Leaders are made not born. Discuss this statement with references to theories of leadership. Conclude whether or not this statement is valid based on your research.
Leaders are made not born. Discuss this statement with references to theories of leadership. Conclude whether or not this statement is valid based on your research.
Leadership is the ability to exert influence over other people. No one can argue that some people have leadership skills and some people don't. One thing we can, and do, argue about, however, is the origin of leadership. Are some people just naturally born to be leaders? Or is leadership simply a set of skills that can be learned by anyone, regardless of the personality one is born with?
For more than a century, scientists have conducted numerous studies on the issue of whether personality traits, including leadership qualities, are innate or learned. What many have found is that genetics do play a part in certain behavioral characteristics, such as shyness, intelligence, dominance, social presence and aggression. Researchers at the University of Western Ontario conducted a psychological study of twins in 1998 in an attempt to determine whether there is a "leadership gene." They did not find specific evidence of the existence of such a gene, but concluded instead that leadership qualities are more likely the result of a combination of other inherited traits.
Perhaps the world's first study of leadership as it relates to heredity was conducted by Sir Francis Galton in 1869. Galton invented the science of eugenics, the study of hereditary improvement of the human race using selective breeding. Eugenics was "used to blame social ills on the perceived genetic traits of entire groups of people. Under Adolph Hitler, it was used to justify the murder of millions" (Sorensen, PG). Clearly, Galton was on the wrong path; but there may be some truth to the idea that leadership skills and other personality traits are inheritable. Twin studies have proven that we are born with certain personality characteristics.
Genes, however, are only one of a number of influences on leadership traits and other behavioral characteristics. At least half our personalities are what they are due to environmental influences (Sorenson, 1999), including what we learn by observing others or are taught by our parents as children.
Throughout the past several decades, researchers have established a series of theories to explain the concept of leadership and the characteristics behind it. One of these is scientific, or classical theory, which was identified by Frederick Winslow Taylor in the early 1900s. Taylor believed that the only way to increase productivity in a business was to establish specific goals for employees based upon studies of the exact amount of time needed to accomplish an individual task. Imagine that, for a data entry job, it is determined that the optimal time to enter one record into the computer is two minutes. Using the scientific theory, then, the leader would expect that a worker could process exactly 240 records in an eight-hour workday. It would be the leader's job to manipulate workers into meeting this production goal. No time would be spared for human error, or, indeed even for breaks. Scientific theory emphasizes the organizational aspects of leadership without any regard for human emotions or relationships. Leaders following this style are typically authoritarian and lead by intimidation (Berg and Magnus, PG).
The humanist theory of leadership was developed by Elton Mayo in the late 1920s. A severe contrast to the scientific theory of leadership, the humanist theory emphasizes the people who are actually doing the work, rather than the work itself. According to this theory, leaders should provide opportunities for workers to grow and advance. Productivity increases only when employees are allowed to participate in decision-making and feel valued.
Different people need different types of leadership, according to Douglas McGregor and his 1960 book The Human Side of Enterprise. McGregor divided people into two groups: X and Y. ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
The humanist theory of leadership was developed by Elton Mayo in the late 1920s. A severe contrast to the scientific theory of leadership, the humanist theory emphasizes the people who are actually doing the work, rather than the work itself. According to this theory, leaders should provide opportunities for workers to grow and advance. Productivity increases only when employees are allowed to participate in decision-making and feel valued.
Different people need different types of leadership, according to Douglas McGregor and his 1960 book The Human Side of Enterprise. McGregor divided people into two groups: X and Y. X people, he determined, need authoritarian leadership. They hate work, are basically lazy, and are incapable of taking responsibility. Y people need leadership by participation. They are self-motivated, are capable of exercising self-direction and self-control if committed to an objective, and seek reward for achievement. Perhaps McGregor's beliefs were a bit stringent and unyielding to the possibility that not everyone fits into one of two categories. Certainly, though, other theorists have agreed with the concept that different leadership styles are needed in different situations. This has been referred to as the situational theory of leadership. For example, a military leader might need the qualities of courage and level-headedness, while the leader of a sales force might need more focus on determination and integrity.
