Leadership Ability in Children--Bane or Blessing?

This is the second post in response to the child training information request in a blog comment.

Leadership ability is a positive way of describing what could be described accurately in far less complimentary terms, especially in its childhood manifestations. I've seen both the positive aspects and the negative ones in my own children and in other people's children.

I remember the time Hiromi made it a point to ride herd on the children after church after he repeatedly observed one little boy hitting, kicking, or otherwise bullying other children. The child's parents were somewhat aware of their son's offensive behavior, but seemed to Hiromi to be far more inclined to comment on his drive and ambition than to deal with or prevent his roughshod treatment of playmates. Hiromi observed that the little boy was often made to apologize, but not punished in any way for hurting others.

I think it's fair to say that leadership ability when manifested in childhood often looks a lot like meanness and disregard for others. These are serious character flaws, and if they are not nipped in the bud, these children are likely to grow up being the kind of leader others have no desire to follow. They will not have the heart of a servant leader unless something changes.

Meanness (physically hurting others) deserves punishment, every time. Apologies are in order as well, but should not take the place of punishment.

Disregard for others may be handled a little differently. Think of the difference between a sin of omission and a sin of commission and you'll see that meanness and disregard for others can be differentiated similarly. Disregard for others can be addressed by direct instruction and insistence on remedial behavior. For example, you may observe your child hoarding all his toys and refusing to share with others. What you might do in such a situation is say something like "It's important for everyone to be fair when children play together. It's not fair for you to have this many toys when Johnny has no toys. Johnny needs more toys and you need fewer. I want you to give Johnny _______ (number) of your toys to play with." By explaining the rationale for what you're asking for in the presence of all the children, you're seizing a teachable moment that might benefit everyone, and you're setting the stage for dealing with any future conflicts involving the same people. Be sure to stick around till you see that the right number of toys have been transferred to the other child's possession. After that, if your child does not "play fair" by hoarding toys again (within a reasonable time frame), he may be placing himself in the category of the "commission sins" that call for punishment.

To digress a bit. . . . I'm a big fan of using simple syntax (i.e. simple sentences) in speaking to children. However, I idealize avoiding childish tones or language. I also don't ask if they would do something that I consider non-optional. I tell them I want them to do so, or they need to do so. I don't hesitate to use vocabulary that is above their heads, making any explanation necessary until they understand the terms. "Fair" for example, is an abstract concept to all young children, but after you've made the above explanation, the child who hears it will understand at least that "fair" means having equal numbers of toys. You'll keep expanding on this concept in many ways as the child grows. It will, for example, also come to mean things like the child helping Mom with simple cleanup chores and then Mom helping the child play, or dividing gifts among friends equitably, or playing with other children without being overly selective about who they play with.

Just to keep my children on their toes, I sometimes threw in a word that was waaaaay above their heads. That always got their attention, and prompted a question that provided a perfect opportunity for another "teachable moment."

A child who loves to dominate probably needs practice in empathizing with others. Here's how I might handle that: Imagine that my child is named Charlie. Charlie has a playmate named Johnny. Out of my sight something has happened, and Johnny is crying. I might say something to Charlie like "I see Johnny is crying. I wonder why. Do you know why?" If no confessions or useful information are forthcoming, I might say something like "Usually when people cry, they've been hurt, or they're sad or angry. Is he hurt? Is he sad? Is he angry?(However many questions it takes to get to the bottom of the problem.) Did you do something that made him feel that way?" (I would do all this in the presence of everyone involved.) If Charlie still doesn't offer any information, I'd ask the other children and any adults what they saw. If it turns out that Charlie has kicked Johnny, I would take Charlie somewhere else to talk further with him about times when he has felt hurt just like Johnny feels right now. I would punish Charlie with a timeout or a spanking. Charlie gets to rejoin the playing when he is ready to apologize to Johnny--not before.

Another negative characteristic in children who are natural leaders is a tendency to manipulate. I had seen closeup how destructive such a habit could be when it was continued into adulthood, and I determined early on that I would not allow our son, who was a natural leader, to go unchallenged in that department. When I saw him do it, usually to his younger brother, I called it by its name and made sure he and his younger brother understood that this was not acceptable behavior. I think I would have said something like this: "I saw you being manipulative just now. You wanted ___________ and you made sure you got it. You were being selfish and unkind when you did that. You're not allowed to act like this. You need to treat other people fairly (kindly--whatever fits)." Then I would see to it that whatever unfair advantage the manipulative child gained would be reversed so that things would be equitable again. Repeat as often as necessary, being sensitive to the omission/commission difference as time goes on.

The way to encourage proper leadership ability is to give your child choices among equally acceptable options. This is very different than allowing him or her to call the shots in one of the categories that truly involve child-in-need-of-training matters. A child can sometimes be put in charge of accomplishing certain tasks with siblings or other children helping. This is best done by talking about it ahead of time, perhaps even involving role playing. For example, "Charlie, I'm going to put you in charge of cleaning up the living room. Timmy and Missy will help you. How will you get them to help you?" At this stage you can head off plans like "I'll let Timmy pick up all the toys and Missy will put away all the books. I'll sit here on the couch and watch to see that they do it right." "Fairness" can be cited again, etc., and when a plan is agreed on, let the child's leadership ability shine, with a servant's heart in evidence as well.

To summarize--I am not overawed by children with natural leadership ability, and I think the need to control its negative manifestations is more critical than the need to promote and protect the tendency. Its survival is practically insured if the most commonly associated character flaws are sorted out and addressed, and children are given real, important work, and opportunity to interact with other children and adults. I think the best possible context for this to happen is at home, in a family--with multiple siblings, if possible. If not, then in homes with children and parents from other families present, ocassionally, at least.

Although I'm sure I don't know all that has happened, I do know that our natural-leader child has been considered a valuable employee wherever he has worked. One employer has cited his competence in accomplishing tasks, as well as his ability to inspire others to be productive and enthusiastic. I know that this is not because we or he have always done things right, but it is first of all, possible because of the Lord's mercy. Right choices on his part and right actions on our part are always good, but never enough by themselves to insure a good outcome.