First, in my experience, a major criterion for promotion to a leadership position is obedience. Though this is counterintuitive, it is often the desire of existing managers to hire new managers that will ‘toe the line’. Obviously, this does not result in the selection of very effective leaders. So you need to ensure that the ‘leaders of learning’ network does not constitute some kind of obedience test. There need to be opportunities to assume leadership in areas that are outside the domain of the organization’s management, and in some cases even run contrary to the interests or objectives of the organization’s management (that’s why, eg., union activity should also be recognized as leadership experience). This looks like it does satisfy this condition, though it should be clear that this is the case.

Second, the biggest problem with the requirement that people volunteer is that it self-selects wealthier and more privileged candidates (think of the movie ‘The Pursuit of Happyness’ where the protagonist ended up living in a subway station while completing the brokerage firm’s unpaid internship. All leadership activities ought to be completed during something like normal working hours. Requiring unpaid overtime will self-select just as surely as a minimum income test will.

That said, I am heartened by the overt recognition that people often obtain leadership experience (and hence leadership positions) though random chance - being in the right place at the right time. People should understand that managers and supervisors - and for that matter CEOs and professors - are not particularly smarter than other people, just luckier.