Are Leaders Made or Born?

¶ … Leaders Born or Made? Proposed Outline

The question as to whether leaders are born or made has been actively debated for years. The debate continues. However, careful evaluation of leadership behaviors and an informed analysis of literature on management and leadership demonstrate that actually, leaders are both born and made. It is important to note that although individuals could be trained to be effective leaders, some people tend to have what could be referred to as natural aptitude for leadership.

Counter Argument

Leaders are Born

The claim that leaders are born, not made, has been around for a long time. Those advancing this argument are convinced that leadership is in the genes, that great leaders possess some genetic characteristics that underwrite their success as leaders.

B.

During the early periods of the 20th century, most were of the view that to be an effective leader, an individual had to be born with inherent traits of leadership. Many psychologists of the era, like Jung, claimed that leadership traits were inherited, and not acquired. Today, there are some who, like Jung, are still convinced that leaders are born, not made. To put this argument into perspective, it would be prudent to, amongst other things, highlight the findings of a recent research undertaking that sought to "test the nature of leaders and followers using pairs of fish" (Nakayama, 2013). As the author further points out, leaders and followers are not unique to humans - they are found in many other animals that live a group setting, such as fish. Titled, "Experience Overrides Personality Differences in the Tendency to Follow but not in the Tendency to Lead," this particular study, according to Nakayama (2013), came to the startling conclusion that "while followers may not have what it takes to lead, leaders can learn to follow." This effectively means that although leaders could learn to be followers, followers cannot learn to lead -- hence leaders are born leaders. The authors of this particular article advise individuals to stick to their "natural" roles, i.e. The roles that are born to play.

C.

The arguments above are largely faulty.

D.

As convincing as the arguments presented above may appear, it should be noted that of all the studies that have been undertaken with an aim of identifying a specific set of leadership traits, "no one has come up with a universal list of traits that all successful leaders possess, or traits that will guarantee leadership success" (Lussier and Achua, 2012, p. 19). This effectively means that there are no specific psychological or physical traits all leaders are born with.

2) Leaders are Made

A.

There are also those who are convinced that leaders are made, not born. In this case, leadership is taken to be more than just mere personality traits. Instead, it is seen as the development of special characteristics that inspire others to not only seek ways of achieving their full potential, but also work to accomplish organizational goals. Leaders, according to this point-of-view, are made by commitment to both professional and personal development, hard work, and on the job experience.

B.

One of those who have over time advanced this point-of-view is Ram Chiran, an executive consultant. In addition to highlighting a number of essential skills which he believes all leaders share, Chiran "emphasizes that anyone can develop these leadership know-how's, no matter what their personality traits" (Daft, 2014, p. 9). Vince Lombardi, who Lussier and Achua (2012, p. 9) describe as "NFL Greenback Packers legendry football coach," is also one of those who firmly believe that leaders are made, and not born. In his own opinion, it is hard work that makes great leaders. C.

Although some leadership skills could be learned, some forces of personality like charisma cannot be learnt; meaning that the argument above is largely faulty.

D.

Charisma, in the words of Dyck and Neubert (2008, p. 449) is "a special 'trait' that some leaders have to attract and inspire others." Charisma can neither be acquired nor learnt - it is simply a personality "trait commonly thought to make great leaders" (Dyck and Neubert, 2008, p. 449).

III. My Argument

Leaders are both Born and Made

As with the arguments presented above, leaders are either born or made -- they cannot be both. It should, however, be noted that careful evaluation of the leadership behaviors of accomplished leaders and an informed analysis of literature on management and leadership demonstrate that in fact, leaders are both born and made. It is important to note that although the ability to lead effectively could be acquired - through training, learning, and hard work - under certain circumstances, effective leadership is largely dependent on the concerned individual's inherent traits.

Argument: Under certain conditions inherent traits are the most important determinant of effective leadership.

A.

To begin with, one area where inborn leadership traits could come in handy is change implementation. As Gerard H. Seijts (as cited in Stephenson, 2004) points out, for a leader to be able to "navigate the rough seas of organizational change," he or she ought to have the relevant interpersonal skills and be a good communicator. This is particularly the case given that to effectively implement change, individuals in positions of leadership ought to take charge of the situation and develop strategies to overcome resistance to change. Strategies in this case could include, but they are not limited to, ensuring that in addition to being sufficiently motivated, all employees are involved and well briefed on new initiatives. The ability to motivate and influence others is intrinsically linked to both the character and personality of the concerned leader. This is yet another indication that under certain conditions, an individual's ability to offer effective leadership is determined by some inherent traits.