The functional approach views leadership in terms of how the leader's behavior affects, and is affected by, the group of followers. According to Kotter, The functional approach believes that the skills of leadership can be learnt, developed and perfected. The important study of the concept of superleadership, Manz (1990) and Manz and Sims (1987,1989,1991) identified seven steps for becoming a superleader. These steps reinforce Kotter's belief that leadership can be learned.
* Learn how to lead yourself first through behavioral-focused and cognitively-focused strategies that help you organize and direct your work life, and those that help you become more effective, respectively;
* Role modeling
* Set self-made goals and then coach subordinates in setting their own goals
* Create positive thought patterns, adopt a theory Y attitude
* Reward and reprimand constructively
* Facilitate a self-leadership culture.
A final leadership theory, trait theory, states that leadership ability is defined by whether a person possesses specific traits, such as intelligence, dominance, self-confidence, high energy and honesty. These traits set leaders apart from followers. Further, people perceive that someone is a leader when he or she demonstrates these traits. According to Stogdill, leadership skills commonly identified by experts include intelligence, self-worth, good mental health, the ability to motivate others, vision, integrity, and the ability to hire the right people. There have been legendary leaders who did not possess one or more of these traits, so it cannot be said that a leader must possess all of them. For example, a person who does not necessarily have the high intelligence he feels he needs to be a leader could simply surround himself with subordinates who do possess that intelligence and still be a fantastic leader, as long as he has other necessary skills.
In particular, emotional intelligence is important. Emotional intelligence has nothing to do with IQ or technical knowledge. Instead, it is a combination of self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skill. Self-awareness involves understanding one's own emotions, strengths and weaknesses. For example, one might recognize that deadlines make him tense and frustrated, so he plans well in order to avoid getting too close to deadlines before finishing a project. Self-regulation is the process of controlling one's emotional impulses. Motivation is the drive to achieve beyond expectations. Empathy involves considering peoples' feelings when making decisions. Finally, social skill is relatability - a talent for finding something in common with everyone. Emotionally intelligent leaders work well with other people and are effective in leading change.
Goleman examined the leadership competency models of 188 large companies such as British Airways and Lucent Technologies, and found that approximately 90 percent of the difference in the performances of star leaders and average leaders at these companies was attributable to emotional intelligence rather than cognitive abilities (Goleman, 1998). Research demonstrates that emotional intelligence can be learned and developed with effort; it also develops with age, as a person matures.
According to research conducted by motivation theorist Frederick Herzberg, workers are motivated by opportunities for development, recognition, and increased responsibility. It is up to leaders to ensure employee satisfaction by providing each of these factors. Leaders must determine specifically what will motivate their employees, and seek out ways to accomplish this. Four things that motivate people are responsibility, rewards, relationships, and reasons. In other words, people want responsibilities that allow them to use their talents and even stretch themselves; they also want to be rewarded for their efforts, even if it comes in the form of a simple pat on the back. People are motivated when they are coached to continue focusing on their goals, and this is where the "relationship" factor enters into the picture; leaders must develop relationships with their followers, rather than being unapproachable and shutting themselves off behind an office door. Finally, people want to know why they are being asked to do something and how their efforts will make a difference in the big picture. Doing meaningful work is an incredible motivator.
Leaders must be able to make people want to follow them - not out of fear, but out of trust, hope for success, excitement, or the promise of opportunity. Leaders should be able to create "an aesthetic vision that inspires people with an ideal of what can be achieved" (Maccoby, PG).
Maccoby says there are two kinds of leaders - strategic and operational. Strategic leaders create the organization's vision, while operational leaders implement the vision.
Integrity is "not only a personal virtue but also an organizational strength" (Goleman, PG). In order to gain followers, a leader must first gain trust. This can be accomplished when a leader practices what he preaches and is honest and forthright at all times. In the business world, this concept has perhaps become more critical than ever in recent years, due to the current corporate climate. Companies are reorganizing, restructuring, downsizing, rightsizing, merging, and any number of other methods of reconfiguration. Employees in nearly every industry fear for their jobs, so it is vital that leaders maintain trust by always conveying important information such as decisions and policies that might affect jobs.
Likewise, leaders must hire the right people in the first place. No matter what type of leader you are, you must have the ability to appropriately choose talented people for your organization, based upon their intelligence, their ability to work with others, and their level of enthusiasm. One of the most important aspects of leadership is the ability to effectively interact with, motivate and lead people. It is impossible to hire the wrong people and then "make people share [your] values" (Knisely, 1996).
