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

The aim of every educational institution and parent is, or at least ought to be, to prepare children to one day live out their dreams and to support themselves and those with whom they live. Most schools and parents teach the fundamental concepts a child must know to thrive in today's modern world, from arithmetic to calculus, the alphabet to literary analysis. But it is increasingly important that, from a young age, children also learn a sense of both cooperation and competition. The prompt argues that the best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation but not competition. I mostly agree with this statement; indeed, cooperation is a key virtue, but competition can also give a budding leader an important leg-up.

Every individual is different, each having his or her own strengths, weaknesses, and dreams. Adam Smith, often considered the "Father of Capitalism," recognized this about the human race many centuries ago. He called, therefore, for economic specialization. Rather than depending on oneself to harvest food, build tools, and protect his or her own belongings, people should instead specialize in the things which they most enjoy and at which they are the most skilled. One who loves to bake, then, should open a bakery; one who enjoys construction may become a carpenter. In this way, both the baker and the carpenter support each other, even though they may work separately, because the baker needs someone to build him a house, and the carpenter needs someone to bake his bread. Today's modern western world is built on many of Smith's capitalistic teachings, and specialization is one that has remained particularly relevant. Those who wish to hold leadership positions in such a world must learn to trust and depend on others -- put more succinctly, to cooperate with others.

Many of today's most successful firms were catalyzed by multiple founders, and nearly all have several layers of cooperative management and supervision. Google (now Alphabet) is one famous example. Google was founded in the 1990s by two tech-minded entrepreneurs. In line with Smith's teaching, each brought his own skills to the table, multiplying the firm's potential and productivity. Today, Alphabet is one of the most valuable firms in the world, and Google Search has billions of users. Even after its founding, Alphabet, like many other top firms, depends on a layered management structure to ensure maximum output. A clear hierarchy exists within the company, and each group under a certain manager is seen as a department or team. Like in sports, each member of the team must work together for a common goal: the success of the company and the improvement of its products and services. Leaders of these teams must be particularly cooperative, as they work interactively with several subordinates and report to their leaders. Only by working cooperatively are these teams and managers able to deliver the best work and achieve the most meaningful impact.

I condede, though, that it is at times important to be competitive. When Americans think of leaders, one of the first images that may spring to mind is their local congressman or senator, or perhaps the President or Vice-President of the United States. Indeed, each of these public servants competed for the right to serve the nation in an election, often giving speeches, making television appearances, or making local campaign stops. Such a competition is critical for ensuring the people's voices are heard, but it deviates somewhat from the otherwise cooperative nature of the leaders' role. Of course, once elected, each public servant ought to work cooperatively with his or her colleagues in Congress or the Executive Branch to carry out the desires of his or her constituents. But getting to the point where one may lead, in this case, does require competition. As such, young people should learn competition in addition to cooperation, and they should be shown how to balance these conflicting yet complementary ideals.

Both cooperation and competition are necessary for leadership, and a society's young people should learn an appropriate balance of both skillsets if they wish to prepare for leadership later in life. As time progresses and the western world grows increasingly interconnected by television and digital life, it can appear as though we are becoming more siloed in our thinking and generally less cooperative. Such a troubling appearance is, fortunately, only partially true. On a large swath of issues, Americans remain able to speak intelligently and come to cordial agreements. With an increased focus on teaching cooperation among young people, there is more to come