A few years ago, I had a conversation with the Superintendent of a public school district. We were discussing leadership and youth leadership development. During our conversation he made the remark, "I suppose that you are going to tell me that leaders are made and not born?" After I responded affirmatively, he asserted that leaders were mainly born--not developed. His proof was the elementary school playground. As he explained how some boys and girls seem to attract others to them, I had a vision from my own elementary days of Freddy strutting through the playground at recess with a group of guys following him. This personal memory seemed to be evidence for the Superintendent's assertion for "born leaders." Upon reflection, I remembered that Freddy was older than us by a few years because he had been held back. There may be other explanations of this leader attraction than innate leadership qualities. We all have observed certain people who, for some reason, attract others who want to follow and/or emulate them. But are Freddy and these others born leaders?
Early research into leadership focused on the leader. It was presumed that some individuals were born with certain traits that made them great leaders. This is refereed to as the "great man" theory. After World War II, there was a deep and growing interest in leadership research. Leadership research has grown to include research on leadership skills, leadership styles, leadership situations, and the development of leadership theories such as contingency theories, the path-goal theory, Leader-member exchange, Transformational leadership theory, Servant Leadership, Spiritual Leadership, and more. Even with all of the recent leadership research, the question "are leaders born or made" is still asked.
Serious study into leadership traits has been credited to two studies done by R. M. Stogdill (1948 & 1974). In the first study Stogdill found that the leadership situation is an important factor and that a leader does not become a leader just because he has certain traits. His second study found that while the situation was important, traits are an important part of leadership. R. D. Mann similarly reported that the evidence gives impetus to the situational approach to leadership maintaining that leadership is created through the interaction of individuals. Leadership is a function of the task, composition, and culture of the group. I have often asked groups if they thought that U. S. Grant was a born leader. Most of the respondents say yes (probably based on his leadership during the Civil War). Most war generals are seen as strong leaders and probably "born leaders" (George Washington, Dwight Eisenhower, Colin Powell for example). If you were to ask the same group if Grant was a good president, they almost unanimously say no. This is anecdotal proof that the situation is an important factor in leadership. Leadership ability is not necessarily transferable from one context to another indicating that there are more variables in determining leadership that just a genetic leadership ability.
The difficulty with the trait approach to leadership is in identifying the trait or traits that leaders have in common. In an effort to identify these traits, using meta-analysis, some researchers found that intelligence, masculinity, and dominance were significantly related to how leaders were perceived. Judge, Bono, Ilies, and Gerhardt (2002) developed a chart listing some twenty-one possible traits for emergent or effective leaders from ten separate sources. Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) determined that leadership traits do matter and identified six traits that leaders have that differ from non-leaders: drive, desire to lead, honesty/integrity, self-confidence, cognitive ability, and knowledge (specifically of business). However, they state that these traits only endow people with the potential for leadership. Additional factors, such as leadership situations, determine effective leadership. Individuals can be born with these traits, they can learn them, or both (Northouse, 2007). Yukl (2010) writes that considerable evidence shows that traits are jointly determined by learning and the inherited tendency to gain satisfaction from particular stimuli or experiences. Some traits, such as values and social needs, are more influenced by learning than others such as temperament and physiological needs. The researcher is left to answer the question of what trait or traits are inherent in the leader themselves and which traits can be learned and developed.
The consensus today seems to be that while some people possess traits and characteristics that are more conducive to good leadership, most of what is considered "leadership" is developed. An army officer once wrote that they could not wait around to identify born leaders--they must develop men and women into leaders. This directly applies to churches today. Many churches lack competent leadership although they may have good pastors. Leadership development is lacking in most churches today. Like the military, churches cannot wait around for "born leaders" to emerge; they must be trained and developed.
Sources:
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765-780.
- Kirkpartic, S. A. & Locke, I. A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter? The Executive, 5, 48-60.
- Mann, R. D. (1959). A review of the relationship between personality and performance in small groups. Psychology Today, 56, 241-270.
- Horthouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice (4th ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publishing.
- Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7th ed., Kindle ed.), Retrieved from Amazon.com.
I want your input!!
- Do you believe that leaders are born?
- Do you believe that leaders are developed?
- Do you believe that they are both born and developed?
....post a comment below...
