It’s a debate like the controversy about the chicken and the egg. This is the most often asked question about leaders. The question of whether people who become leaders in life are born with natural leadership traits or that they were made or transformed into leaders by other factors in the leadership world.
In 2004, the Wall Street Journal’s online edition, citing the need for leadership qualities in business (superior communicators and relationship builders), asked its readers if business schools should “put more focus on communications and interpersonal training within their programs, or should the programs require a greater degree of proficiency in these skills in the students they admit?” Inevitably, the discussion revolved around the question of whether communication and relationship skills are inherent or learned.
Dear Dr. Ayman
Theories of leadership is explained through numerous studies that leaders are born with the characteristics of leadership, there are some characteristics acquired through learning in practical life.
@Prof Aieman: It’s true that:
'most folks who start out with a modicum of innate leadership capability can actually become very good, even great leaders.'
So it's both born and bred...and how to grow as a leader, as in this link below.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikaandersen/2012/11/21/are-leaders-born-or-made/
@Aieman, in this following research, more than 52% of people think that leaders are made! Nice research and data! They mention that only 19% think that leaders are born...! Good reading!
http://www.ccl.org/leadership/pdf/research/areleadersbornormade.pdf
Leadership qualities are inborn but not all persons with these qualities become a leader. Circumstances make one, a leader!
The question of innate or learned leadership traits does seem rather "the chicken or the egg" question, but there does seem to be both innate and learned skills that make a good leader. We have all known persons who can enter a room and "take charge"; they seem endowed with presence. They may not always be male but at least in the United States, these persons are usually male. But that male presence and leadership may also be a result of gender socialization in a culture that has favored males and denigrated female leadership traits. I don't have the exact studies on hand this minute, but part of my gender research has involved men and women leadership styles and the problems encountered by employees with these bosses. Studies show that many women do not "lead" well within the typical pyramid or hierarchical structure best suited to men; women tend to network laterally and to consult more often than do men in similar positions. Often women's leadership style is seen as weak and "wishy-washy" because, for instance, a woman boss may "ask" the secretary, "Can you prepare this by 2pm today?" And it doesn't matter whether the secretary is male or female. A male is quite unlikely to pose a request in a question.
One of the studies done involved male and female sales representatives who were rated on their approaches to selling. The aggressive male was seen as a "go-getter" and rated highly for his ability to sell. However, a woman sales representative rated as "aggressive" was often seen as a "bitch" (excuse the language here), willing to run over anybody in her race "to the top." That male racing to the top is, however, the perfect candidate for a top slot in his department. Women face tough obstacles in the realm of leadership here in the United States. But they are "allowed" to lead in educational positions like principals and education specialists. I have not read of serious problems faced by female principles (unless those problems happen to be the parents). This difference is, however, in my view, related again to the "permissible" fields of leadership allotted to women--education and nursing are extensions of the nurturing roles of the mother. But fewer high school principles are women just as there have been traditionally far fewer women teaching in high schools. In the United States, the men gained the jobs with older students--because males were seen as more authoritative and able to deal with adolescent males in particular. There are changes to these traditional roles but change comes slowly when it meets tradition and gender roles head-on.
While I agree with Patrick that where one attains the leadership skills and/or position hardly matters in the long run (if we judge by what those leaders have done for their people), it does matter in schools of business, education, and other related fields like health care management. How to negotiate among the diverse populations of employees, to meet the bottom line and keep employees and management somewhat happy requires skill along with "artful" side-stepping. These are skills that can be learned and should be learned within the specific needs of the company. Specific leadership skills can be taught in relationship to the company style, the company product, the job itself. Google is noted for its "laid-back" workstyle and non-hierarchical structure--but Google also tends to hire creative, innovative type persons, none of whom are known for being "easily led." That approach at GM would fail miserably as it would in high school or college where structure is absolutely essential. However, I question whether any amount of training or education can make a leader out of a person without some inherent leadership traits that the training can tune and hone to a fine art.
For me personally, there is NO amount of training that will make me a leader, and I have absolutely no desire to be one. I've worked in the business world and even considered educational leadership--that lasted a year or two until I figured out that after leading "professional development" seminars and trying to get diverse faculty to work with each other that educational leadership was probably harder than corporate leadership. A good leader is worth his/her weight in gold. I just wish those "good leaders" wherever they are were in the United States Congress.
Aysha Bey
My life experience as a manager over a member service organization, as a teacher/ professor across the years, and as the director of a Leadership Development Network (there are 15 of these with my organization throughout the USA and Canada) all combines to tell me that they are both born and made. If you do the research you'll discover that MacArthur, Churchill, and Roosevelt were all distantly related, such that it led some of their biographers to comment that theirs was a family born to lead. Yet I have seen men and women who were naturally very analytical, very introverted, and who were clearly not predisposed towards assertiveness, wind up doing an excellent job of leading others under certain circumstances. Each of them had to learn how to lead.
If you look at the work of Jim Collins (Built to Last and Good to Great), the leaders whom he documents as building lasting organizations seem less born to lead than they are people who learned how to lead. Both have their value. An Iacocca or a Jack Welch seem the sort who are born to lead. When the person born to lead steps away from an organization there is serious question about how that organization will go forward into the future. Those who have to learn tend to do a better job of team-building and getting their organization to the place where it will self-perpetuate.
With all due respect, contrary to Mr. Low's comment, the question is entirely relevant to anything that has to do with leadership, for it relates to leadership development. Ruvolo, Petersen and LeBoeuf (2004) wrote that leadership development is critical to organizational success.
Furthermore, Van Velsor, McCauley, and Moxley (1998) wrote that leaders must be challenged, be able to learn from those challenges, receive feedback, and have time to reflect on the experience in order to grow into leaders. If a person is a so-called "born leader" would this imply that they have these added abilities? I would think not. Van Velsor et al. (1998) developed the equation: Experience + New Knowledge + Reflection (with support and feedback) + Time (more practice & experience) = Leadership growth and development. Even if a person was supposedly "born" to be a leader, they must also realize their faults and learn from them. Many "born" leaders have failed to do this and have suffered the consequences.
Ruvolo, C. M., Petersen, S. A., & LeBoeuf, J. G. (2004). Leaders are made, not born: The critical role of a developmental framework to facilitate an organizational culture of development. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 56(1), 10-19. doi:10.1037/1061-4087.56.1.10
Van Velsor, E., McCauley, C. D., & Moxley, R. S. (1998). Our view of leadership development. In C. D. McCauley, R. S. Moxley, & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development (pp. 1–25). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
''Some people are born leaders, some achieve leadership qualities, and on some others leadership qualities are thrust upon!''. (Just like - 'Some people are born great, some achieve greatness, and on some others greatness is thrust upon!')
I believe in born-leaders, i think they have the charisma in them that makes people follow them
i also think some are born leaders whereas some more acquire leadership traites. However, the born leaders who also make themselves available for Learning have the better chances of making good leaders than those with either innate or acquired skills.
According to my mind I think ĺeaders are created by god gift...the hard working people arecmy leaders. ?..so I goes for leaders are made some times created by surrounding peoples
Are leaders born or made?
You can also refer to this RG link:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_leaders_born_leaders_or_they_acquire_leadership_by_time#58e9f10a615e272848193260
Great Man theory and Trait theories believe that people inherit certain qualities and traits that make them better suited to leadership...
There are certain inborn characteristics that predispose people to be and become leaders. There is a significant difference between “learning a skill” and mastering one, in the same way that others are born with amazing musical gifts or athletic talents. They will excel naturally in these areas but others would be like a fish out of water and may struggle to get to the same point...
Birth is a natural process and the notion to associate leadership with it is arguable...
.........
Behavioral Theories believe that people can become leaders through the process of teaching, learning and observation. Leadership is a set of skills that can be learned by training, perception, practice and experience over time. Leadership learning is lifetime activity. Good leaders seek out development opportunities that will help them learn new skills...
The best estimates offered by research is that leadership is about one-third born and two-thirds made...
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141026042807-150905450-are-leaders-born-or-made-a-true-story
“Are global leaders born or made?” The answer is that global leaders are born and then made...
Black, J. S., Morrison, A. J., & Gregersen, H. B. (2013). Global explorers: The next generation of leaders. Routledge.
It has generally been accepted that leaders are born, not made. ...
Reynolds, J. G., & Warfield, W. H. (2010). Discerning the differences between managers and leaders. The Education Digest, 75(7), 61.
Should companies let born leaders rise to the top? Or is it better to attempt to develop promising individuals into leaders–to treat leadership as a discipline...\
Nurture, N. V. Are Leaders Born or Made?.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology