Leaders are Born not Made - Essay Example

Leaders Are Born Not Made Student’s Name Institution Question: ‘Leaders are born not made’. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? Justify your answer using leadership theories and relevant examples. Abstract Leadership has become a top most priority in many contemporary organizations. Business entities nowadays value leadership because of its unique ability in inspiring achievement and convert them into desirable results. There is a prominent quote purporting that leaders are born and not made. The quote has sparked a series of debates and there has never been a consensus on whether leaders are made or born. The debate has been of interest since it may sway the decision of human resource management to hire ‘leaders’ or groom their own ‘leaders’ to take up their leadership roles. Therefore, the quote formed the basis of the paper. The paper analysis various arguments and counter arguments for the quote with the aim of providing some insights on the theory of leadership in regard to management. Keywords: Leadership, management, leaders, born, groom Leaders Are Born Not Made Introduction There have been several opinions as to whether leaders are born or typically made. The debate still rages on till to date. There is no consensus if leaders are born or developed. The debate is so essential to the management practice because the belief that a leader is born would most likely prompt the selection of the right people for top positions, and not developing new leaders. Contrary to the above, believing that leaders are rather developed would encourage the ideology of ensuring that individuals get the perfect opportunities for the development of leadership skills. In between, there are also people who believe that true leadership skills are an interaction between genetics and acquired life experience. Therefore, the aim of the paper is to give a critical analysis on the existing arguments and counter arguments on the debate. Leadership manifests in a varied array of accomplishments ranging from religion, culture to war, technology, politics and even education. It encompasses all manners of influence, authority, moral, energy, intellect, and weak, strong, passive and among other characteristics. Actually, leadership is found in all levels of hierarchy of any institution. There is also contemporary and historical leadership that is dynamic or unchanging (Houston, 2012). May be the above composition of leadership could be a reason why there still exists no concrete definition of leadership. There are several people who have tried to define what leadership is. However, all these definitions only describe what leadership is, which is some how vague. Micciche (2008) defines leadership as the ability of a person to influence other people to work above their normal levels in order to achieve a preset objective. According to him, leadership could be a process of assisting others to work with the aim of attaining certain predetermined goals. These goals are usually set with the participation of both the leaders and their followers. The leaders are then mandated to oversee the achievement of these goals. Adetule (2011) offers a very simple definition of leadership as the possession of ability to lead others. Bowerman and Van (2011) give an elaborate definition of leadership. They say that leadership is the capacity of a person to set direction, influence and align other people towards attaining a specific goal, while at the same time committing and motivating them to perform and concurrently making them responsible for their actions. Though the above definition tries to describe leadership, it is still inadequate in defining leadership. For better understanding of the term, there is need to examine the characteristics of a leader. For one, it is essential to note that marking of a leader is not a title or a position that a person holds. However, it is the number of people who are willing to follow that particular leader (Marques, 2010). DeRue et al. (2012) outlines several characteristics that would determine the number of followers that a leader has. Among them are honesty, inspirational, very competent, of high intelligence, fair and broad minded, a lot of courage, and very imaginative. Nevertheless, the above attributes still do not envisage all that leadership entails. It samples only a few common traits of a leader, which can not describe leadership in totality. A true leader should be very proficient in tactics and techniques. Besides, leaders should be able to know and understand themselves and try to seek self-improvement. From the latter statement, the improvement of leadership suggests that leadership could be made. Other than the above, leaders should also know their employees, keep them updated, and look out for the welfare of these employees. Deducing from the above statement, leaders should care for their employees. More importantly, leaders should set a good example for their followers. A leader should also have strong communication skills that will ensure that the employees understand their tasks. Leaders should also have strong supervision skills that will enable the accomplishment of allocated duties. Even so, Marques (2010) explains that being a supervisor does not make one a leader, but a leader should possess strong supervision skills. Besides, a leader should inculcate the culture of teamwork within the workers. A good leader should be a person who makes sound and timely decisions. He should develop a strong sense of responsibility and deploy each person according to their capabilities. Equally important, leaders should seek and take responsibility for their actions (Watkins, 2012). Up to that point, the above illustrations can