Leadership: Born or Made? Sneha

Leadership: Born or Made?

Sneha & Joshi

Goleman et al.

Koestenbaum

Tepe

Kouzes & Posner

Singh

Avolio

Leadership and the Balance Between Inborn Talent and Learned Skill

An effective leader is one who possesses both the innate talents of one who will preside with influence over others and the acquired skills that come with education, training and experience. This natural balance produces some difficulty however in understanding how the effective leader should best be defined. Indeed, the debate is here initiated as to whether leadership is a role for which certain individuals are born or if instead a largely pool of potential leadership candidates may be crafted through proper training measures into effective and even exceptional leaders. Based on the research evidence and theoretical discussion available for our consideration, we are yet a great distance from reaching a resolution on the subject.

Myriad sources make the case that qualities such as emotional intelligence and unique inner-greatness are a demonstration that leadership is a highly individual trait and that it is largely one with which the best leaders are born. Evidence of their inevitable greatness in business or elsewhere, such research would argue, will have been observable in the individual at younger developmental stages. By contrast, many theorists will put forth the argument that leadership is simply a role which must be filled in many walks of life. Like so many skills, many theorists would argue, leadership skills can be instilled and refined through training, practice and experience. To an extent, the wide spectrum of leadership positions filled in the business world alone suggests that the latter logic applies to hiring and advancement decisions. However, as the research investigation conducted hereafter will show, this is not necessarily an approach which is conducive to the best leadership models and performances. Instead, research will tend to endorse something of a more balanced approach in defining leadership.

Problem Statement:

The problem at the center of this discussion is the difficulty of establishing that which qualifies one as an effective leader. In the debate over whether leadership traits are inborn or learned, there are equally compelling arguments to make either case. Reconciling the balance on the subject will serve as the primary objective here. The problem therefore is not to make the argument to one end or the other so much as to qualify both arguments in an open discussion on leadership. Therefore, the literature review presented here below will consider sources that take a diverse spectrum of views on the subject. By presenting these in relation to one another, the examination will attempt to produce some instructive recommendations on how to evaluate leadership in the current business environment.

Literature Review:

As a point of introductory consideration, the text by Sneha & Joshi (2002) provides some basic assessment of that which is meant by leadership. It seems appropriate as a way of initiating this discussion to consider some of the basic definitional assessments of leadership. Particularly, the text considers that if we are to parse through the difficult questions of leadership as being either inborn or learned, "the work 'leadership' is critical to understand. If we look around a little carefully then it would be clear to us that almost all types of animals, which live in a group, invariable have a leader. The history of humankind clearly shows the existence of the leadership in one form or other since time immemorial. The form and types have been changing time and again." (Sneha & Joshi, p. xi-xii)

In a sense, this introductory sentiment only furthers the uncertainty over a debate between the origins of individual leadership qualities. The notion that forms and types of leadership are in a constant state of flux suggests that the preferred qualities of leadership are always shifting. If this is so, it poses an argument in favor of the case that leadership is culturally, socially and contextually driven. This would seem a strong point of advocacy for the case that leadership is learned and that great leaders are made. However, the same sentiment above notes that leadership is found inherently in the animal kingdom, suggesting that certain physiological features make some naturally inclined toward leadership and others more naturally inclined to follow. First, we explore this latter notion that leadership is connected to certain traits which are possessed from birth.

Perhaps one of the strongest arguments in favor of the view that leadership qualities are inborn is that relating to emotional intelligence. Organizational theorists and modern leaders alike have posed the argument that leadership is directly associated with one's emotional intelligence and that certain qualities correlated to a high Emotional Quotient (EQ) are likely to translate into positive leadership traits. This presents itself as an argument in favor of the idea that leadership is in some regard inborn. So states the text by Goleman et al. (2002), which is driven by the presumption that leaders are not so much made as they are born. The titular notion of "primal leadership" suggests that the best leaders are in some way guided by instinct and by a set of core competencies that are a part of individual nature.

The unique composition of traits which constitutes every individual, the text by Goleman et al. argues, has a significant bearing on the way that the individual handles leadership responsibilities, addresses challenges, interacts with others and makes decisions. These demands suggest a leader is one with a certain constitution that makes him particularly suited to handle such responsibilities. Goleman et al. indicate that certain physiological realities must inherently contribute to the particular capabilities that one will possess in the mode of leadership. As the text tells, "perhaps unique among management theories, the primal leadership model builds on links to neurology. Breakthroughs in brain research show why leaders' moods and actions have enormous impact on those they lead, and shed fresh light on the power of emotionally intelligent leadership to inspire, arouse passion and enthusiasm, and keep people motivated and committed. Conversely, we sound a warning about the power of toxic leadership to poison the emotional climate of a workplace." (Goleman, p. x)

Here, Goleman et al. make the case that those same qualities which make one either an excellent leader or a destructive one will necessarily be connected to certain ingrained, inborn and even neurological features that are immutable. This is part and parcel to the theory underlying emotional intelligence as a predictor of leadership competency. In the view taken by Goleman et al., the way that others respond to the leader is a primary effecter and determinant of how competent we may characterize his leadership to be. Certainly, the ability to command respect, delegate effectively and yield the desired impression of one's leadership qualifications to personnel on the whole will be precipitated by the leader's ability to positively impact his followers. Goleman et al. argue that this ability is directly connected to the leader's emotional orientation. Here Goleman et al. indicate, "while most people recognize that a leader's mood -- and how he or she impacts the mood of others -- plays a significant role in any organization, emotions are often seen as too personal or unquantifiable to talk about in a meaningful way. But research in the field of emotion has yielded keen insights into not only how to measure the impact of a leader's emotions but also how the best leaders have found effective ways to understand and improve the way they handle their own and other people's emotions." (Goleman et al., p. 4)

The text by Goleman et al. proceeds toward the overarching conclusion that quite indeed, there are certain personality-driven features of one's emotional intelligence which can neither be learned nor unlearned. These features are denoted in the way that leaders function in the midst of the inherent personnel challenges, workplace crises, organizational transformations and other corporate events that test the mettle and emotional constitution of all parties. As Goleman et al. suggest, the manner in which a leader responds emotionally to any such circumstances will have a determinant impact on how personnel respond. This, in turn will have a determinant impact on how well challenges are met, crises are overcome, transformations are effectively implemented and objectives are ultimately met. It is thus that the text by Goleman et al. seems to overwhelmingly support the argument that leadership qualities are inborn and that the best and most effective leaders cannot learn those features which make them so instinctually effective.

Goleman et al. assert that traditional markers of intelligence may also be used to suggest certain inherencies on the neurological level in one suited for leadership. That said, they do so with an explicit caveat to the fact that emotional intelligence is a far greater determinant of how much a leader will stand out in this role. Accordingly, Goleman et al. report that when a "comparison matched star performers against average ones in senior leadership positions, about 85% of the difference in their profiles was attributable to emotional intelligence factors rather to purely cognitive abilities like technical expertise. One reason has to do with the intellectual hurdles that senior executives jump in obtaining their jobs. It takes at least an IQ of about 110 to 120 to get an advanced degree such as an MBA. There is thus a high selection pressure for IQ in order to enter the executive ranks." (p. 250)

The text goes on to argue that the result is that there is not a great deal of variation in the intellectual properties possessed by most leaders. In a sense, this is a further confirmation that certain qualities are inborn, insofar as most leaders can be expected to fall within a specific range of proven intellectual capacity. To go a step further to this point though, Goleman et al. indicate that the difference between the excellent, the average and the inadequate leader will be founded on the high variance of emotional intelligence capabilities. This suggests that leadership excellence is found in the exclusive cross-section of those with both a high IQ and a high Emotional Intelligence. To this point, Goleman et al. go on to indicate that "there is little or no systematic selection pressure when it comes to emotional intelligence, and so there is a much wider range of variation among executives. That lets superiority in these capabilities count far more than IQ when it comes to star leadership performance." (p. 250-251) Here, it is contended that the unique qualities of intellectual capability and emotional intelligence help to define one as an exceptional leader. These are inborn traits that provide grounding to the argument that leadership itself is inborn.

For its own reasons, the text by Koestenbaum (2002) is also oriented to describe leadership as something which is more notably facilitated by internal and inborn features than by skills which can be learned through either education or experience. Accordingly, Koestenbaum proceeds from the argument that leadership is attended by a wide array of challenges and that the truly great leader will have a distinct internal composition that allows him to weather, rise above and even thrive in the face of these challenges. Koestenbaum refers to this composition as 'inner greatness' and argues that the best business leaders will demonstrate this quality. Accordingly, Koestenbaum notes that "it is clear that, worldwide, the need for leadership is unprecedented. Yet few appreciate how difficult it is to be an authentic leader. Just having money or authority does not make people leaders. One feels gratitude toward real leader, for they have the courage to serve others in circumstances that many individuals avoid or simply cannot handle." (Koestenbaum, p. 5)

To Koestenbaum, leadership is often defined in the midst of conflict, controversy and crisis. One who is not naturally gifted with the talents of even-keeled emotional balance and equanimity in the face of tumult will naturally be exposed for his incompetence or, if failing the oversight for this to occur, will always be suspected or accused of incompetence by those over whom he is expected to preside. It is to this end that Koestenbaum makes authenticity a primary determinant of what it means to be a competent or even an excellent leader. Koestenbaum states that leadership must be differentiated from the mere occupation of a position of power. One can certainly be made to occupy a position, serve its nominal functions and presume to register a meaningful influence over his followers. However, without exhibiting the traits described as emotional intelligence in the account by Goleman et al. And described as inner greatness in the text by Koestenbaum, one is likely to be exposed for his lack of authenticity.

Koestenbaum does indicate that those who rise to positions of authority are more often likely to possess these abilities than not however. Particularly, this is because it requires a certain inner-drive to reach a position where leadership has been vested in one. So reports Koestenbaum when he notes that "leading requires ownership of the meaning of personal responsibility and accountability. It means fully internalizing the human truth that, in your world, nothing happens unless you make it happen. You must understand that the consequences of your action and inaction are like your children: you create them, they are extensions of you, you are responsible for them, for you are they, but they live their own lives nevertheless. It is therefore a 'fact' of the structure of human nature that you are responsible for your world." (p. 6) Koestenbaum goes on to note that the world is inherently designed for the self-starter, for the independent individual, for the free-thinker and for those who are relentlessly driven to be released from traditional patterns of success. This denotes that leadership will be founded on at least a certain measure of innate uniqueness, will-power and resistance to conformity. Again, we are presented with an argument that largely favors the view of leadership as being best served by the individual with inborn talents.

This view, however, does not fully capture the consensus on the fulfillment of leadership roles in the modern era. Especially within the framework of a fast-changing and constantly shifting business atmosphere, those talents and abilities which are inborn may not be sufficient on their own to render one a good, effective or fully prepared leader. To this point, the text compiled by Tepe (2008) offers a collection of essays composed by organizational theorists and relating to the challenges inherent to leadership. The text is particularly instructive for its examination of leadership in an increasingly globally interconnected business community. The pressures, challenges and demands for adaptation which are attendant to leadership in a context of outsourcing, offshoring and internationalizing are unlikely to have been inborn. To the contrary, the leadership traits which are demanded in this context are gradually being learned by the collective global business community. The evolution of the current business landscape suggests that the traits of leadership demanded there within are also in a state of evolution. if, as we have reported above, leadership is to a degree inborn, it is also true as the Tepe essay compilation demonstrates, that one must be in a constant state of development as a leader as patterns and industries transform.

Accordingly, Tepe reports on some of the perspectives that have driven the theoretical discussion on leadership traits over the course of its recent history. Here, Tepe demonstrates the perspective that leadership approaches must necessarily reflect some of the external features of the sectors, industries, businesses and even the moments in history in which they are taken. Tepe notes that "according to Burns (1978), leadership is the 'reciprocal process of mobilizing, by persons with certain motives and values, various economic, political and other resources, in a context of competition and conflict, in order to realize goals independently or mutually held by both leaders and followers.'" (Tepe, p. 2)

It is the idea of reciprocity expressed here which is especially important to our understanding of leadership in the changing global landscape. On some level, there is a growing appreciation for the fact that a leader must not simply lead from within but should reflect some of the conditions which contextualize this leadership. For those who have functioned as leaders over a sustained period of time and up to the present day, many significant transformations have occurred. Over just the last twenty years, we have seen an exponential advance in global treaties and alliances aimed at reducing the barriers to free trade and pushing further the agenda of international collaboration within and between corporations and their personnel. This has substantially altered the landscape of leadership for those who must navigate the inherent challenges of a local operation while overseeing collaboration with operational partners in other countries and cultures. Tepe refers to the notion of transactional leadership here, noting that there are inherent cultural and social challenges which must be met in achieving the influence accorded an effective leader. Here, Tepe tells that "Leadership involves disproportionate influence, and all over the world, the leadership role associated with power and status. Thus the way in which power and status are divided in society is relevant to the leadership role. Hofstede defines power distance as 'the extent to which a society accepts the fact that power in institutions and organizations is distributed unequally.' In cultures with large differences in power between individuals, organizations will have more layers and the chain of command is felt to be more important." (Tepe, p. 18)

This seems to suggest almost indisputably that many of the skills which will be required to thrive in the current business environment must be learned. Certainly, the Tepe source notes, this is also true of adjusting to the technological transformation of business as well. During this same scope of time and certainly in association with the evolution of global free trade initiatives, businesses have transformed around the communication opportunities afforded by the proliferation of the world wide web. Likewise, the popular penetration of mobile communication devices like cell phones and wireless smart devices has undone many of the time and space limitations historically foisted upon businesses. And perhaps most essentially, the inherency of e-commerce strategies to every modern business has expanded the purview of the business leader into new realms. Here, the argument must also be made, the Tepe source indicates, that the business leader must be in a constant state of growth if he is to remain relevant. Tepe notes that "changing community expectations, workforce demands and values, rapidly changing technology, governmental arrangements, policing philosophies, and ethical standards are some of the drives that should be understood and constructively managed by the current and incoming generation of senior managers." (Tepe, p. 95)

The view presented across the various essays selected for inclusion by Tepe is supported to an extent in the text by Kouzes & Posner (2003), which reports on leadership as a concept which must be seen as being in a state of flux today. Quite in fact, Kouzes & Posner indicate, this state of flux is necessary if the modern leader is to survive in a decidedly unstable business context. Certainly, in addition to the technological and cultural challenges of the changes business environment, the ongoing state of global recession that can be seen as part of the adjustment process is imposing a certain urgency upon leaders to make the necessary adaptations. So reports the text by Kouzes & Posner where it makes the indication that "from an economic perspective the world is boundaryless -- and the implications are cultural as well. With global economics comes a global workforce, a fact of life for which many executives are ill-prepared. English may be the language of business, understood whatever the accent; custom and culture, however, are far from uniform. Despite the electronic linkages -- or perhaps because of them -- the world may be connected but it is far from a community. For all the talk of the global economy, the world is a pretty parochial place." (Kouzes & Posner, p. xx)

Leaders suffer the consequences of this narrowness of thinking by themselves being restrained to old models of leadership. This restraint is often a predictor of leadership failure as the pressures on flagging businesses to adapt become yet more determinant in how long said businesses are even able to survive. This suggests that from the perspective of Kouzes & Posner, it is absolutely imperative for the modern leader to be engaged in a process of transformation. The ways in which the business environment has changed indicate that leaders are left with little choice but to evolve or become extinct. In this way, Kouzes & Posner become clear advocates for the position that a great leader is not just made but is always in a state of becoming this great leader. In other works, the trait of adaptability may be inborn but the exceptional leader will ultimately channel this adaptability into an intuitive reflection of patterns in the company, the industry, the sector or the economy at large. The notion that leadership traits are strictly inborn, the text suggests, seems further to imply that it is not necessary for the leader to serve in reflection of the will of those whom he leads. Instead, Kouzes & Posner assert that the leader must view his position as a reflection of that which he comes to learn about his company, its stakeholders and the personnel instructed to follow his lead. Kouzes & Posner report that "the domain of leaders is the future. The leader's unique legacy is the creation of valued institutions that survive over time. The most significant contribution leaders make is not simply to today's bottom line; it is to the long-term development of people and institutions so they can adapt, change, prosper, and grow." (p. xxviii)

The text by Singh (2008) uses the theoretical framework of organizational behavior as a way of viewing the roles, expectations and qualities which distinguish a leader. By grounding an assessment of leadership in this broader discussion on organizational behavior, the text is particularly effective at revealing leadership as distinct in certain regards from one organization to another. Based on the notion that organizational behavior will frequently be a function of a broader organizational culture and further proceeding from the argument that group dynamics will be a broader determinant than any one leader's behaviors, the text by Singh seems above all else to advocate the balance in leadership assessment that this literature review seems evermore to recognize as appropriate.

Certainly, Singh's take on organizational behavior carries the presumption that the leader must be gifted at once in navigating personnel and organizational needs and, simultaneously, willing to learn from the cues around him. Singh tells that "understanding of an individual behaviour itself is a challenge, but understanding group behaviour in an organizational environment is a monumental managerial task. Human behaviour in organizations is unpredictable. However, it can be partially understood in terms of the framework of behavioural sciences, management and other disciplines. There are no simple readymade formulas for working with people in the organizations. There is no idealistic panacea for solving organizational problems. The success of any organization primarily depends upon how good the management of the organization is and the effectiveness of the management depends upon how to get the things done more effectively by the employees." (Singh, p. 2)