The parenting style that creates leaders

we can see this with popularity itself, which has changed over the past century in the (american) culture from emphasizing capability to emphasizing confidence (with the concomitant rise of mass media and the concentration of mass attention and esteem).

Why? That only seems like it would be nice in a world where leadership skills and confidence are rare, and thus it's a "seller's market" for people with those skills, where people might have to settle for just picking a leader because they are good at leadership, regardless of whether they are wise. (Which is, admittedly, the world we live in now.)

However, in a world/cultural zeitgeist where leadership and confidence are commonly-cultivated attributes (like conscientiousness is in today's world: something inculcated by parents, teachers, media, etc.), most people would have that attribute, making most people potential leaders — and thus there would be a "buyer's market" for leaders. Leadership ability could be taken as pure table-stakes, and leaders would be selected first-and-foremost on their wisdom/capability/etc.

It is exactly the focus of the article, taken forward, that would make such a world come to pass.

Better to read some biographies of great leaders so at least you have a good view of the original data. Here is one for starters:

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/05/those-who-hav...

A leader cannot have one without the other. If you've spend any time amongst high academic performers, many of these folks have "developing the substance, breadth, and judgement", but not nearly as many have the confidence to apply these skills as leaders.

All to say your comment is spot-on.

I guess this is because it dovetails with common experience. A leader these days doesn't have to have subject knowledge, he has connections and charisma and knows where to find experts that work for him. Just look at Elon Musk.

That's a good question I've been pondering for a while and still don't have a great answer for.

I think some of it is that one degenerate form of leadership is to conflate it with authority, and a lot of people's experience with "leadership" is simply to receive orders.

I actually would call what you describe as the ideal form of management, which is not leadership either. An ideal manager is not simply an authority user/abuser, but someone who clears obstacles out of the way and works to enhance the ones they are managing's skills, but ideally, only a bit of authority is deployed, and a manager may in fact exhibit no leadership at all. (For instance, corporate goals may simply come from higher up, or market pressures, or things other than "leadership" per se.)

(There are also degenerate cases where raw, naked authority is in fact necessary and extensively used; I'm sure a lot of us worked a job at McDonalds or some rough equivalent and have memories of how much it was based on authority... fewer of us have experiences of managing in that environment and being directly exposed to the fact that it is just the only way to make it work, however distasteful you may find that fact.)

For me, leadership should be reserved for the cases in which one is visibly leading, e.g., you start a new initiative somewhere, gather up people to voluntarily follow you by a variety of non-coercive means, and then hold the group together in a variety of very context-sensitive means.

True leadership is rare. Authority is inescapable, good management is a gem to be treasured but still not that rare, but leadership is a rare thing. Most groups are held together by other bonds.

Halfway through the spot, host Gordon Ramsey (whom he was apparently trying to emulate) intervened and afterwards, the kid started saying things like, "Hey, let me know if you're having trouble with the panisse cakes; I can help you out as soon as I'm done with these string beans."

Good lesson for all of us.

I also take issue with the assumption that everybody ought to be a leader, or at least try to be one. Apart from this being quite obviously impossibly, it shows a distressing lack of appreciation for all those team members who do not „lead“.

Having lead multiple teams over the past years, I have become increasingly grateful for and respectful of team members who work quietly in the background, reliably doing jobs I often could not do myself. We do ourselves a major disservice when we only value those tasks which happen in the limelight. Having a good leader is important, but in a team that is only one task among many.

When my child was born I did an extensive research about what kind of books should I read which are baked by science and will teach me how to be a good parent and I read most of these books.

Then I found that - at least for me - it is very hard to apply what they are suggesting. Then I started to feel bad that I am not doing enough. I even paid time to talk with a paediatric psychologist to make sure that I was understanding the science of child development in the right way. And after a couple of sessions which were mostly going like this: I was going with a list of studies I read and questions I had about how to apply them and she explaining the big picture and where does fit or not. Until one day when she asked: "Did you watched your child? What does he want? What does he enjoy? Is he ready for this?"

And then (months later) I realised that by trying to apply all this things I was not myself and in the same time I was actually not paying attention to the child's own needs. I put a lot of stress to myself to the edge of burnout by reading and thinking all the time about this good parenting stuff. He is a full person which his own desires and forming his personality. Does not matter what I want him to be. I should offer the best that I can but in the direction that he wants to explore.

Now we go for a bike ride. Or play outside. Or read. Or do a paper rocket. Sometimes I help him dress, sometimes he wants to do it himself. But I don't have a plan of how the day will be. I still struggle with questions about my parenting style. But I try to be more aware of his personality.

Can you elaborate on this?

We are social animals so I guess this is behaviour that might be quite old. I'm going to go on a limb to conjecture that coddled kids aren't as productive, resilient or resourceful as their headstrong counterparts. Could it be possible in old times that "the society" needed resourceful and headstrong young people over those who can hardly wipe their own arse without their mother, especially in unstable political groupings (from clans to villages to cities to provinces to nation states)?

But the kind of helicoptering in the article is basically coddling a child to oblivion regardless of age which hampers the development of said child's potential. No one said anything about perfection. No one ever has. That's the unreasonable and impossible standard an emotionally unstable parent(s) may strive for thereby overcompensating on some imaginary 'specialness' in their children.

I personally do believe causation is more likely here, but I cannot be sure based on the study.

Speaking from experience and having debrainwashed myself from said mindset.

But leadership is a good ability to have even if you don't care about career success or money at all. Any kind of endeavor needs leaders, not just money-making endeavors. Suppose there's a problem that could be solved if volunteers banded together to do it. Who's going to initiate that, organize them, and make it happen? A leader.

Leaders usually make more money compared to others and lets be honest here, more money you have the more successful you are.

For example, you could have a non-leadership position at your day job, but lead local neighborhood’s landscaping initiatives, or organize a hobby club, or lead a guild in an online game, or participate in local elections, or record and sell online paid math courses.

Literally everybody can be a leader, there’s no shortage of leadership positions.

I believe that it is impossible for any group of people to work together without some form of leadership taking place. I also believe that the bigger the task, the more important it becomes to have good coordination and leadership.

Of course, that‘s not to say that there aren‘t plenty of „leaders“ out there who‘s idea of their job is to „get other people to do things for you“.