assist in understanding what the concept of leadership entails. There are several theories relating to leadership as far as management is concerned. Adetule (2011) groups these theories into three broad categories. The first theory is referred to as great man theory. It is also know as trait theory. The theory simply states that leaders are born and not made. According him, its one of the oldest theories that is still applicable to date. The theory holds that leadership is natural or inborn and can never be nurtured. Leadership is something that is hereditary and not dependent on the environment of a person and that one can never acquire the act of leadership through learning. In other words, the theory believes that leadership runs in blood and once born a leader, the person will automatically become a leader. However, recent studies tend to differ with this theory. Watkins (2012) seems to support the theory and offers a very cogent backing for the theory stating that cognitive ability is set at birth. Ideally, cognitive abilities equates to the intelligence quotient (IQ) of an individual. According to him, the leadership abilities are pegged on the IQ of an individual. Since IQ is inherited and leadership skills depend on IQ, one can conclude that leadership is natural, inborn, or inherited. Strictly speaking from a psychological point of view, no amount of training or education can ever increase the level of an individual’s IQ making leadership to be an oxymoron. From the argument, it is clear that leadership tends to be inborn and training and life experience have no effects on leadership skills of an individual. According to Houston (2012), the definition of leadership does not elaborate on how to lead in the actual sense. He insists that the definition does not explain what a leader should say or tell in a specific situation simply because there is no particular formula for being a leader. Having granted the above premises, it logically follows that leadership must come from within and hinges on the personality of an individual. He argues that leadership and the skills for the same must be developed. It is through this training that people discover how to develop the innate abilities of leadership and assist in building the required confidence to bring out the leadership in them. In regard to this argument, training only enables the person to bring the inbuilt leadership from within a person. The workings of these two scholars clearly support the trait theory and believe that leaders are born and never made. DeRue et al. (2012) argue that every individual has the potential of being a leader, but understanding of leadership concepts determines the kind of leadership styles of a person whether it is selling, telling, delegating, or participating as illustrated in the situational leadership model. The above is also enhanced by the differences in the level of maturity, level of intelligence, compliance, and even the extent of motivation. Thus, the variability in great and good leaders emanates from the amount of leadership skills that they have enhanced and how they apply them. Farlow (2012) concurs that leadership potential exists within each and every person. However, such leadership potential could only be exploited when outside events or learning through the exploration of oneself from within. He likens leadership to muscles that can only become stronger when one exercises. Specifically, he notes that training could assist in the latter approach of triggering leadership. Once individuals have learnt the theoretical aspects of leadership, they can build confidence within themselves to take the role of leading others. He stresses that the more genuine a leader is the more leadership becomes easy and rewarding to the individual. Farlow (2012) holds that leaders must possess innate talents and skills. However, being a successful leader will require the person to be well conversant on how to nurture these talents and the appropriate time to use them. The statements of these two scholars are agreement that leadership is inherited and that training and lessons only helps to exhibit these leadership skills. The second theory is the behavioral theory. According to the theory, the leadership skills of people are shaped through their behavior and interaction with their followers. The theory says that people can get some lessons on certain behaviors to enhance their leadership effectiveness at the work place. For example, some of the leaders will emphasize on the productivity and accomplishment of tasks, while others will stress on the maintenance of the group and the concerns of the group that he leads. The theory postulates that none of the leaders above is superior over the other, but a combination of the two will make one a good leader. In addition, the theory does not account for uniqueness of leaders that is very evident in the trait theory (Marques, 2010). Peculiar and personal experiences are the ingredient of power for individuals to lead as per the behavioral theory. However, not every person can bring the appropriate mix of knowledge, experience and insights of making a good leader. Only those people who are dedicated and committed to learn are at the brink of becoming leaders because they are on the right track of learning concepts about leadership (Bowerman, & Van, 2011). The argument tends to reassure that leadership is something that can be made from a person. Micciche (2008) supports the behavioral theory arguing that leaders are made through a hard and rigorous effort. He says that the effort is like a price tag paid just like any other achievement of a goal. He elaborates that a good leader is one who has both the genetics for leadership and learnt skills. According to