Is Leadership Nature or Nurture? Discuss with reference to theories whilst critically evaluating available evidence.

Authors Avatar by josojm (student)

Is Leadership Nature or Nurture? Discuss with reference to theories whilst critically evaluating available evidence.

Abstract

The nature vs. nurture debate is a long standing issue not only in relation to leadership, but in general terms as well. Researchers have failed to reach a consensus on whether leadership is an inborn phenomenon or whether it can be learnt. This essay will focus on leadership role occupancy rather than the effectiveness of already appointed leadership. Role occupancy is whether people occupy positions of leadership in organisations. Different theories relating to role occupancy are discussed, detailing evidence supporting these theories. While the theories take centre stage, different aspects of leadership are also discussed.

Keywords: Leadership emergence; role occupancy; traits; context

Introduction

Leadership is a central component to organisational performance, however the definition remains illusive. Effective and ineffective leadership means different things to different people. Hogan et al. (1994) described leadership as the act of persuading other people in the pursuit of a common goal, a goal that is important for the welfare of the individual and the group as a whole. There lies a multitude of research on the subject of leadership. The underlying topic of discussion in most of the research is whether leadership is influenced by nature or nurture. Are there people predestined for leadership from birth or can people be trained and moulded into leaders? When discussing this, authors may choose to focus on role occupancy, which is whether people occupy positions of leadership in organisations (Arvey et al. 2006), or the effectiveness of those already in leadership positions. With the debate in mind, role occupancy seems to be a better fit as it provides more insight on whether those thought destined to lead actually take up leadership positions. There are different theories that attempt to describe how people come to power; some that originated from analysing the leaders of early years and others that emerged in contrast to previous expectations.

Emergence of Trait Theory

In 1907, Thomas Carlyle proposed the concept that certain individuals were born with traits that predisposed them to leadership roles. This was later coined the great man theory. At the time, however, the world was dominated by men in power and women were not thought of as leaders. Due to this, the findings that resulted were considered flawed and biased. This theory was later replaced by what is now known as the trait theory. The basic assumptions remain unchanged; however the theory does not discriminate according to gender. It asserts that people, both male and female, with a certain set of traits are more likely to emerge as leaders than those without these skills. This theory, however, does not guarantee leadership success, just appointment.

“The most basic approach to understanding leadership began from the assumption that good leadership resides in the innate abilities of certain individuals who were considered to be born leaders” (Linstead et al. 2004, p.327).

Join now!

The leaders referred to at the time were Gandhi, Winston Churchill, Napoleon Bonaparte, Hitler, Margaret Thatcher and many more. This led to the saying “Great men are born, not made”. The trait theory however did not assert whether these traits were inherited or acquired, just that they are different between leaders and non leaders (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991). The traits identified by Kirkpatrick & Locke (1991) include drive to lead, self confidence, cognitive ability, knowledge of the business, leadership motivation and honesty and integrity. Lord et al. (1986) indeed found that there were certain traits that proved to be good ...

This is a preview of the whole essay