking at least), doesn't it?! You might want to have a look at this:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/technocracy

Muthana, more on the situation in the East would be interesting.

Stanley Wilkin, I've been trying to avoid this painful area! But in short, they have exceptionally failed, not necessarily because they were unqualified, but because such examples had other priorities than building their own home countries.

Anastas Ivanov Ivanov , thanks. But this is a tragedy in settings ravished with conflicts, economic crisis...etc where individuals rather than institutions rule, where leadership is in the hands of individuals who misuse power for their own narrow interests. I'm talking about corrupt experts and false intelligentsia who play around the rules and make it up to the top of the power pyramid. What then is the role of intellectuals other than bringing a positive change to their community? I wonder if there is a formula to solve this dichotomy.

Ok. If I am right I had some responsibi;lity in the Eastern Brain Drain. I helped set up colleges there providing British qualifications as well as recruiting for British institutions. The trouble was, ok I am leaving the main issues again but I find questions fluctuate returning to declared issues, there was little there in their own countries. It seemed to me, in terms of leadership, there were only a few routes to success. But I am not an expert! Like in many Western countries caste systems played a part in success.

Generally, yes. The more they indulge in academia the less they become fit to market and politics.

Stanley Wilkin , You're referring to the social structure of eastern societies implying that the "Eastern problem" is a cultural-social problem at the root, I believe, and that diversity and inclusion would have provided more for eastern societies. I agree, but this could apply to countries like India, and to a lesser extent Jordan maybe (I'm not an expert in this as well) but in my setting we do not have a caste system. We have problems of other kinds.

I do not think an intellectual background (or lack of it) has a bearing on one's success in politics or leadership. Successful politicians are born and not made through university education. In my own country, former president Robert Mugabe was said to have the most educated cabinet in Africa. It comprised several PhD holders, some of them former University professors, but few people consider it to have provided sound leadership. But I am also aware of PhD holders and former university professors in other countries who turned out to be successful political leaders. (Professor) Barack Obama and (Dr) Angela Merkel come to mind. In fact, some politicians do not even use their academic titles because they do not see their relevance outside universities.

Muthana,

By caste system I mean members of the same family or group inheriting positions in politics or professions. So many families routinely become doctors or lawyers. In Britain for example, the same social group assumes power, usually knowing well those who have gone before. The old cabinet was made of of the old landed aristocracy for example or upper class known and associated to each other. The present group are simply pretending to be the old landed aristocracy. Each of these elements function as a caste system. So, no, Indias was just a version based on traditoion and religion, while western countries are laizzez faire but equally embedded. These in the west in some countries go beyond simple class understanding as families are often the same, roles, especially in medicine become family based through generations. Leadership is usually assumed with the prevailing system.

The students I dealt with in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Egypt and West Africa were looking to join I suspect more overtly capitalist societies. I did not know them all well of course so cannot be sure. One student from Bangladesh I am still in touch with wanted to be a barristor.

Each, nevertheless had leadership ambitions and felt unable to achieve ambitions within their own societies. I am not really that intimate with why not.

To Oswell: Both successful and unsuccessful (including destructive) politicians are born. So it makes no point to say so.

Le Vinh

@Stanley Wilkin, thanks for the clarification.

I wonder if the interesting British form you mentioned of caste system is motivated by the desire to sustain social prestige in the line rather than to have a leading role of influence on the society.

I cannot speak to the issue of your students, but personally, I would rather be a successful researcher in my discipline than be loser leader contributing to the devastation of my community, a buffon in the hands of supprior leaders. Corruption is a system that rejects foreign bodies. A deceased friend gave me a piece of an advice one day "Stay away from the lights, otherwise you'll be targeted". I hope he was wrong. I see it as an ethical issue and an issue of personal safety as well.

Vinh Nguyen Le ,

I see where the misunderstanding is coming from. The expression "...born not made" refers to an innate quality or ability. It is an English idiom. The words were not used in a literal sense. For example, when it is said "teachers are born not made" it means good teachers have natural abilities or talents; it does not mean bad teachers are not physically born or are artificially made. You may want to check:

idioms.thefreedictionary.com>born,+not+made

Oswell: No, I do know that saying, it is often quoted in the leadership literature. Both good and bad leaders have innate personalities and such a saying gives little but, ironically, misguiding information. Indeed everyone is a leader and self-leadership is the best, but neglected, component of leadership.

Le Vinh

Vinh Nguyen Le ,

Thank you for explaining your position that "everyone is a leader." Mine is that "not everyone is a leader" for "some are born leaders." Both positions are, of course, legitimate and address the question asked by Muthana Makki Mohammedali

Thank you all for the interesting discussion and respected views.

Muthana, implied in the joke seems to be that academic high flyers do not make good leaders, managers or administrators. I thought we have seen umpteenth examples of academics with proven track records who manage and run highly successful mega fund generating research projects. We do not have to look far to see examples of such in our own or neighbouring universities. Likewise, there have been strongly grounded academics/intellectuals who have run major companies and nation states (see examples in the US, UK, Germany, the Netherlands etc etc...)

John Mendy, you are referring to Western countries. Though the joke is circulated in Western contexts, the situation is much clearer in the East. Could the problem have political implications Like power conflict? Or is it related more to the type of capacities, and turn of mind of the intellectuals on one hand and leaders on the other?

Politics has many doors to enter but academics has only one: intelligence and scholarship in a chosen field. Politics requires manipulation of men and academics calls for an understanding of men and material. A politician must be skilled in the art of compromise, and where it fails, the ruthlessness to eliminate. Academicians would hardly fit in the shoes of a politician.

In my opinion, in order to hold administrative leadership or political positions, a person must know the field he or she aspires to work in. In other words, it is not enough to be a good scientist in a certain area if you do not know the political or leadership aspect or scope of a company. To hold these positions, the person must have knowledge, planning, strategies and above all vision of the position he or she is going to hold.

Wilmer Lopez , thanks. So you are talking about some necessary prior training to successfully engage in such leadership positions. In my setting, there is a view that sees administrative roles in opposition to academic caliber. Here, in order to be "successful" in your administration you should be obedient to your superiors; a trait that is not so close to academic individuality and supposed freedom of expression.

Muthana Makki Mohammedali

If you are partly right, there can be a very productive scientist in his research in a certain area of any science, but managing a company whose principles and levels of production are different from his activity as a scientist, implies training because the two activities have different principles, different strategies, for example in my case I would not know how to manage a food production company for example, I would have to learn the field of trade and production as it is of a different nature than what I usually do.

Muthana Makki Mohammedali

Dear Researcher,

You know, what surprises me is that man created academic knowledge and research so that good quality political leadership and administrators could be produced. Today it is believed that people from these worlds cannot produce good quality politicians and administrators from out of themselves. And, if it is so then I think the very purpose of academics and research are not getting fulfilled. If the purposes of these are not getting fulfilled, then lets stop these. Let us get ready to be ruled by fools and goons.

I think that if we need to carry on with this civilization it is necessary for us to push people from academics and research towards political leadership and administration.

Thank you.

Best regards,

Anamitra.

You are right, this bitter destiny is living on Earth right now.

The leaders of every century from the past, those who got their names written in gold letters in history, Aliya İzzetbekoviç, Benazir Bhutto, Yasser Arafat, Muhammed Mursi, John F. Kennedy, Saddam Hüseyin, Gazi ATATÜRK, Recep TAYYİP ERDOĞAN, will definitely go out and take their place in the history scene.

Leaders do not come out with impulse, they are leaders with their hearts and fates.

Just like TRTAJANS Salih KURT :)

There is a related phenomenon that I'll call "turf protection", for want of a better phrase. I've witnessed it in several small non-research agricultural or technical colleges in which the staff consisted of individuals with only bachelors degrees and/or an appropriate nonacademic background. These people seem to be afraid to hire qualified PhDs even in areas (e.g. basic writing skills) that have nothing directly to do with their own teaching areas.

Karl Pfeifer , I appreciate the honesty in your answer. So it's human rather than related to a specific social setting!

Hermann Gruenwald , Who are "those"? I'd appreciate some clarification.

Leaders are made not born. Most renowned leaders emerge from wealthier backgrounds where leadership values are embedded within them and social contacts do the rest. In the present day, Boris Johnson and Trump are examples of that. Some leaders move up through the system and are more inclined subsequently to the status qua. Hitler and Mussolini, as well as the chorus line of petty and not so petty tyrants around the world, emerged in specific conditions. If there was a proper, existing categorising (most are based on real or supposed psychological traits) then there would probably be about half a dozen clearly defined roads towards leadership. The point: leaders are never radically different to anyone else and it is what they have in common with those around them that marks them out..

Stanley Wilkin , that's a quite interesting and sharp note on the role of wealth and social connections. If true, how frustrating for the underprivileged. I'm just thinking loudly here: Is this then what leadership promoting programs implicitly looking for when selecting their program candidates?! Well, they do enquire about one's ability to network and get engaged with community related goals but I'm not sure about the being wealthy part.

Muthana, ask everyone here about their background and look at biographies. I know of only one academic on here whose background was not well-to-do, no matter how that is described.

Think:

Hannibal, Napoleon, Churchill, Picasso, Kennedy. It is not written in stone but social opportunities stem from social background. In British politics recent PMs have come from the aristocracy (Cameron), middle class combined with Eton (Johnson), previous leaders Blair and Brown were middle class and Corbyn went to private school. Read Lucky Jim by Kingsley Amis. Nevertheless, the same process can be found in America.

I suggested that the important point about leaders was what they shared or had in common with followers or possible followers. Aspiration might be the key, but equally racism or a desire for riches. The structure of the political environment creates leaders. French and American revolutionaries-lawyers, and other entitled types.

This is not written in stone, and anomalies occur , but by and large, yes.

Stanley Wilkin : You say that certain structures (including the political environment) create leaders. Do systems mean it then when they say that they aim at providing opportunities regardless of one's color, race, religion, and sexual orientation? The systems I have in mind are international development programs that target international audience who would of course want their selected candidates to have the potential of being future leaders.

i know very few people who start from a low base and make it. I know a few millionaires who claim they did it by themselves, but in fact were given start ups by parents or relatives. Doctors come from the same class, or as I suggest, caste-sons and daughters following parents into medicine. Its a circle. elsewhere today i referenced London a few centuries ago where the wealthy lived in the west end of the city and the poor lived say half a mile away, near enough to provide services but not to mix with. Although generations can change who is successful, the processes remain the same. If circumstances artificially induce progress, some will get through.

Mohammedali hello. In many countries life France for example. Leaders and politicians are graduated from prestigious universities. A good politician could be a good researcher.

Hi Zied Ben Amor , what if those "good politicians" got there only because they came from well-off, influential families rather than because of their personal merits as Stanley Wilkin implied?

Worth noting Muthana, it takes probably ten times the effort for lower status groups to reach a high social position, especially in static societies, and once there many will assume the privileges of the class they reach. A few break through. On here only myself and one other person came from the working class. I for example faced enormous class resistance based on notions of class exceptionality.

My work on psychiatry demonstrates a profusion of psychiatrists from the highest class levels and I suggest paradigms that reflect that. Intelligence is identified with class if members of the same class acquire high positions.

I would that it is just the opposite; think if our former (US) president had an education as well. "What a difference a day makes"!

LS

Lou Schmitt , the opposite in what sense?

Stanley Wilkin ,

I wonder whether social classes have to do with obedience to the law, social intelligence, and/or the ability to work around the rules (no offence intended). I myself come from a working class background.

OK, an educated individual with a sense of responsibilty that moves beyond ego. These kind of people do not grow on trees (far and few between). Instead, we end up with groups that claim they have these attributes. How to get around this problem; I have no idea.

LS

Muthana Makki Mohammedali

Most of them, as far as I know, come from middle-class families.

Ok Muthana, yes in the way of developing normalcy codes. In some of my papers I claim that psychiatry is building up normalcy codes with a connection to Judaic moral codes such as original sin, and controlling populations in that fashion. Apparantly, a sure sign of mental illness is rebellion-from authority groups like itself. Schools encourage certain ways of behaving rather than explore behaviour.

If you read Exodus and Deuteronomy (Hebrew Bible) you will see that its codes are related to middling classes etc with homes and servants.

Zied Ben Amor, Notice that the gentlemen colleagues here , as much as I know, come from capitalist countries. Socialist countries, on the other hand, do support their citizens to get good or prestigious education, bearing in mind that their criteria for who should receive such support is not always based on personal intellectual capacity, correct me if I'm wrong. Again, no offence intended.

Man that's a thorny issue!

Muthana, under communism if you were a member of a the party, yes. Just another elite.

Capitalist countries do support the education of their population. It is anyway necessary in a society based on high technology factors. But the resources of a student or parents still play their part.

Many new universities were created in the UK creating competition over resources , which led to seeking students beyond the UK's borders. Massive corruption occurred amongst private colleges set up mainly for illegal migrants.

Recently in the UK, as a consequence of Covid 19, many students were awarded grades allocated by a government ap. This focused on past school records, far worse in poor than affluent areas. Many students from poor areas but with otherwise splendid results got poor grades and failed to get into top universities.

The UK government has since rectified this.

But whether in communist, capitalist or any other kind of society you have elite biases that allow average students to get good degrees. But to be honest, Muthana, the handling of language and argument or the capacity to relate to technology is learned and the connection to intelligence overrated.

It is rational rather than absolute due to high personal variations, characteristics, and personality traits.