him, an effective and efficient leader must possess the innate talent and the learned skill that is nurtured through training, experience and education. Deducing from his argument, he envisages leadership as a concoction of inherited skills and learned techniques. The third theory is known as contingency theory. Some scholars refer to it as all depends or situational theory. The theory has such a name because the action of the manager, in this cases the leader, on the present circumstance at hand. The theory applies to a matter that requires agent decisions. The urgency of such matters can not allow the manager to call for meeting to debate on the issue. Therefore, the leaders must adjust there leadership styles to fit into the situation or the group they lead. However, the leaders can also change their followers to align with their leadership styles. Thus, the leadership of such a person would manifest on the success of the quick decision that they make (Adetule, 2011). Houston (2012) notes that learning and application of these life lessons, acquired through the process of academics or life experience, are critical for successful leadership. He notes that leaders who have failed in their leadership roles do so as a result of failing to learn or fail to apply what they have been learning. According to him, the fast changing world demands a person who can internalize signs around them very quickly and relate them to their undertakings. In addition, the person must also be in a position to influence and motivate others to action. The above can therefore make them great leaders. The premises points out directly that he believes that leaders are made and not born. Bowerman and Van (2011) claim that people are born with some specific genes that may play a role to the odds of being born leaders. Such traits include creativity, cognition, and intelligence. Nevertheless, the socialization of an individual within the environment will also determine the growth of extra personality characteristics that are synonymous to leaders. These attributes are normally exhibited through training and tutoring of the individual. Marques (2010) accepts that there is some truth that leaders are born. He says so because leaders tend to inherit some gifts of communication skills and high level of intelligence that are usually passed to one generation after the other. However, he says that there are people who are leaders not because they were born leaders, but because they have a calling to lead. Particularly, the religious leaders believe that they have a calling to lead. He tends to insinuate that there are two distinct leaders; those who are born and those who are trained to be leaders. The preposition slightly differs with other earlier arguments postulating that true leadership is a combination of inherited and learned skills. A research conducted by McDaniel and DiBella-McCarthy (2012) suggests that 15 percent of the population inherit necessary traits for leadership, 70 percent can learn to be effective leaders and the remaining 15 percent do not acquire these traits. From these findings, it means that 85% of people are capable of becoming leaders, while the reaming 15 percents can never be leaders even through training. The research also suggests that leadership skills can be inherited; or rather a person can be born with these skills. However, majority of people are nurtured to lead. They learn these leadership skills through training and life experience. McDaniel and DiBella-McCarthy (2012) concluded that successful and true leadership will demand an appropriate combination of situations, followers and more importantly, leaders. To sum up, it is essential to note that leadership has become critical in the current business environment that is very competitive and demanding. It helps organizations to approach its entire shortcoming effectively and efficiently. Strong leadership steers and guides a business entity in the correct path of success making almost all organization to desire making some leaders as part of their employees. The knowledge of whether leaders are born or made may assist in the hiring process as it will dictate whether an organization hires leaders or hires and trains people for leadership positions. From the above discussion, it could be possible to assume that leadership is a combination of inherited genes and training. Therefore, organizations that are focused on having good leaders should hire people who exhibit the leadership characteristics and mould them to become leaders of their desire. References Adetule, J. (2011). Handbook on management theories. Bloomington: Author House. Bowerman, K. D., & Van, W. M. (2011). The business of leadership: An introduction. Armonk, N.Y: M.E Sharpe. DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Workman, K. (2012). A quasi-experimental study of after-event reviews and leadership development.Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(5): 997. Farlow, M. J. (2012). Leaders are made not born: 40 simple skills to make you the leader you want to be. London: LinkUp Publishers. Houston, P. (2012). An analysis of leadership: Are leaders born or made. Available at http://nickinthegoal.net/leadership/leadership_born_made.pdf Marques, J. F. (2010). Awakened leaders: born or made?. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31(4): 307-323. McDaniel, E. A., & DiBella-McCarthy, H. (2012). Reflective leaders become causal agents of change. Journal of Management Development, 31(7): 663-671. Micciche, R. (2008). The principles of leadership: The people and events that inspired my vision of true leadership. Raleigh, North Carolina: Lulu.com Watkins, M. D. (2012). How managers become leaders. Harvard business review, 90(6): 64-72. Read More