Are leaders born or taught? A reconciliation of both theories

Leadership: Born vs. Taught Leaders

Born vs. Taught Leaders: Leadership

Experts have given conflicting views in the question of whether leaders are born or made. One faction believes that leaders are born with special qualities that predispose them to occupy positions of authority from an early age. The other, however, believes that leadership capabilities are developed over time through education and training. This text evaluates both arguments and gives a tentative position on the issue.

Are Leaders Born or Taught?

Rose Haggerty and Don Berwick give conflicting views on the question of whether people who are not born leaders can actually become good leaders. Berwick is of the opinion that whereas some people are born to be leaders, anyone can lead, as long as they receive the right training and education. In other words, leadership can be taught. Haggerty, on the other hand, believes that leaders are born; as such, only the outgoing, socially-intelligent people, who are naturally able to work with others and bring together a wide variety of views, can make good leaders.

I am of the opinion that leadership is a set of innate traits, perfected and refined over time through experience, training and education. There are some inborn qualities such as extroversion that predispose one to become a leader. These can rightly be described as the 'raw materials' of leadership, which have to be nurtured and refined through training and education in order for one to make a good leader. People born with these characteristics are better-placed to become leaders. This is not to mean, however, that those born without these qualities cannot become leaders -- they can be taught to lead, through training and education, only that they will require more work in self-development than their counterparts who are born-leaders. Towards this end, it is possible for someone who is not a born-leader to be taught to lead, as long as they are willing and capable of learning. There is empirical proof to support the argument that leadership can be taught. A multi-year study conducted on 1800+ army officers with the aim of developing a capabilities model that connects a leader's skill and knowledge to their performance concluded that leadership capabilities can be developed through education and experience (Connelly et al., 2000).

Moreover, even the born leaders require training and education to be able to lead effectively. We could take the example of child-leaders in school settings -- these are mostly selected based on some charismatic traits that they possess beyond their peers. However, these leaders only retain their command to the point of the first crisis -- when a baseball breaks a window, or someone gets sick, someone of higher authority, most often a teacher, takes command. This is an illustration that even those endowed with the desirable traits of leadership from birth require self-development, training and education to be able to effectively handle more complex crises situations. Although they are predisposed to lead, they need to be taught some crucial skills such as self-reflection and focused-thinking skills, which are crucial to effective leadership in complex situations. I would conclude, therefore, that leadership can be taught.

Question 3: The Importance of Curiosity in Leadership and Management

A 2015 survey by PWC involving over a thousand CEOs revealed that open-mindedness and curiosity were the two attributes that CEOs need most to succeed in these turbulent times (PWC, 2015). These findings mirror the views of Dell Corporation CEO, Michael Dell, who when asked in a recent interview what attributes he thought were most relevant to leaders in these challenging times, mentioned curiosity and flexibility (PWC, 2015b). These illustrations prompt one to wonder what exactly the role of curiosity in leadership and management is.

Curiosity is an inquisitive interest in the concerns of others; a desire to know. A curious leader reads, asks questions, and engages in constructive dialogue. He is open to new ideas, and does not accept the status quo. He is never satisfied with 'the way we have always done it', and is continually seeking for new and better ways of doing things. Such a leader is always looking for ways to grow when others seem contented with staying in place.

This kind of inquisitive attitude increases a leader's effectiveness in a variety of ways. To begin with, it inspires a leader to continually seek out fresh approaches and ideas as a means of staying ahead of competitors, and keeping up with change (Berger, 2015). This is particularly crucial in a dynamic, constantly-evolving environment as the modern-day marketplace. Moreover, a curious leader is able to strengthen the relationships that he shares with colleagues and subordinates because he is able to demonstrate that he is interested in what they have to say. This makes subordinates and colleagues feel valued and important. Furthermore, by respectfully questioning his audience, such a leader is able to obtain deeper insights and generate more ideas from all areas of an organization. This helps to raise the levels of employee engagement in the organization.

Curiosity, therefore, helps a leader to not only cultivate healthy relationships with his followers, but also remain current and relevant in a competitive and dynamic environment.