Deborah Hill Cone: Curiosity key to leaders' success

Students should be taught to use words with intent.

I'm sorry I can't contribute anything to the nation's gripping dialogue about rugby. Well done, All Blacks! Good job! - That's all I can offer.

But the Rugby World Cup win did make me reflect, in a bit of a dazzling glimpse into the obvious, that not everyone can be a great leader like Richie McCaw. You would think most people would be aware of the truth of this statement, wouldn't you? Apparently not.

We have just gone through the process of looking at school options for next year. One Auckland private school describes its role, on its website, as helping all its students to develop into "great young leaders". What does this even mean? How can all of its students be leaders? Who are they going to be leading? Or is this just a meaningless slogan and not meant to be taken literally?

Is the word leadership a glib stand-in for something that everyone can do, like "recognising your own gifts"? If so, it is a non-meaning: the dictionary says to be a leader is to be "one who is in charge of others". If it is not meant to be taken literally, then the slogan is objectionable for an entirely different reason: it is intellectually dishonest.

Students should be taught to use words with intent, not as cute-sounding but empty Orwellian contrivances. Or, to put it more plainly, lies. Alternatively, the declaration about making "great young leaders" may be code for something that dare not be said more clearly as it is actually deeply offensive; that this particular school is full of children of the elite and so its students are going to go on to lives in which they lead followers from less-fancy schools.

The words are a cipher for a gratuitous proclamation of entitlement. (Perhaps at this juncture you will forgive me for pointing out something else which is glaringly obvious: the better you feel about yourself the less you feel the need to show off. )

I'm not the only one who is puzzled about the use of the word leader. "When colleges promise to make their students leaders, they're telling them they're going to be in charge," William Deresiewicz wrote in the September issue of Harper's magazine.

There is magical thinking in the idea that we can all be a leader; akin to telling everyone to line up but all to be at the front of the line. But despite being clearly bogus, the concept is alarmingly widespread. Commentator Mike Myatt in Forbes magazine writes: "Your job is to create leadership ubiquity.

"The most successful organisations are ones in which everyone views themselves as a leader."

This sounds admirable but is also downright bonkers. Needless to say, I did not choose this school. Rather than learning to lead, I would prefer my children to be encouraged to show characteristics which apply to everyone, by virtue of being human, such as being curious. The ability to observe without evaluating may be the highest form of intelligence. This is harder than you might think. Children are born with innate curiosity, but sadly they also learn to stop asking "why?"

Because you might think curiosity is encouraged, but really it's not. In his book A Curious Mind, film producer Brian Glazer (he made A Beautiful Mind and Apollo 13, among other films) argues curiosity isn't really celebrated and cultivated in our culture, even though we mouth the words that suggest it is.

"Curiosity can be dangerous. Curiosity isn't just impertinent. It's insurgent. It's revolutionary," Glazer says.

The child who feels free to ask why the sky is blue grows up into the adult who asks more disruptive questions. "Why am I the serf and you the king?" If you stay curious, that means you are thinking for yourself. And maybe, as a by-product, you might be a leader.

Or not. To have led his team Richie McCaw must have stayed curious. In the words of Irish novelist James Stephens: "Curiosity will conquer fear even more than bravery will."