What Writing Thousands of Term Papers For Cheating Students Taught Me About Leadership Education

Why you’re failing as a leader — and might not know or care.

Bing AI Generated Photo

The problem starts long before college, but college is an easy starting point. There, in the halls of knowledge, both digital and brick and mortar, the study of business, nursing, management, or any subject, at some point, turns to leadership. Throughout these years, higher education, theories, case studies, and, of course, scenario-based learning assignments will impart ethical, effective leadership. I know this to be true because I spent the last decade running a term paper business, and regardless of subject, countless papers came with directions like these:

· You’re the CEO of a major corporation, and you need to determine if your research and development team is effective…
· Your company has just undergone a costly discrimination suit, and you want to alter policies to ensure this never happens again…
· You need to choose members for your change management team. How will you choose the team members?

Interestingly enough, those thousands of directions never stated,

• You’ve been hired as an assistant manager, and the manager dumps work on you, never listens to your suggestions, and tries to blame every mistake on you. What do you do?

• You just started a small landscaping company with one employee, and you think he’s on drugs, but you can’t find anyone to do the job for such low pay. How do you keep him from going on a bender when you need him the most?

• You just got hired at a technology company as an account representative, and it’s your job to speak to customers intending to break their service contracts. How do you keep the customer from becoming irate and leaving horrific reviews on the BBB and Yelp when you tell them they signed a two-year contract and cannot get out of it?

Readily seen is the ill-preparedness for the business world beyond college caused by the education system’s assumption concerning leadership. Universities formulate curriculum assuming these fine students have what it takes to be leaders since they earned entrance to the university, which is like saying, if you can step up to the bar and order the beer, you are old enough to drink it.

Bar wisdom aside, it would also contradict the school’s mission to teach people they are unlikely to become leaders or that the school cannot make them one. You will never hear a college recruiter tell a family, “Well, here at Big U, we produce the finest office cubicle workers, low-level supervisors, technologists working for peanuts, and writers who wait tables.”

Big U produces only leaders.

This oversimplified view of leadership, hard-boiled in self-interest, becomes part of every college business or management-oriented curriculum, never from the practical leadership perspective but rather from some lofty place in the corporate Nirvana the average and above average college grad is unlikely to achieve.

Why There Is Bad Leadership

Surprisingly, college grads actually believe what they learned and leave school armed with a diploma and faith in their leadership skill. Why wouldn’t they? Many of them paid for this knowledge, and in many instances, for someone like me to to perform the work. After being told since day one of their education that they are the next leaders of enterprises, they reek of confidence.

Imagine the shock when Pharma Bro shows up to run the show because Dad’s connections made him the boss of the pharmaceutical company where the grad now answers phones.

If the assumption of leadership potential only caused shock, everyone would laugh and point to universities, saying, “There are academics, and then there’s the real world.” Yet, this reality jolt causes no laughter nor wisdom. Since the only thing a person knows is what they are taught, the overqualified worker, and even some of these shocked aspiring yuppies who managed to make management positions or open businesses, now believe the same assumptions for the same reason of self-interest that the university held, continuing the long line of poor leadership.

Make no mistake! This is poor leadership because the lucky Pharma Bros, the slightly less-lucky supervisors hired out of college, and overqualified workers believe the myth they rose or will rise to leadership through their effort and diligent application of knowledge their diplomas prove they possess.

Like the guy who got handed millions of dollars by his dad and became the worst president in history yet remains in a delusion of leadership excellence, even as he is sued and fights multiple criminal charges, so too the grad believes he is a leader.

Self-interest keeps the executive dream alive. Call it hope or the simple fact that there is no benefit in admitting the farse of your education or leadership skills. Looking around, the seniority endurance test becomes obvious. If you play the game long enough, you will likely ascend to some level of leadership, which is better than not ascending, and your delusion of leadership remains unchallenged. The fantasy of leading explains why the world has so many terrible leaders, surmised in the simple axiom: while bad leadership harms everyone, buying leadership’s bullshit benefits the believer.

It can even make you president — although a bad one.

Leaders Who Do Not Lead

The good leader delusion manifests in the belief that one actually leads. Most leaders do not lead as much as they enforce policies and rules. (Some call this babysitting.) They came into their position through credentials, circumstance, or luck, not by creating a vision and attracting followers. All the way up the ladder, the CEO leads, not with vision but with derivative cost-cutting, corporate buyouts, or takeover strategies. The Boardroom leaders, also delusional about their leadership, judge the CEO by his ability to drive up company stock value, which benefits the CEO since he is paid mostly in dividends, and then declare the CEO a great leader. If increasing company value through cost-cutting, layoffs, takeovers, and buying similar enterprises is a vision, then anyone who stopped eating out or decided to mow the lawn rather than pay the kid down the street is a business visionary.

Good Leaders Possess No Definitive Set of Skills or Traits

Skill testing and trait measurements bloom from leadership theories, which do not dissuade those who believe leaders are born. If leadership genetically forms, why teach people to become leaders? If skills or traits constituted a quality leader, profiles for hiring could be created. Along with skills and traits, contingency and situational theories dictate leadership is determined best by the circumstance. Theoretically, leaders should be fitted to the job or the job fitted to them. If these theories were entirely true, then specific training for leaders could be designed or specific skill sets determined in relation to situations.

You cannot separate leadership from circumstance. The two conditions are intrinsically tied, such that what makes the person a leader is inclusive of how their traits, personality, and skill interact with circumstance, environment, education, etc. Asking what makes a good leader is similar to asking what makes a skilled painter. Picasso was a master painter, but so was Leonardo, and both radically differ in skill, personality traits, and life circumstances.

Indoctrinating students with the belief they will be future leaders (especially industry captains) is a bad idea since, as mentioned, it is impractical and unrealistic, but also because it’s simply not true due to circumstances. It’s a disservice to teach students and reinforce the inevitable leadership future because this assumes they have whatever disposition necessary, regardless of circumstances.

No one knows if a student will be a good leader. Nothing exists beyond their school record or activity involvement to indicate this outcome. In fact, most high-achieving students don’t become CEOs. Just because a person captained a football team and earned straight As does not prove business leadership potential or academic study since their future leadership roles have not tested them.

The more appropriate lesson teaches students, all students, they may someday be challenged with a leadership position, and if this occurs, how will they react and interact with peers, subordinates, the public, customers, and many other stakeholders. Leadership education should center on building rapport with fellow workers for future strength, positioning oneself in the most optimal circumstance to lead, or leveraging human capital for problem-solving. More importantly, shouldn’t leadership training be focused on practicality and realistic scenarios? For example,

· You are the new drive-thru cashier at a highly successful fast-food chain; how will you make your boss look bad and steal his position?
· You are working at a technology company writing code, but you are constantly interrupted by team meetings. How will you complete your work without spending all day and night staring at the screen? What corners can you cut?
· You are the new manager of the retail software division, and you need to get sales moving, or you will lose your job.

Well, maybe not that realistic, but you get my drift.