The best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership in government industry or other fields is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation not competition Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree wi

The proposed claim calls into question the issue of whether preparation of youths for leadership roles should be geared towards a collaborative and cooperative leadership structure, or a competitive hierarchy. An economist might liken this issue to a decision between choosing communism and capitalism, all for one or one for all. I strongly agree with the claim, that leadership training ought to be collaborative rather than competitive, and would support my stance with three points.
To start with, cooperation, rather than competition, can improve the overall efficiency of the organization when the skills and expertise of these leaders differe widely. The typical company has its different divisions like marketing, finance, operations, HR, etc. Being a great leader in one of these divisions does not guarantee that one would do well in any of the other divisions. In fact, being a great leader in roles like these typically requires one to have narrowed down their field of specialization, and honed the skills necessary to both excel and lead in that division. With these divisions requiring different subject expertise, it is very unlikely that skills gained in marketing will be transferrable to managing the finances of an organization. Scenarios like this occur frequently in government and industry. Cooperative leadership would be one's best approach to maximizing the input of these different stakeholders towards achieving common goals.
Furthermore, we cannot ignore the fact that a toxic working atmosphere is generally more harmful than beneficial. Competitive leadership tends to heighten hostilities and the need to one-up your colleagues so as to advance personal interests. This selfish inclination was pretty self-evident in the Wall Street economic collapse of the 1980s. The worsening inflation, housing crunch, and stalling economy should have been cause for a more concerted and cooperative decision-making. Instead, every broker and financial institution kept trying to grab as much as they could. We all know how that went, waking up one morning to worthless stocks and tanking corporations. The congenial cooperation that would have averted this tragedy had to be forcefully imposed by government and the Security Exchange Commission (SEC) in order to salvage what was left behind in the ruins of this cash grab.
Finally, no man can lay claim to being an island of knowledge. By instilling in youths a sense of cooperation, blindspots in one leader's judgement and perspective can be augmented by his or her colleagues. History will forever look kindly on the founding fathers of America, who banded together, contributing their different expertises to draft a constitution that brought together factions that had previously been warring under conflicting leadership and differing ideologies. America is great today because of the holistic nature of the constitution, drafted by men with different experiences and expertises, both working together to create a lasting structure for progress.
A case might be made for how a competitive leadership structure allows for rapid upward movement of capable leaders., resulting in the most positive trajectory of any organization with such a structure. However, this increases the tendency for vicious and bitter rivalry that could tear down the organization they are so eagerly trying to lead.
In conclusion, cooperative leadership has more to offer than a competitive style of leadership, as it allows knowledge and experience to be maximally utilised, and promotes camaraderie and congenial working conditions for all involved.