Leaders are Made, Not Born - Literature review Example

LEADERS ARE BORN NOT MADE Name Course Instructor’s name Institution Date LEADERS ARE BORN NOT MADE Leadership is a topic that has been researched widely and a lot of public content has been generated in Journals, Books, around the world. However, scholars like Benne (2011, p.205) Graf (2012. P.28) argue that leadership is a role that is unique and totally not identical to any other. They also argue that leaders have an innate generic attributes which fosters their positions as leaders. Nonetheless, they state that opportunities and these attributes are what separates “born leaders” from “made leaders”. This paper therefore aims to contribute to the argument that leaders are born and not made as it is commonly perceived by the society. It is evident that leaders are born as opposed to the assumption that leaders are made. Fielder, a scientist who specialized in the characteristics and personality of leaders came up with the Fielders Contingency Model which contributes to the argument that ‘leaders are born and not made’ (Graf 2012, p.28). In this case, Fielder claims that a leader is an appointed individual or one that it chosen to coordinate, direct and oversee the work carried out by other individuals who are to answer to him. Moreover, he draws a line between leadership and leaders by stressing that some dispositions such as personality characteristics as quite fundamental in one becoming a leader, However, Fielder argues that other factors such as family genes carry very little weight in while arguing that they fosters one becoming a leader (Benne 2011, pp.203-208). On the other hand, some factors such as education nature of job, intelligence level, religion-growth-status, society and training contribute in influencing an individual’s leadership stance. In this case, he argues that these are some of the common external factors influencing leadership (Graf 2012, p.28). The breakthrough in distinguishing between leadership and leaders was achieved through the introduction of the ‘cloning’ concept however; this concept was met with a lot of criticism which was based on the argument that leaders cannot be replicated since they have relatively different character traits. This led to the rise of the argument that the human mind of a born leader is quite innate. In line with this, William Cohen (Cohen, 1998), came up with the argument that leadership is an ability which not every leader either born or made can assume it through motivation and training. This approach by Cohen, 1998 was implemented in the year 1940’s when it was referred to as the “Greatman’s approach” however, there was an argument that leadership is an idea which is non-factual and based on the belief that it is correct (Bullock, 2010, pp.329-331). However, in the year 1948 a new paradigm by Stogdill’s, 1948 was developed which focuses on innate leadership approach. On the other hand, Burn, 1978 stresses that the transformational and transactional leadership which comprises of different components which influence the character of leaders these components include; Idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, and individualized consideration. In addition to this, Max Weber, 1998 claims that leadership is fostered by a charismatic Model of leadership as well as the five factors model that which reveals that it is difficult for one to embrace change. This model revolves around the elements of; extroversion, agreeableness, openness to experience, emotionality, conscientiousness (Marques 2010, pp.307-323). Hence, leaders are born with a trait which moulds one depending on their surroundings. In this case a in a published article by Posner “The Leadership Challenge” where it claims that it is relatively difficult for ordinary individuals to excel in leadership standards hence supporting the argument that leaders are born and not made (Weissing 2011, p.289). This published articles claims that leadership comprises of a number of attributes brought together which include; understanding their failure for miscalculations, having a caring personality, accept that one has to change to the current circumstances and also accepting criticism. Monarchies around the world are perfect example that support the argument that leaders are born as opposed to being made. Max Weber, (1998) argues that leadership does not mainly revolved around one skill and techniques. However, leadership is about these individuals’ personal characteristics which draw other people to them (Bullock 2010, pp.329-331). Besides, Webber, (1998) claims that taking a person without innate characteristics and teach them about effective leadership is close to impossible. A study on the same was carried out in University College London where a number of sociological, psychological and neurological test were conducted by scientists where it was established that leaders are born with some distinguishable traits as well as thinking traits which make them more of leaders as opposed to followers (Henrikson 2011, p.335-338). In this study nearly have of these participants are claimed they have notable rs4950 gene which is associated with following orders or a particular stipulated path (Henrikson 2012, p.476). Additionally, another study by the Wake Forest University in North Carolina realized that the individuals participating in this study that were in leadership position showcased more brain activity in their prefrontal and frontal lobes (Graf, 2012, pp.28-28). In line with this study, frontal lobes are usually associated with cognitive skills which relate to problem solving, expressing emotions memory retaining ability, usability of language skills and ability to deliver accurate judge and they are innate hence hard to acquire. On the other hand, the prefrontal lobe is used in cognitive skills which are quite complex which include decision making, personality expression and social behavior regulation. These mentioned skill as evident in the study were essential in leadership roles. Another study on sociology and animal behavior also contributed to the argument that leaders are born and not made. Thus, studies at the University of Cambridge on the stickleback fish also prove that leadership roles cannot be learnt (Henrikson 2012, p.473-477).The Stickleback fish are a group fish which is comprised with different fishes with different level of boldness. After the experiment it was noted that the bolder fishes were mainly initiating different distinct activities such as coming out of their hiding place for food whereas the other shyer fishes followed. Having leant this notable characteristics the scientist took a number of pairs of both the bold and shy fishes as they tried to manipulate their respective behaviors through using food rewards. In this research it was notable that it possible for the bolder fishes which had been categorized by as leaders to be trained as followers. On the other hand, scientist rose questions on whether leadership skills can really be learnt hence, they argued that there are particular people who are more likely to learn some of these leadership skills more easily compared to others (Robbins, 2017). However, these scientists are keen to point that that despite that some of these leadership skills can be learnt, these learnable skills do not out rightly make individuals actual leaders. This argument therefore, purport that one cannot be taught to be a leader since some of the skills and attributes required from a leader are innate. In addition to this, leadership is a role that is summed by a number of personal characteristics which should be developed by and individual (Marques 2010, pp.307-323). On the other hand, these scientist also imply that leadership is fitted for individuals with high Intellectual Quotient as well as innate skills in main areas fostering leadership. In line with this, scientist questions whether leaders are actually born considering that leadership entails a couple of ability to persuade and influence others. Moreover, the creative adventurous aspect of leaders can be learnt if one is not born with it. Additional, scientists studying leadership behaviour and traits argue that blood analysis by gene cannot be carried out to proof whether one is a born leader or not (Terry and Franklin 1997, n.d). They further question the possibility of the analysis of the complexity of the human mind to establish whether one is a leader or not considering that this equation is beyond the scientific field. On the other hand, scientists also contribute to the argument that Leaders can be made by claiming that a guideline of effective leadership traits can be adopted by any individuals. In this case, they argue that multiple options of thinking, passion in work, vision, personal creativity and empowering of people are learnable traits which can be learnt in a number of environments which include; the classroom, the business, the society and at workplace (Robbins 2017, p.66). Nonetheless, they argue that the only obstacle of leaders being made is their mindset to learn and develop this attributes and skills associated with leadership thus reaffirming the idea that leaders are born (Weissing 2011, pp.288-289.). Scientist contribute to this argument by claiming that if leaders were born therefore, one born in a family of scientists or elite groups would in the long end turn out to be a scientist of members of the elite group respectively. However, scientist question this argument by claiming that it is evident from remarkable leaders that they have a special attributes or innate abilities which are quite unique and one that might not be explained. Even from the bible leadership was hereditary as well as during the mediaeval times a clear affirmation that leaders are naturally born. In conclusion, it is true that leadership is a calling and the chosen leaders possess some unique qualities and attributed which are not quite learnable. Moreover, it is evident from real-life scenarios of leaders in our current society that they possess skills and attributed that are not common among other individuals and in most cases they are succeeded by close family members for instance president bush senior and president bush junior. This therefore, makes leadership a calling, hence supporting the argument that leaders and born as opposed to those that are made. References Benne, K. (2011). Leaders are Made, Not Born. Childhood Education, 24(5), pp.203-208. Bullock, J. (2010). Are Leaders Born or Are They Made? The Case of Alexander the Great20053Manfred F.R. Kets de Vries, with Elisabet Engellau. Are Leaders Born or Are They Made? The Case of Alexander the Great. 2004. 114 pp. paperback, ISBN: 1‐85575‐315‐4 £9.99 Karnac. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(4), pp.329-331. Graf, J. (2012). Leaders are Born, Not Made . . .and Other Popular Myths. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 56(04), pp.28-28. Henrikson, M. (2011). Great Leaders Are Made, Not Born. AWHONN Lifelines, 10(4), pp.335-338. Henrikson, M. (2012). Great Leaders Are Made, Not Born. AWHONN Lifelines, 9(6), pp.473-477. Marques, J. (2010). Awakened leaders: born or made?. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31(4), pp.307-323. Robbins, S. (2017). Organizational Behaviour. 1st ed. Pearson Education Limited. Terry, G. and Franklin, S. (1997). Principles of management. 1st ed. New Delhi: AITBS Publishers. Weissing, F. (2011). Animal behaviour: Born leaders. Nature, 474(7351), pp.288-289. Read More