In the day and age where education has become increasingly valued and necessary for leadership in professional fields, competition has also been on the rise. Take medical school residency match programs, for example. The match program is a computer-based system that, although many qualified applicants apply in, few match into. Therefore, competition for a diminutive amount of spots has increased. However, as the prompt states, the best way for society to prepare its young people for leadership in fields such as government and industry is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation, not competition. I strongly agree with this claim for three reasons.

First of all, cooperation is a necessary component that a leader should possess because a remarkable leader should be relying on the team to effectively ensure the person in charge is adequately supporting and voicing the needs of the people. Martin Luther King Jr. is a great example of a leader who used cooperation to gain traction for the civil rights movements. Martin Luther King Jr was just one man, but by working together with other activists as well as common people, his vision was implemented by many and he was more successful. Had he been competitive instead, he might not have been able to collaborate with people from various regions to further the civil rights movement. Gandhi was another powerful leader who used collaboration to peacefully protest the injustices against the Indian people. Had Gandhi chosen to be competitive and not been a voice of the people, his movement possibly would have been unsuccessful. As a result, cooperation is a vital quality each leader should possess.

Secondly, cooperation helps so leaders can learn from others. In competition, every man is for himself and helping others is seen as a foolish thing to do. It was due to competition that Adolf Hitler wanted to create a racially pure state and perpetuated his anti-semitism agenda. He was a leader of the Nazi Party who caused millions of innocent deaths. Had he been more cooperative and not relied on competition, he might have learned earlier that his competitive nature was only going to be his downful and he could have turned his competition into collaboration to learn more about acceptance of others. While this is a rather extreme example, the point is still made that cooperation can foster learning.

I do concede, however, that healthy competition can help make a leader strong. Engaging in healthy competition makes a leader recognize his or her strengths and capitalize on them. However, cooperation can very well do the same thing. Cooperating with others means that each person brings his or her best qualities to the forefront. Where one leader might lack in one area, another leader can help, and vice versa. For example, there are three branches in our U.S. government where the three groups of leaders work on their respective strengths and rely on cooperation from others to effectively lead the government. If President Obama was always in competition, instead of collaboration, with the Senate or House of Representatives, then compromises would never be reached and laws would take a longer time to get approval. Therefore, cooperation itself is more than sufficient for a leader to recognize his or her strengths.

As young minds are continuously being molded, it is important to instill a sense of cooperation in them instead of competition. Cooperation is necessary to voice the opinions of the people, it fosters an environment to learn, and can help the leader to capitalize on his or her strengths. Therefore, a leader can become a better version of themselves through cooperation.