A number of leadership theorists and consultants have made the distinction between a manager and a leader. Indeed, the two are vastly different in many ways. A manager is someone who focuses on following the rules and getting the work done. A leader, however, seeks creative ways to develop both the organization and its people. The leader motivates, innovates, and emphasizes people over numbers. According to leadership consultant Michael Maccoby, management is a function of all business, while leadership is more a relationship between the leader and the people being led "that can energize an organization" (Maccoby, PG).
The knowledge of how to lead other people can be learned. Psychology professor William Cohen believes that "effectiveness as a leader" depends not on traits we are born with, but rather on the ability to learn "certain universal principles that anyone can follow" (Cohen, 1998). Cohen refers to these principles as "The Eight Universal Laws of Leadership," and each of them is a behavior that can be learned. They are as follows:
* Maintain absolute integrity.
* Know your stuff (be competent).
* Declare your expectations.
* Show uncommon commitment.
* Expect positive results.
* Take care of your people or customers.
* Put duty before self.
* Get out in front (set an example and be where the action is).
All organizations, governments, families, and other groups need good leaders. Many corporations offer leadership-training courses in order to teach people how to be good leaders. The problem is that, to teach leadership, you must first be able to define it; that is a difficult task. Daniel Goleman of the Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations has determined that, while most leadership training programs focus on the type of learning that goes on in the neocortex - logic - leadership qualities are best learned by the brain's limbic system, which "governs feelings, impulses, and drives" (Goleman, 1998). Learning concepts is not enough; learning to be a leader involves breaking bad habits and establishing new ones. Thus, leadership training is by definition a highly individualized process. Every individual has weaknesses in specific and unique areas. Perhaps the most effective way to learn to be a better leader would involve first getting feedback from others on specific leadership traits, then prompting change in behavioral habits by mimicking the behavior of people who possess the desired traits. A key component is the motivation and desire to change, however; someone who doesn't believe they really need to change isn't going to put forth the required effort.
In conclusion, there is no one set of leadership skills or personality type that a good leader must have. Indeed, different situations require leaders with different characteristics - "what worked for Gen. George Patton wouldn't have worked for Mahatma Gandhi" (Sorenson, 1999). It appears that there is, indeed, a genetic component to leadership, but leadership qualities can be learned, as well. For example, one person might be born with more intelligence or dominance than another, but a person can train himself or herself to learn these qualities. Certainly, some qualities of a good leader that have been identified by many theorists and consultants are not innate, but rather must be learned. Integrity is one of these. Human beings are not born with an innate sense of honesty; observing young children tells us as much. Consider a child of three or four who breaks a dish. His reaction is not to immediately report what he has done, but to hide the evidence and claim later that he had nothing to do with the dish being broken. We must learn as we grow and develop what integrity is. It is the same for a number of other leadership traits that can be learned. Judging by my research, the trait theory and situational theory of leadership are perhaps the most appropriate. There definitely are specific traits that a leader must have; many of these have already been identified. Those traits, however, differ depending upon the situation and the people who are being led.
Reference:
Berg, G.; Magnus, R. Leadership theories and their effect on productivity. Available online at http://www.fminet.com/news/General_Contractors/leader-productivity.html [March 29, 2001].
Cohen, W. (1998). Great leaders are made, not born. Available online at www.stuffofheroes.com/Articles/made.htm [March 29, 2001].
Goleman, D. (1998, November 1). What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review, 93.
James C. (1996), Leadership Australia's Top Ceos: Finding out what makes them the best, Sydney, HarperCollins Publishers
Knisely, J.S. (1996). Leaders: born or made? Training programs called into question. Passages. Available online at http://content.monster.ca/career/leaders/ [March 29, 2001].
Maccoby, M. (2000). Understanding the difference between management and leadership. Industrial Research Institute, Inc. Available online at http://www.onlinejournal.net/iri/RTM/2000/43/1/html/43_1_57.html [March 29, 2001].
McGregor, D. (1985). Human Side of Enterprise. 15th Anniversary Printing. New York: McGraw Hill.
Sorensen, E. (1999, October 19). Are leaders born or made? Scientists suspect it's a little of both. Seattle Times. Available online at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/health-science/html98/lead_19991019.html [March ].
Yukl, G (1994), Leadership in Organizations, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc
