Leaders are born rather than made

Leaders are born rather than made The quotation leaders are born rather than made is a hugely debated topic around the world. There is a predominate view that a leader is born, and cannot be made through relevant training, education or experience. The idea of how a leader comes to exist presents the classic debate between nature and nurture. Is a leader born (nature), or is he made (nurture)? In the Apple dictionary (2007), a leader is defined as 1) a person who leads or commands a group, organisation, or company, and 2) a person followed by others. I will debate that a leader must possess some natural-born skills or talent, but, to be successful, he must know how to nurture those talents and when to use them to his advantage. It is true that people are born with genetics that may contribute to their odds of being a born leader namely intelligence, cognition and creativity. But, it is also important to recognise that an individual s socialisation in his environment will determine the development of the additional personality traits perceived to be synonymous with leadership. These additional traits are not usually exhibited without tutoring. Is it often asked, what makes a leader? Ideals on which emotional or mental characteristics leaders should possess seem to be common across most literature on the topic. The reoccurring characteristics include, but are not bound to, confidence, openmindedness, enthusiasm, energy, the power to motivate, empathy, focus, calmness, humility and strategic thinking. These qualities are arguably too extensive, seemingly representative of every emotional or mental state that a human being may be virtuous of. This extensive list of qualities looks to someone of heroic status, discounting the evidence that most individuals do not excel in all areas of leadership. Typically, selection attempts to find leaders who are almost superhuman - who exhibit such a wide range of characteristics that those claiming to possess them are barely credible (Rath & Conchie, 2009, p. 6). 1

Take one of the most popular leaders in the world s history, Barrack Obama. Obama embodies many, if not all, of the perceived emotional and mental traits of a leader. Did Obama develop these skills, or was he born with them? It could be argued that his Law education, social work, depth of knowledge and interest in world political issues have developed him into the world leader we see today. But, if his success is solely attributed to his life experience and education, why did Obama win against all odds to be the United States first African American president, when faced with equally educated competitors with more life experience? In a study on the new corporate leaders by Dana, Rennie, Warrick and Mueller (2009), it is suggested that leadership traits can be broken down into three dimensions : The first dimension is thinking, which includes the organisational, conceptual, creative, intellectual and judgmental qualities of the individual. The second dimension is feelings and interrelationships which outlines the way in which an individual emotionally copes in their environment and how they interact with their peers. Important characteristics in this dimension include: maturity, stamina, adaptability, involvement and achievement. This dimension may otherwise be known as emotional intelligence, or EQ as it is commonly referred. Emotional intelligence focuses on awareness of self and of others, communicating with others, and managing emotions. Applying [emotional intelligence] skills, such as articulating ideas so that others can understand them, developing rapport, building trust, and obtaining consensus, become increasingly necessary in higher leadership positions (Robbins & Hunsaker, 2009, p. 55). The third dimension is outward behaviour characteristics which points toward the perceived key ingredients to lead: clear vision, perseverance, time management, integrity and social conscious. (Dana, Rennie, Warrick & Mueller, 2009, p. 109). Interestingly, this model takes into account both nature and nurture of an individual. The first dimension focuses on the intelligence, cognitive style, and creativity of the individual arguably pre-existent in the individual s genetic make-up. The second and 2

third dimensions are personality attributes that are effects of external environments, culture and socialisation. These categories both support the view that a leader is made, as they are consequential behaviours of experience, practice, education, and environment. After much research onto the leadership style of Obama, Greenstein (2009) concludes that Obama s leadership strengths can be explained in six distinct categories: public communication, organisation, political skill, policy vision, cognitive style, and emotional intelligence. Greenstein s conclusions on Obama s leadership strengths support Dana, Rennie, Warrick and Mueller s (2009) theory of leadership dimensions. If you take the three dimensions and match them with Obama s strengths, you can see a clear balance across all three: cognitive style and organisation in the first, emotional intelligence and public communication in the second, and political skill and policy vision in the third. These six strengths present Obama as a perfect candidate for leadership, with the correct balance of born nature and made nurture. It is important to recognise, however, that people are far too complex to be held to such strict dimensions. People are always more complicated than the rubrics we use to describe them (Levinson, 2006). An interesting study into Savants by Miller (2009) discusses the evidence of both nature and nurture of talent. Miller (2009) suggests that it is evident that Savants are born with exceptional skill, primarily due to the appearance of that skill without any apparent direct tutoring and that the skill is exhibited at an early age (Miller, 2005, p. 2). This organic emergence suggests that Savants may be naturally talented, capable of being born-leaders. However, it is observed that Savants, by nature, routinely practice their skills, which provides evidence towards the nurture of talent. Still, it can be argued that if Savants actively nurture their skills in one or two areas, they must be acutely aware of their talents to begin with. Rath and Conchie (2009) challenge the conventional and popular belief of the wellrounded leader suggesting in fact that leaders may only possess one or two of the characteristics required to fulfill the bill. Rath and Conchie (2009) provide a startling 3

and interesting perspective: that any individual has the power to lead all it requires is that the individual to be acutely aware of their skills and then employ them at the right time and in the right way. This, in Rath and Conchie s opinion, explains why historical leaders have been both villains and heroes, and possess completely opposite skill sets. The brutal and dominant dictatorship approach of Hitler, for example, plays sharp contrast to Barrack Obama s gentle, calm and considering leadership. Both men are considered to be leaders, yet they share little in common. Rath and Conchie (2009) further their argument by suggesting that the best leaders actually possess limited personal skills, but strive to surround themselves with a complementary group of people who represent a range of skills and attributes. This may be the winning formula in successful organisations today. In order to run a successful business, a CEO will carefully handpick his staff based on their individual skills and attributes, in areas where he may be personally lacking. The balance of these skills should align with the motivational objectives of the company. In short, a successful leader will invest in his team s strengths. Rath and Conchie s (2009) findings on leadership target four key focuses of successful leaders: executing, influencing, relationship building, and strategic thinking. However, it is aptly noted that while a leader need not excel in all four areas, he should build his team so that all areas are covered. (Rath & Conchie, 2009). Another theory suggests that to fully understand and appreciate a leader, we must not study their actions, or their attributes, but instead how they process thoughts. Martin (2007) argues that to be a leader, you must not just act, but think. Martin s view is that great leaders think outside the square; they are integrated thinkers. An integrated thinker is thought to possess a unique approach to problem solving. This approach involves the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind, and by doing so, visualise a third idea that combines, but also improves, both. The concept of integrated thinking is synonymous with lateral thinking, and is particularly sought after in business. Martin (2009) states that because this fundamentally opposing model is so ambiguous, it s more common for an individual to seek the less complex and more obvious solution. Our first impulse is to determine which is right and, by process of elimination, which is wrong (Martin, 2007, p. 4). 4

The integrated thinking model that Martin (2009) outlines separates the process of problem solving in to four steps. This method of thought processing is thought to be central to a leader s mind. When presented with a challenge or problem, a leader is thought to: 1) find less obvious, but relevant considerations, 2) consider multidirectional and nonlinear relationships between them, 3) see problems as a whole, examining the parts of the puzzle and how decisions influence one another, and, 4) resolve problems creatively; generate new outcomes (Martin, 2009, p. 5). This model demands a significant degree of creative thinking, and is not easily employed. If this model could, however, be taught, learned, and consequentially condition an individual to lead, does this mean that leadership is a form of entrepreneurship? Cohen and Rath (2007, p. 8) state that, successful global leaders are entrepreneurial. They support this statement by defining an entrepreneur as someone who recognises opportunities and uses their best resources to take advantage of the opportunities. They suggest that in this argument, two types of leaders emerge: those who use their best talent (nature) and those who develop their best talent (nurture). Rath and Conchie (2009, p. 2) write, the path to great leadership starts with a deep understanding of the strengths you bring to the table. From this it is clear that a leader must not only know his strengths, but know his weaknesses too. It may never be categorically determined whether an individual is gifted with leadership skills from birth, or whether they become a leader by result of their environment. However, it is recognised that neither in isolation will do; those who are born with the gene for leadership may never have the opportunity for nurture, while those who enjoy the opportunity may never discover the gene. The desirable, and most convincing, recipe for leadership must therefore be born and developed, in whichever measures work best, for a timely serve. 5

References 1) Cohen, E & Rath, T, 2007, Leadership without borders: successful strategies from world-class leaders, John Wiley and Sons (Asia) Pte. Ltd. Singapore. 2) Rath, T & Conchie, B, 2009, Strengths based leadership: great leaders, teams, and why people follow, Conchie Gallup Press, New York. 3) Greenstein, F. I, 2009, The leadership style of Barack Obama: an early assessment, The Obama Administration: Setting up a Government, Vol 7, Issue 1, Article 6, The Berkeley Electronic Press, Berkeley. 4) Mueller, J, Warrick, D.D, Rennie, M, Dana, L, 2009, Corporate boards: the new corporate leaders, Journal of Academy of Business and Economics, Vol 9, Number 1. 5) Miller, L. K, 2005, What the Savant syndrome can tell us about the nature and nurture of talent, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, Vol. 28, Issue 3/ 4, Summer, pp 361 375. 6) Martin, R, 2007, How successful leaders think, Harvard Business Review, Summer, Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation. 7) Robbins, S. P, Hunsaker, P. L, 2009, Training in interpersonal skills TIPS for managing people at work, fifth edn, Pearson Education, Inc, New Jersey. 8) Levinson. H, 2006, On the psychology of leadership, Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation, USA. 6