There are numerous theories proposed by various experts in the field of leadership and its effective management since the early western history. Leadership has always been an interesting yet a very much complex subject for researchers because of certain ideologies which are questionable and debatable. There are many people who believe in continuous hardship and effort to be successful and effective leaders although certain facts and scientific statistics support the idea that successful leaders have an innate quality since their birth. Here are some key demonstrations on these arguments based upon three major attributions on the support of the idea that leaders are born: firstly, personality trait is naturally built, not necessarily built through the process of development; secondly the inheritance of trait is genetically transformed with cognitive abilities; and thirdly, behavioural skills and talents are not just a mere result of hardship and effort.
The first reason behind a successful leader is the personality trait that a leader naturally owns throughout their life. Personality trait states that it is the propensity of an individual to become a leader if he/she has distinctive and specific traits (Russel 2011). Everyone does possess certain traits but some people are exceptionally rich with such typical traits that lead them towards the path of leadership. However, there are certain arguments that claim the personality traits required for an effective leadership are achieved by an individual throughout time and experience. Behavioural theory of leadership states that people can be an effective leader through observation, experience and teaching (Lewin 1935 as cited in Russel 2011). Also, this theory highlights the actions rather than personality characteristics of effective leadership and management. For example, one of the attributes of personality is charisma. The behavioural framework believes charisma is not a part of personal qualities but more importantly interplay between the attributes and aspirations (Conger & Kanungo 1987, p. 637-47). It may be true to an extent, but there are some definite innate traits which cannot be learnt throughout one’s life. Traits such as extroversion, confidence, decisiveness, charisma and others are some of the qualities that a born leader shows whenever necessary. These qualities cannot be learnt or taught as these attributes are an abstracts which is connected with the natural inclination that evolves the aspiration for an individual to become a leader. For instance, it is not necessary to train a dog to be loyal as it is an innate quality of the dog to be loyal for its master. Likewise, we can take an account of various leaders like Gandhi, Alexander the Great, Abraham Lincoln and Prithvi Narayan Shah who were not taught to lead their jobs the way they did. Instead, their leadership attitude was immutable throughout their whole life (Russel 2011). The world is very much aware of the fact that not every leader has become a successful leader despite having determination and a hard working ethos. Hence, the reason is simple as even though made leaders can be effective through gaining skills and experiences, the overall qualities for a successful leadership cannot be implanted to every person who wants to be a leader.
The second reason to justify the argument that leaders are born is the genetic impact and the lists of cognitive qualities that a born leader owns besides having a relation with surrounding environment and personal life. Based upon Hyacinth’s research (2014), the study states that one third of leaders are born and the remaining two thirds are made. Likewise, another research states that effective leadership is the result of years of dedication and continuous practice and training, not with any innate trait (Ericson, Prietula & Cokely 2007). The Pareto Principle (as cited in Hyacinth 2014) also explains that 80 percentages of leaders are made and rest are born. But, the University of Illinois found leadership is 30 per cent genetic and 70 per cent of cognitive qualities are either gained through gene transfer or gained from social background in case of leaders (Hyacinth 2014) which is a significant difference if taken globally. One cannot underestimate the genetic effect on building up leadership attributes just by highlighting on external factors like social potency, achievement and experience. The fact is that the impact of one gene significantly influences another gene physiologically (Arvey, Rotundo, Johnson, Zheng & MgGue 2006). For example, looking at the history of Nelson Mandela, his father was a tribal leader and a principal counselor in his community (Nelson Mandela Foundation 2016) which proves the gene transformation has an impact on Mandela’s life gaining genes correlated with cognitive and other abilities from his father. Likewise, it is also universal that the field of cognitive neuroscience, related with the brain functioning system states the level of an individual cannot be similar to another person because of the differentiation in neural networks. So it can be logical to rebut the opposing argument which states individuals can achieve similar learning capacities, similar mental abilities and other mechanisms after taking same level of training or education or knowledge on any topic. For instance, we can look at famous leaders as Sir Winston Churchill, the leader with a revolutionary approach led his country from defeat to victory had a ‘leadership gene’ (Williams 2013). Likewise, the University College of London (UCL) after conducting a research on a DNA of more than 4000 individuals found out the conclusion that the differences in leadership can be explained from the genetic effects (UCL 2013). Therefore, it is a mystic yet an acceptable truth that there is a natural cognition that enables the likelihood, interest and motivation for such people in order to become a successful leader, not just through the social and personal experiences.
Finally, the last but another important reason is that natural traits has more influence upon overall leadership and can be discussed under other theories of leadership such as conventional, transformational, behavioural and other theories. In general, all of these theories explain various character traits such as skills, talent, intelligence, emotions, courage and many other special qualities which a successful and effective leader owns. However, some people think that all of these necessary characters are gained through high performance and being focused on values, ethics, learning personality developing qualities by investing extra time for leadership practices. It may be essential to sharpen the behavioural skills of an individual but is behavioural aspect only the reason for an effective leadership? The above mentioned theories are also related to behavioural theory which focuses more on skills, talents and intelligence, but it would be biased to state if it is not connected with the personal character. The art of observing, teaching and gaining experience depends upon which way and how an individual does accepts to prove them an effective leader. Situation and society may change the behaviour of an individual, but there are some particular qualities that a person cannot learn by their own. Qualities such as aspiration, humbleness, politeness, forgiveness, decisiveness, assertiveness cannot be learnt through taking skills or by experiencing it fully. Also, leadership can be learnt by anyone, but not everyone can be effective. There is always a factor that plays an important role to enhance an individual to move forward into continuous hardship and effort. According to Hyacinth (2014), ‘Leadership can be learned by anyone with the basics. But an awful lot of leadership cannot be taught. Some do well but others find themselves poorly equipped rendering mediocre results.’ Therefore, it is all dependent upon the nature of an individual how accurate can he/she harness the skills and abilities in order to become an effective leader someday.
Leadership is a complex subject with many definitions from many experts. An effective leader is an influencer who influences other people with an accurate idea providing a vision and analyse situations with a proper judgement and sort out problems with innovative and creative ideas. According to Stogdill (1948) and Mann (1959) (as cited in Doyle, M.E. & Smith, M.K. 2001), the traits present in leaders differ from that of the followers. Hence, to conclude, these traits are special and some of the special traits are ‘gifted’, either from generation to generation through biological process, or through the formation of neural network which is completely different from common individual rather than just only social lifestyle and environment. For example, Google boys Aditya and Kautilya are two small children at a very small age of 4 and 6 who have numerous, miraculous and unbelievable talents which has amazed the world and it seems they are going to be future leaders in their respective field (National Discovery Channel 2014). This is a supportive and concluding example to the rest of the ideologies which stresses more on ‘made leadership’ which has strong qualities to an extent but not as a whole.
References:
Arvey, R.D., Rotundo, M, Johnson, W, Zheng, Z & McGue, M 2006, The determinants of leadership role occupancy: genetic and personality factors, National University of Singapore, viewed 30 June 2016,
http://bschool.nus.edu/departments/ManagementNOrganization/publication/RichArveypublist/leadership%20role%20occupancy.%20arvey.pdf
Conger, J.A & Kanungo, N.R 1987, Towards a behavioural theory of charismatic leadership in organisational settings, Academy of Management, The Academy of Management Review, McGill University, vol. 12, no. 4, p.p 637-47 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jay_Conger/publication/248126140_Toward_a_ Behavioral_Theory_of_Charismatic_Leadership_in_Organizational_Settings/links/55bf7ba808aec0e5f4475e3c.pdf
Doyle, M.E. & Smith, M.K. 2001, ‘Classical leadership’, The encyclopaedia of informal education, viewed 29 June 2016,
http://infed.org/mobi/classical-models-of-managerial-leadership-trait-behavioural- contingency-and-transformational-theory/
Ericson, A, Prietula, M.J, & Cokely, E.T 2007, The making of an expert, Harvard Business Review, viewed 30 June 2016,
https://hbr.org/2007/07/the-making-of-an-expert
Hyacinth, B 2014, Are leaders born or made? A true story, LinkedIn, October 26, viewed 29 June 2016,
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141026042807-150905450-are-leaders-born-or- made-a-true-story
Nelson Mandela Foundation 2006, South Africa, viewed 30 June 2016, https://www.nelsonmandela.org
Prince, D 2014, 6 differences between two google boys, National Discovery Channel, October 11, viewed 30 June 2016,
http://www.nationaldiscoverychannel.com/2014/10/6-differences-between-two-google-boys.html
Russell, E 2011, Leadership theories and style: a transitional approach, United States Army Combined Arms Center, 08 September, viewed 30 June 2016,
http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/repository/dcl_SecondPlaceEssay_1102.pdf
Riggio, R.E. 2009, ‘Leaders: born or made?’ Psychology Today, 18 March, viewed 28 June 2016,
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/200903/leaders-born-or-made
University College London, 2013, Born to lead? Leadership can be an inherited trait, study finds, UCL, 15 January, viewed 30 June 2016,
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0113/15012013-leadership-genetics
Williams, A 2013, ‘Great leaders are born, not made: their brains are just wired differently; scientists say’, Daily Mail Australia, April 12, viewed 30 June 2016, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2307900/Natural-leaders-Study-claims- proof-commanding-figures-Churchill-born-great.html
Context and Perspectives 