Some people believe that leaders are born not made. It comes as no surprise that there are other people who believe the exact opposite; that humans are made not born. In part, the reason for this dichotomy is because humans find it difficult to agree on anything.
Recently, I read an article in Psychology Today in which the author Ronald Riggio wrote: “Studies using identical twins estimate that leadership is about one-third born (due to genetic factors) and two-thirds made. Yet, many leaders say the exact opposite – believing leaders are mostly born.” (1) I guess the debate will continue into the future. I want to look at another side of the debate.
One of the reasons for the difference of opinion is because humans have this uncanny knack of ignoring what we know intuitively when we get into academic discussions. When people are considering whether leaders are born or made they instinctively restrict the idea of being born a leader to being born with the innate ability to provide effective leadership under all conditions. Anyone who is born without that innate ability would have to be made into a leader. If the studies that Riggio cited are to be believed it is obvious that whatever abilities one is born with have to be nurtured and developed. This is not only true of leadership.
There are two reasons why one attends a leadership program: to discover whether one was born as a leader or to be made into a leader. The philosophy behind all leadership programs is that leaders are made. Since these programs are run by humans one has to wonder where they got their ideas concerning leadership if they were not born as leaders.
But this is not the angle I wish to explore here. Instead of focusing on leadership I think the question asks us to focus on the difference between being born and being made. Humans are born not made. The lesson is not that only some humans are born as leaders and that it is our task to sniff them out by exposing them to a battery of leadership principles that will ignite the leadership that lays dormant within them. The lesson is that only organisms that are born can be leaders. The obverse to this is that all humans are leaders by virtue of the fact that they are born.
The truth of this is seen in the fact that leadership can not only be seen in humans; it is also evident in all non-human species where existence is a function of "birth." We find leaders among fish, among birds, among chimpanzees, among lions, among ants. Every organism has leadership qualities and exercises those qualities whenever nature requires that it be exercised.
Only among humans is leadership fraught with so much inefficiency. This is not because leaders among non-human species are always effective. Nature has a mechanism in all non-human species for moving ineffective leaders out of the way. Observations of this have been made among gorillas, for example. If the leader of the pack cannot maintain his position he will be replaced. Only among humans is an ineffective leader able to maintain his position. In some cases leadership is a function of seniority, or leaders remain in position for a time fixed regardless of performance. This is not the natural way of providing leadership.
I hasten to say that the answer is not to change our leadership and organizational structure so that ineffective leaders can be removed more easily. That is the negative approach to leadership inefficiency. Besides, our assessment that a leader may be ineffective may be wrong. Because we are humans we often stumble. It is no surprise that leaders often stumble in their leadership. Replacing a ‘bad’ leader is no guarantee that she will be replaced by a more effective leader.
The answer to our leadership problems is to recognize that leadership is a natural phenomenon. We must base our practice of leadership on the principles of leadership that are on display in the world to which belong. The first lesson we will learn from nature is that leadership is not a function of the individual; it is a function of the group. Being a leader means nothing unless there is a group to be led.
Several years ago I heard a story about three boy scouts who were sitting around a camp fire. Suddenly, one of the scouts one of the boys got up and began to walk into the woods. The narrator concluded: If the two other boy scouts also got up and followed him into the woods we have a leader, otherwise all we have is a boy scout taking a walk.
1. Riggio, Ronald. (2010) “Are Leaders Born or Made? Why The Question Itself is Dangerous.” Psychology Today Blog: Cutting-Edge Leadership. < http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201012/are-leaders-born-or-made-why-the-question-itself-is-dangerous. > [Accessed July 18, 2011]. Citing Arvey, R. D., Rotundo, M., Johnson, W., Zhang, Z., & McGue, M. (2006). The determinants of leadership role occupancy: Genetic and personality factors. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 1-20; Arvey, R. D., Zhang, Z., Avolio, B. J., & Kreuger, R.F. (2007). Developmental and genetic
determinants of leadership role occupancy among women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 693-706.
A systems level discussion on Organizational Leadership and World Peace written by:
© Darius A. Lecointe, Ph.D., J.D., M.A. Join in the discussion here or through dalecointe@gmail.com
4 comments:
Kind Sir I am enjoying this as I too have am interested in the topic. A few weeks ago I spoke to tome Freshmen at a high school in the area regarding leadership, and after bing introduced I allowed 7 secs (or so) to elapse and then I began to applaud. The kids, with some reservation FOLLOWED joining in. Why did they applaud? Because it seemed like the thing to do? Well, perhaps because I am a good, know effective leader. Hmn! The thing is, they did not really know why they followed me. They did conjure-up various reasons, but the reality is they JUST did it.
We are all leaders, because we are all born. I concur somewhat. And then there is the concern of being effective, and then do what if not. But its your theory on the leader being a function of the groups willingness that interest me.
Thanks for dropping by and leaving your comments. I appreciate it.
Let me reflect on your experience in the context of my theory that leadership is a function of the group. You did not ask anyone to applaud with you after you began applauding. You did not attempt to persuade them, as most definitions of leadership would require.
The first person who began to applaud did so because he identified with you. He joined you in a group and automatically began to do what your group was doing. The next person who began applauding joined your group of two, each new person accepting the leadership of the group. It's a simple example but this is why you did not have to say anything. If you had just stood there silently they would also have quieted down because they wanted to identify with you as being in the same group.
Darius I quite agree with your statement that,"The first lesson we will learn from nature is that leadership is not a function of the individual; it is a function of the group. Being a leader means nothing unless there is a group to be led."
However,can an individual be a leader without having a group to lead?Which comes first the leader or the group?
Ursula, your question set me thinking. What is the role of the leader? There is a tendency in some parts to think that the leader's role is to solve problems for the group. In some cases that may be the case but there are several areas where problems may be solved by others than those identified as the leaders. I think it more accurate to see the identified as being chosen to represent the leadership of the group. In that case, neither comes first.
Post a Comment