How can SYLFF steering committees assist in promoting the SYLFF Prize? In nominating graduated or currently enrolled SYLFF fellows? Are any difficulties anticipated?

　

The group attempted to identify universalities of leadership and shared values pertaining to leadership. It immediately became clear to the group that the word "leader" has different meanings in different countries. There are also countries, such as Austria, where the word "leader" has slightly negative connotations. As a result, the notion of contingency was brought up: leadership is historically, socially, and culturally contingent. In other words, in different countries and under different circumstances, different qualities are required. A person becoming a leader in one country, may not become a leader in another country. The group also noted that leaders have usually acquired a certain position because they happened to be in the right place at the right moment.

　

The group then went on to look for universal qualities that may help people become leaders. Academic excellence is a vital quality for every SYLFF fellow, but this is certainly not the only attribute that needs to be looked into. Other qualities include: capacity to serve other people, altruism, capacity for innovation, integrity, empathy, creativity, good communication skills, the ability to work with other people (team work), knowledge of the world and of other people, and esteem. In comparison to qualities that are easily measured (such as academic performance) all of the above features are not so easily measured.

　

Next, the group tried to discern how these attributes can best be made operational within the selection process at SYLFF institutions, i.e. how to determine whether an applicant will become a leader. The following examples were raised during the discussion: (1)involving external referees, individuals who know the candidate well, (2)asking candidates to submit their CVs in which they must indicate extra-curricular activities in which they have been involved, (3)during interviews, ask candidates their opinions on leadership and how leadership relates to their future careers. The group also agreed that SYLFF fellows should be required to submit progress reports in order to evaluate the progress of their work.

　

The initiative of introducing a SYLFF Prize was welcomed by the entire group. A SYLFF Prize would definitely pose many positive challenges. However, many questions remained unanswered, such as: (1)how often would the Prize be awarded, (2)would all SYLFF fellows be eligible, or would there be an age limit, and (3)would there be any specific categories of leaders that the Prize would be awarded to (e.g. political, academic, or business leaders).

　

The group first discussed the concepts of leaders and leadership. The group agreed that both concepts differ from region to region, but leadership is often associated with politics and confused with charisma. It is also important, they noted, to distinguish leaders from those who have substantial influence on society (e.g. inventors or artists can often have profound impact on society without ever becoming leaders). Opinions were voiced that gender and race should be considered when evaluating leadership, as well as how individuals react when faced with adversity. Also, SYLFF institutions should not have too high expectations as to the profile of future leaders they wish to foster-although top world leaders coming out of ranks of the SYLFF Program would be very welcome, expecting middle-range leaders is a more feasible goal. Regarding the issue of fostering leaders, opinion was voiced that it is more difficult to foster leaders who can effectively function in the international arena, as this kind of leadership requires training.

　

It was generally agreed that, within the context of the SYLFF Program, academic excellence is the primary criterion for leadership, as academic training is the main purpose of any university. It was also agreed, however, that academic performance does not necessarily equal intelligence and that other activities should be taken into consideration when evaluating candidates for SYLFF fellowships.

　

Next, the group discussed the SYLFF Program selection process. Out of 15 institutions represented in the group, two granted SYLFF fellowships to undergraduate students, 12 to master's students, eight to doctoral students, and one to postdoctoral students. Many of the institutions within the group said that, in the selection process, they looked for the quality defined as entrepreneurship or risk-taking. In evaluating this, the Steering Committees look for proof of participation in various student organizations or community service.

　

Next the group discussed the SYLFF Prize. The question was raised regarding how to identify leaders among leaders. It was also unclear what the Prize would be given for. Caroline Yang clarified that the purpose of the Prize was twofold: to raise the profile of the SYLFF Program, and to identify fellows who have positively utilized their leadership potential and made an important impact on society. An opinion was voiced that raising of SYLFF profile could and possibly should be done separately from the Prize. It was generally agreed that SYLFF fellowships ranked highly at most institutions, and that in many cases they enabled something that would otherwise be impossible. The group suggested a survey of fellows about how the foundation can support their endeavors after graduation.

　

The purpose of the small group discussion was to try to "develop a shared understanding of leaders and leadership" among the SYLFF-institutions. Therefore, the group used the analyses of the questionnaire summary prepared by Niels-Henrik Topp (refer to Appendix 8) as the basis of their discussion.

　

Responses from Question #2 shed light on the SYLFF-institutions' selection policy: academic performance and research proposals are considered most important. However, other criteria are also being taken into consideration, such as individual character and interpersonal skills. The fact that academic qualifications are the major factor in the selection process at most institutions must be borne in mind when discussing leaders and leadership.

　

The group agreed that being more specific about leaders and leadership in the selection process is difficult. First, this would require the answer to the question "leadership for what?" Secondly, leadership evolves gradually. The fact that applicants possess leadership potential does not necessarily mean that they will effectively utilize it; it must be acknowledged that no checklist for leadership selection exists.

　

If new fellows are chosen based on leadership-capacity, the selection committees might unintentionally influence the future; there is always the danger of selecting fellows whose abilities correspond to current understanding of leadership rather than on leaders that will be needed in the future. The definition of leadership may differ from institution to institution depending on the needs of the surrounding society.

　

The group recommended that the search for a unifying definition of "leaders and leadership" be abandoned and to allow individual SYLFF institutions to define their own leadership criteria. This will allow for diversity among the SYLFF institutions.

　

Instead, SYLFF institutions should focus on how to facilitate development of leadership taking into consideration that notions of leadership might differ from country to country. In addition to new programs presented at the meeting by the Scholarship Division, a proposal for local leadership workshops sponsored by the foundation was put forward during the discussion.

　

Group IV did not discuss the SYLFF Prize. Rather, it concentrated on defining leaders and leadership, as these two concepts are the core of the SYLFF Program, and defining these is crucial to further deliberation. Although the group found it difficult to define these two concepts, they decided to limit their discussion to practical aspects of leaders and leadership and agreed on several qualities necessary for leaders, ranging from vision, creativity, devotion to the task at hand, and ability to organize, to willingness to become and be a leader, which the group felt to be a crucial characteristic of leaders. It was generally agreed that it is difficult to make a positive judgment of someone's prospects to become a leader at the young age of 20-30.

　

With regards to the SYLFF selection process, some institutions expressed the opinion that academic excellence is the main criterion, whereas most institutions found academic excellence the minimum requirement, i.e. that other criteria need to be taken into account.

　

Group IV also discussed evaluation of the SYLFF Program. The criteria that surfaced as the main factor was career success. Although some institutions regularly conduct this kind of evaluation, it was generally agreed that it was too early to evaluate the SYLFF Program. However, once the evaluation is initiated, fellows should be involved.

　

Finally, the group recommended that the scope of the SYLFF Program, in terms of disciplines eligible for the Program, be expanded, i.e. to include disciplines outside the scope of the humanities and social sciences.

　

Given the 15-year history of the SYLFF Program and with more than 8,500 SYLFF fellows around the world, the Scholarship Division proposes the establishment of a SYLFF Prize in order to (1)recognize SYLFF fellows who have demonstrated outstanding leadership, and (2)promote the SYLFF Program through the promotion of the Prize.

　

Scholarship Division is contemplating the Prize under the following conditions:

　

Cycle: Up to three Prizes would be awarded every 3-5 years.　

Content: The Prize would consist of: a cash award amounting to US$5,000, a plaque, and two-week paid trip to Japan.

Eligibility: The Prize would be limited to SYLFF fellows (current or graduated).

　

Nomination/selection criteria: The Prize would be awarded to fellows who have: (a)shown outstanding performance in facilitating positive change in improving some aspect of the human condition, (b)demonstrated ability to translate vision and ideas into action and to think and act with wisdom on behalf of others, (c)inspired and motivated others, and (d)shown originality, creativity, character and integrity, and are a model for others.

　

Nominators: Nominations will be solicited from anyone in the "SYLFF family," such as SYLFF Steering Committees, individual faculty and staff at SYLFF institutions, SYLFF fellows, or student organizations at SYLFF institutions such as SYLFF alumni organizations.

　

Selections process: After receiving nominations, the Scholarship Division would prescreen nominations for eligibility. The nominations would then be sent to an independent and international SYLFF Prize Selection Committee for ranking. The ranking would be collated by the Scholarship Division and a shortlist of candidates made. SYLFF Prize Selection Committee members would then gather for final selection.

　

　

The Scholarship Division invites comments and suggestions regarding the Prize, especially regarding the following issues: nomination/selection criteria, nomination process, timetable, and promotion.

　

Mahendra Reddy: The idea of awarding the SYLFF Prize is a novel and promising idea, but suggest that instead of giving out a cash prize, the foundation consider awarding a grant for action/research project(s).

Xiaobo Lu: The Prize should be limited to graduated fellows; and the situation where the leaders of leaders are selected should be avoided.

Ersin Onulduran: A five-year cycle might be too long. A two-year cycle is more appropriate. A cash award would be a good idea as real leaders are in most cases already well into their careers and would thus probably put the prize money to good use. Most fellows eventually become academics; therefore, "invention" should be one of the criteria for selection, i.e. criteria should not be confined to positive change or change in the human condition.

Gretchen Amussen: Difficulties SYLFF institutions face in keeping track of the alumni (i.e. potential candidates for the Prize) might hinder the nomination process. The proposed criteria for the Prize exclude arts schools.

Michael Frischenschlager: Both the Prize and the SYLFF fellowship criteria should take into account not only academic excellence and concrete achievements of the fellows, but also their human qualities.

Surabela Fabian: In order to encourage continuation of leadership, Prize winners should be given the opportunity to submit a proposal for furthering activities in which they are already involved and that require further support. These would not necessarily have to be tangible projects, as leadership is not always tangible. This prize could be, for example, for US$10,000 with a possibility of extension. Eligibility should be limited to those who have already graduated and who have in the meantime developed their leadership qualities.

Carlos Azzoni: Suggest that all SYLFF fellows, current and graduated, be eligible for the Prize.

Daniel Warner: Initiating the Prize will be a good incentive to develop databases of SYLFF fellows. Will the Prize be awarded to an individual or to an activity? In order to be consistent with the name of the program, the Prize should be limited to fellows who received their fellowships not more than 5-10 years ago. A prize amounting to US$10,000 would be more appropriate; it might not make a notable contribution to the humanity, but it would to an individual.

Bengt Gustafsson: Who will decide on the selection criteria? If there is only one set of criteria, then it should be the foundation conducting the selection. If there are different sets of criteria, then the first round of selection should be conducted by the respective Selection Committees.

Gary Saxonhouse: The proposed timetable allows for only three-month notice to the Prize winners to prepare for the award ceremony and their two-week trip to Japan. This might prove difficult for the winners to include this trip in their schedules at such short notice.

Rieko Harue: The database of SYLFF fellows already exists and will be further expanded and elaborated on. Regarding the timetable issue, the Scholarship Division is aware of the fact that a three-month notice is short, but at the same time, the foundation would like to bring all the winners together for the award ceremony.

Ellen Mashiko: At this point in time, nothing is fixed regarding the SYLFF Prize. The idea to invite the awardees to administrators' meetings is laudable. The Scholarship Division does not wish to discriminate on the basis of chronological age of the fellows. Regarding the recommendation put forward by Group IV about expanding the scope of the SYLFF Program to include disciplines other than those within the humanities and social sciences, this issue is non-negotiable with the donor, The Nippon Foundation. The reason the SYLFF Program focuses on the social sciences and humanities is that the level of available funding for these areas has always been low in comparison to sciences and technology fields.

　

One definition of a leader is: A person with appropriate knowledge and skills to lead a group to achieve its ends willingly. Moreover, there are different types of leaders-political, academic, religious, cultural, formal/informal, and business leaders. Some of the main attributes of leaders that were put forward by SYLFF institutions in their responses to the questionnaire distributed prior to the meeting included: ability to influence other people, academic qualifications, achievements, position, ability to create a vision/ideas, ability to take initiative/responsibility, personal qualifications and acclamation by other people.　

　

Furthermore, qualities of leadership include universal qualities (intelligent energetic, initiative, enthusiasm, integrity, altruistic, empathy), transferable skills (communication, analytical, cognitive and interpersonal skills, and team work), personal skills, and specific cultural skills.　

　

Regarding the selection process, criteria cited by more than 10% of the questionnaire respondents were academic performance, character and interpersonal skills, research proposal, interview, commitment to international concerns and financial need. Also cited were criteria cited by less than 10% of the respondents; these included community service, work experience, field of study, essay on leadership capabilities, application process and artistic performance.

　

It is important for each SYLFF institution to develop its own criteria of leadership, and in order to promote leadership, institutions might want to consider organizing regular meetings of SYLFF fellows and promoting leadership training which might be organized through the programs being put forward by the Scholarship Division. Participants were also encouraged to consider several issues regarding the proposed SYLFF Prize: