Leaders are Born Not Made - Example

Leaders are Born Not Made Name: Institution: Date: Leaders are born, not made. Successful leaders are born with certain leadership qualities – qualities that make them be motivated to lead others. Looking back at the developmental stages of some successful leaders, they have a tendency to volunteer to lead projects and activities and accomplishing tasks alone when companions are not readily available. This paper is going to support the argument that leaders are born not made using the great man theory and trait theory. In addition, it is going to examine the leadership of some of the greatest ‘born leaders’, including Alexander the Great, Walt Disney, and Steve Jobs among others. These individuals were destined for leadership. There are several traits that made these leaders great. Some theorists have indicated that there are some personality and character traits that played a role in their leadership. The Great Man theory postulates that one is either born with a natural affinity for leadership or he/she is not born with it (Hoffman, Woehr, Maldagen-Youngjohn and Lyons 2011). Leaders are born with qualities which are superior to those of other people and this is the factor that sets them apart from their followers. Aristotle argued that a people are born with either or more than five disposition of the soul, namely, knowledge, rationality, practical judgment, intellect, and wisdom. He further argued that an individual who is born with more than one of these traits is likely to be superior to others, thus making a more effective leader. In his book titled Parallel Lives, Plutarch compares and describes the lives of successful leaders that have existed in history and especially his day. He opened his book by saying that Alexander the Great’s design not only did write history but also lives (Plutarch, 2012). He goes on to describe the characteristics and morals of Alexander the Great that led him to become a successful leader. The common theme that is brought out in the examples provided in Parallel Lives is the innateness of traits and the decisions that such traits influence or affect. Trait leadership theory draws from such thoughts. The theory postulates that some people are born with traits more inclined to leadership compared to others. However, the way to identify and develop these traits in an individual remains vague. People have not been able to identify these traits in individuals and place such people in charge. However, it is easy to identify such individuals in difficult situations. The CEO of General Electric, Jack Welch and the developer of Six Sigma believed that extroverts have charisma and superior verbal skills (Forman, 2012). He further observed that natural leaders are born with these traits. These leaders naturally demonstrate qualities such as creativity, assertiveness, public speaking, and charisma among others. Charisma, assertiveness, and creativity are innate qualities that make these people overcome difficulties and dangerous situations – situations that individuals who do not have these innate qualities cannot overcome. Alexander the Great was able to overcome challenges that stood in his way. Alexander the Great makes one of the best examples of the most successful leaders in history. His contributions spanned many endeavors and cut across many disciplines. Alexander the Great is arguably the greatest military strategist, tactician, and ruler in the history of the world. His leadership influenced many business, political, and military leaders around the world. His influence was not only on people he led but also on other leaders including such powerful Roman leaders as Mark Antony, Julius Caesar, and Pompey as well as Rome’s first emperor, Augustus Caeser and Rome’s nemesis (Bose, 2004). His influence also reached across borders touching other leaders such as India’s Chandra Gupta Maurya and Chanakya. Alexander said that he was from demi-god Heracles’ ancestry, a Greek hero. Heracles was popular for his extra-ordinary strength and courage, as demonstrated in his performance of twelve arduous labors, including the killing of the Nemean lion. However, one of the most important things that today’s leaders can learn from Alexander the Great and as part of effective leadership is the management of meaning. The management of meaning is not a simple task. It is something that only leaders possess and are born with. Only effective leaders have mastered it. Again Alexander the Great serves as an example of good managers of meaning. He had an innate talent of speaking directly to the imagination of his troops, motivating, and inspiring them. He had an ability to use symbolic action to get his vision across. The gift that Alexander had can only be ascribed to prophets; his charisma was legendary. His ability to transform ordinary laborers into extraordinary soldiers was special. He used this ability to bring out the best in them, whatever their role. He dramatized the risk to demonstrate to his troops what they were up against – nonetheless, he reassured them that they were up to the challenge – he made them feel special. As a result, his soldiers rose to the occasion. Alexander had an innate ability to stretch his soldiers by creating in them a determined commitment thus fueling extraordinary effort. Just like other born leaders, Alexander was extremely creative- always prepared to challenge the status quo. He had an innate talent of finding new ways of dealing with situations that other people considered complex and difficult. He used dialogue, probed people in his inner circle until he arrived at creative solutions. The same way he was imaginative in dealing with his adversaries is the same way he was imaginative in dealing with his allies. Alexander made his followers have a feeling that they are valuable by emotionally moving and touching them, demonstrating empathy through his actions. According to Vries (2001), he possessed an ability of making people feel comfortable. The above argument represents a trait theorist’s view. This forms a good argument and the foundation of this paper’s argument and it lead to the following argument: Leaders are born but the traits they possess have to be nurtured in order to make them strong. First, the leader has to be born with certain traits and characteristics. Alexander the Great was one such individual who was born with leadership traits. However, most of these traits would not have materialized better had they not been nurtured. Behavioral theorists may argue that leaders are made and not born; however, this paper tends to disagree with this proposition. There is a huge difference between a born leader and a ‘made leader’. Traits are characteristic of a born leader. Such traits as intelligence cannot be instilled in someone who does not possess them from birth. The argument is – it is impossible to make an individual a leader if he/she is not born a leader and this explains the reason why the world is experiencing so much trouble – most of the people who have been made leaders do not possess leadership traits. Behavioral theorists also argue that being a leader is far more complicated than being intelligent, self-confident, and sociable (Mumford, 2013). However, it is important to indicate that it is difficult for leader to lead his/her followers without these traits forming the foundation. Alexander the Great was born with these characteristics; these characteristics formed the foundation on which one of the greatest leaders in the world emerged. He would not have accomplished what he accomplished if he did not possess those traits. These leadership traits shaped his leadership qualities and eventually his leadership techniques. If leaders are made and not born, why has the world not been able to make as many leaders as possible who can bring the change so much needed in the world? The answer to this question is simple – many individuals who have been proclaimed or proclaimed themselves leaders are not born leaders. It is possible that many ‘born leaders’ have taken the ‘follower’ title. While they take these titles, their positions and roles have been taken by ‘made leaders’ who are contributing to many failures in political and business leadership. Alexander’s personality has been an inspiration of myths and legends for over twenty centuries. Alexander overshadowed the age in which he lived more than any man before or since. The reason why Alexander became such a successful leader is that other than being born with unique leadership traits, he was born in an environment that identified these traits, nurtured them. As discussed earlier, one of the most difficult tasks is to identify these traits during the early developmental stages. This is what the world has not been able to do – identifying leadership traits when a person is in his/her early developmental stages. The only way that can drive the current age organizations is through effective management style and managerial skills possessed by leaders in these organizations. Human resource represents one of the major sources of competitive advantage particularly in service organizations. Therefore, it is important that managers possess some key skills that can help them achieve their responsibilities, including communication skills, decision making, group handling, and team work among others. In today’s organizations, there are both good and bad managers. It is possible to draw a difference between the two by looking at the qualities exhibited by each of them at workplace. A good manager can be identified by his/her charisma or his traits. Olson (2003) defined charisma as the qualities exhibited by an individual – qualities that distinguish him/her from other people and endow him/her with extraordinary qualities. Therefore, it can be concluded that effective leadership qualities generate through charisma and it is impossible to learn these traits over the time. These can only be born into an individual rather than being made. Though some skills can be acquired through training as behavioral theorists argue, the most effective leader is the one who possesses these skills inherently. Today, the interviews of managers of large organizations are more focused on skills of job management as well as general managerial skills which are considered inherent. This shows that organizations today require individuals to possess qualities that are highly related to job they are going to perform – qualities that will enable them to learn other qualities via on job training. Inborn traits allow leaders to foster other skills and techniques. At this point, it is important to consider a business leader, Walt Disney. Many consider Walt Disney to be a successful leader. He has made a name for himself across several industries, including media entertainment. His innate qualities have made him overcome obstacles and challenges to attain that position. He saw the future of animation in a way that others failed to see. One may describe Walt Disney as a creative, bold, and determined person, or good problem solver. Walt Disney did not learn about becoming a leader – leadership was something born into him. After his decision to make his first feature-length animated movie, most people, including his wife considered him to be crazy, and some of them told him so (Mumford, 2014). Other leaders and managers in the entertainment industry called Disney’s vision for the project “Disney’s Folly” and they had a conviction that the project will bring down the Disney studios. Despite such discouragements, Disney made a decision to proceed with his project. He put a great deal of effort into planning for the film, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, including bringing in famous artists to train animators and investing money and time developing special effects. His aim was to make sure this film achieved the highest quality possible. Disney led the team that was working on the project for a period of three years after which he ran out of money. To obtain money that would enable him and his team to finish the film, Disney showed some rough cuts of film’s portions to loan officers at a bank. The bank agreed to finance the completion of the film based on what Disney had shown them. Through his leadership skills and despite the challenges he encountered, he released a film that received a standing ovation from the theater audience. The film became the first English, Technicolor, feature-length animated film and became a huge success. The film generated over $8 million becoming the most successful film in 1938. Disney rode on this success to an extent that he greatly expanded his studio with his film ushering in what came to be referred as Disney’s Golden Age of Animation (Gabler, 2006). One of the most prominent leadership theories is the great man theory. Gabler (2006) asserts that this theory embraces the notion that history is shaped by great men who have the capacity to lead the masses. Behavioral theorists may argue that leaders are made and not born; however, the leaders who have been able to make significant changes in the world are those who were born leaders. For example, Walt Disney brought a change in the film industry through his leadership; Martin Luther King was born with leadership traits and his leadership inspired the black civil rights movement; Alexander the Great highly influenced his followers through his leadership. It cannot be said that these leaders including others such as Winston Churchill and Nikolai Lenin were made. These individuals were destined for leadership. There are several traits that made these leaders great. Some theorists have indicated that there are some personality and character traits that played a role in their leadership. The most successful leaders today and in history were born leaders and their influence spans generations. One decision by a ‘born leader’ could alter the course of history. For example, Thomas Jefferson’s decision to purchase Louisiana changed the course of history. How would the world be if each country had a thousand ‘Luther Kings’, a thousand ‘Alexanders’, a thousand ‘Churchills’, a thousand ‘Lenin’, and a thousand ‘Disneys’. The world would be different. The most significant example today is that one of former Apple’s CEO, Steve Jobs. Steve Jobs led Apple in a way that nobody else could (Kutsar, Ghose and Kutsar 2014). Steve Jobs was fired from Apple in 1985 after which he left and founded another company, NeXT. After Jobs was fired, the new CEO at Apple, John Sculley managed to successfully increase sales from $800 million to $8 billion. However, the company experienced leadership controversy when it departed from Job’s sales strategy. The sales fell drastically and margins began to erode and Sculley was forced out of Apple. In 1996, the company began struggling. Jobs resumption to the CEO’s post brought the company back from the brink of bankruptcy to profitability. After he came back, he launched a series of innovative products such as iPod, iPhone, iPad, iMac, iTunes, and Apple Retail Stores. In 2011, Apple was announced as the most valuable public company in the world making. It was one of the greatest turnaround stories in the field of business marshaled by a great ‘born leader.’ He triumphed where others had failed. Both Sculley and Jobs were leaders; however, while one was a ‘made leader’, the other one was a ‘born leader’. The ‘born leader’ triumphed where the ‘made leader’ had failed. Steve Jobs was endowed with superior qualities that differentiated him not only from his followers but also from other leaders. References Bose, P. 2004. Alexander the Great's Art of Strategy: The Timeless Leadership Lessons of History’s Greatest Empire Builder. London: Penguin Gabler, Neal. 2006. Walt Disney: The Triumph of American Imagination. New York: Random House. Hoffman, B., Woehr, D., Maldagen-Youngjohn, R. and Lyons, B. 2011. Great man or great myth? A quantitative review of the relationship between individual differences and leader effectiveness. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 84, pp. 347-381. Kutsar, V., Ghose, N. and Kutsar, Y. 2014. Leadership Analysis Using Management Tools: Steve Jobs. American International Journal of Contemporary Research. Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 125-130. Mumford, M. 2013. Leadership 101. New York: Springer Publishing Company Olson, T. 2003. Organizational Culture Putting the Organizational Culture Concept to Work – The Behavior Analyst Today, 3(4), 473–478. Plutarch, J. 2012. The lives of the noble Grecians and Romans. (John Dryden, Trans.) New York: The Modern Library. Read More