'Leaders are born not made. To what
extent is this saying justified by current research evidence?'
'Leaders are born not made. To what extent is this saying justified by current research evidence?'
The phenomenon of leadership is one of the most extensively researched management processes, and inevitably effective leadership plays a fundamental role in the success of any organisation. The fact that no single style of leadership has been found to be universally effective, suggests not every leader exhibits the same type of leadership behaviour. It is possible that this is a result of leaders' personal choices, or due to innate genetic factors, giving rise to the view that 'leaders are born not made'. Being a leader and leadership itself are however, two very different concepts. Fielder (1995) defined a leader as a person who is "appointed, elected, or informally chosen to direct and co-ordinate the work of others in a group". In contrast, leadership is more of a process, and can be considered to be a combination of personal qualities, behaviours and styles adapted by the leader. It is therefore possible that not all leaders will possess effective leadership skills and attributes.
With reference to the statement leaders are 'born not made', it may be that people are born with certain predispositions i.e. personality characteristics, which make them more effective as leaders, or in exhibiting leadership qualities. There are certain factors that are indisputably innate, such as family, genetics etc, however there are factors that are controversial such as intelligence, personality and status. These factors are arguably influenced by environmental and situational factors. In comparison, there are influential factors that are not innate, i.e., social influences, life-experiences, education, mentors etc. It is therefore unclear if individuals are 'born' with the qualities that make them effective leaders, if they acquire these, or if it is a combination of both.
Early research such as the Great Man approach focussed on distinguishing personal traits of leaders e.g., personality. Fundamental to this theory was the idea that certain individuals were born with traits that make them natural leaders, therefore supporting the theory that 'leaders are born'. Stogdill's 1948 literature review, uncovered several traits that appeared consistent with effective leadership, suggesting the possibility of innate leadership characteristics. However, it also highlighted that the importance of a particular trait was relative to the situation, thus possessing certain personal characteristics is no guarantee of success.
Current leadership research is dominated by studies of Transformational and Transactional leadership (Burns, 1978). Judge & Bono (2000) collected evidence that over half of all research papers on leadership published in psychological journals in the 1990's, focussed on transformational leadership. In contrast to earlier research, these theories emphasise the role of interpersonal relationships and interactions in effective leadership. Whereas transactional leadership is concerned with contingent rewards and management by exception, transactional leadership is concerned with transforming the values and priorities of followers, and motivating them to perform beyond their expectations to achieve a higher collective purpose (Yukl, 1998). Bass (1985) commented that transformational leadership is likely to result in growth, independence and empowerment of followers, all of which suggest effective leadership.
Researchers have proposed that transformational leadership behaviour comprises of four main components: inspirational motivation, idealised influence, individualised consideration and intellectual stimulation. The first two components represent the notion of 'charisma' (Avolio, Bass & Jung, 1999; Bass 1985). These processes are similar to the charismatic leadership theory (Conger and Kanungo, 1998), and emphasises personal identification as a central mechanism through which leaders can influence. This notion highlights the need for leaders to be able to communicate effectively, form interpersonal relationships, exhibit empathy and understanding, and earn the trust of their employees. It is questionable whether leaders are born with ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Researchers have proposed that transformational leadership behaviour comprises of four main components: inspirational motivation, idealised influence, individualised consideration and intellectual stimulation. The first two components represent the notion of 'charisma' (Avolio, Bass & Jung, 1999; Bass 1985). These processes are similar to the charismatic leadership theory (Conger and Kanungo, 1998), and emphasises personal identification as a central mechanism through which leaders can influence. This notion highlights the need for leaders to be able to communicate effectively, form interpersonal relationships, exhibit empathy and understanding, and earn the trust of their employees. It is questionable whether leaders are born with such personal qualities. It is more likely that they acquire these attributes through personal experiences, and interactions in different social situations. Similarly, the remaining components of individualised consideration and intellectual stimulation highlight the need for effective communication and interpersonal relationships, between leaders and subordinates. These processes are likely to be shaped by interrelating factors, drawn from both innate predispositions and learnt behaviours.
In comparison of the two leadership styles, there appear to be both fundamental differences and similarities, in the skills and attributes exhibited by their leaders. Transactional leaders control their followers by appealing to their lower order physical and social needs, and "concentrate on method, technique and mechanisms" (Burns, 1978 p405). Transactional leaders in comparison seek to satisfy the employees higher order needs, transform followers' self interest into collective concerns, and "engage the full person of the follower" (Burns, 1978 p.4). Although these two approaches show clear differences, it is likely that they share fundamental leadership qualities. On the whole, it appears that the transactional approach derives more greatly from the proposed innate leadership qualities such as intelligence, which will enable the leader to become highly educated, and adept in systematic leadership processes e.g. method and technique. In compassion, transformational leadership appears to focus more greatly on interpersonal qualities such as empathy and personal identification. Although these qualities may be a result of a predisposed personality, it is more likely that leaders acquire these attributes through personal growth, life experiences, mentors etc. This therefore suggests that leaders may be both 'born' with genetic/biological predispositions that give them potential to become effective leaders i.e. intelligence and positive personality attributes, but that society, education and life experiences also play an influential part in the development of these qualities. This development enables leaders to adapt their leadership attributes to context-dependant situations i.e. task function or social-emotional function. This interaction suggests that transformational leadership builds on transaction exchanges (e.g., "augmentation hypothesis" Avolio & Bass, 1995), and may therefore not be mutually exclusive (Bryman, 1992).
Bass (1985) developed the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) to assess the different leadership styles, and to investigate the relationship between these styles, work effectiveness and satisfaction. He integrated the transformational and transactional approaches, by recognising that both styles may be linked to the achievement of desired goals and objectives. Within this reasoning, any given manager may be both transactional and transformational. Questions in the MLQ assess the four components of transformational leadership, two components of transactional leadership and laissez-faire leadership. Research findings have suggested a high intercorrelation between transformational factors and contingent reward. Den Hartog et al (1997) found correlations of 0.61 to 0.75 between components of transformational leadership, in ratings of 700 leaders from eight Dutch organisations. Similarly Geyer and Steyrer (1998) also report very high correlations (0.69 to 0.75) in their sample of over 1,400 employees in 20 Austrian banks. These results suggest that components of transactional leadership are closely related, and that transformational leaders also administer contingent rewards.
Research studies into MLQ have also shown consistently stronger relationships to effectiveness outcomes for transformational, as compared to transactional leadership (Bass, Avolio and, Goodheim 1987; Onnen 1987;). In addition, findings for MLQ have generally reported significant relationships between leader effectiveness and transformational scales of charisma, individualised consideration and intellectual stimulation. These results therefore highlight the need for personal development of leaders, for ability to use their personality and intelligence traits to manage a number of context-dependent situations.
.
Research into the trait approach has provided evidence that traits including personality are at least partly genetically determined, and this may account for McCrae and Costas, 1990's findings that a person's personality is unlikely to change much, especially during adulthood. Digman, 1990 proposed that there are five fundamental dimensions to personality the 'Big Five' or the 'Five Factor Model (FFM)', which consists of:
* Extroversion
* Emotionality
* Agreeableness
* Conscientiousness
* Openness to experience.
With this view, it may be possible that certain individuals are born with greater levels of traits which are favourable to management, and that they are potentially 'born l leaders'. However, it is unlikely that these traits remain completely consistent, as they are likely to be influenced, changed and shaped through upbringing, social influences, experiences etc. Cevone and Mischel, 2002, reported evidence that situations, as well as personality influence behaviour. It is therefore likely that people may be 'born' with advantageous traits for becoming leaders, however, it is likely that the development of these traits occurs as a result of interactions, social influences and experiences, which help to shape personality and develop leadership skills and attributes
Judge and Bono (2000) found that transformational leaders tended to score higher than others on the personality traits extraversion, agreeableness and openness to experience. This may be due to the nature of transactional leadership being more concerned with interpersonal relationships, and therefore the development and use of personality characteristics such as these.
If personality is viewed as genetic and therefore innate, this provides supportive evidence that individuals may be 'born' with personalities that make them potential leaders. However, this ignores social influences, interpersonal relationships, and the possibility that personality can be shaped and changed. It is likely that the leader's personality is not purely their innate predisposition, but may have been influenced by external factors, resulting in their attributes being 'made'. The connections between personality and leadership style are therefore not strong enough to consider transformational leadership a personality-based theory, as it also concerns learned behaviour.
The same principle may be evident for intelligence (g). Research evidence has suggested that fluid intelligence has a genetic predisposition, and that certain individuals may be therefore born with higher levels of intelligence. Meta-analysis has also shown that g is the best single predictor of work performance overall, and that its validity does not fade with experience. However, it may that cognitive ability, is based on a combination of both fluid intelligence and knowledge acquired through life experience. Ackerman (2000) measured knowledge using large systematic tests, and found that there is a consistent increase with age. This is likely to be due to the influence of external factors and life experiences, which help to shape intelligence. Ackerman (2000) suggested that knowledge increments may compensate for, or more than compensate for decrements in fluid intelligence with age. It is therefore likely that the most adept leaders use a combination of both the genetically determined fluid intelligence, and knowledge (crystallised intelligence). A successful combination, should help to broaden leadership abilities, as education and training should develop g skills e.g. problem solving, whereas knowledge should help adapt leadership behaviour to different contextual situations i.e. using emotional intelligence (Goleman, 2001). It may be that in certain situations, leaders use their experience rather than their knowledge (Fielder, 1995)
In view of current theory and research evidence, it appears that there is not one distinctive answer to whether leaders are 'born or made'. It is clear that there are personality characteristics e.g. conscientiousness, which promote effective leadership, yet it is not proven whether these characteristics are solely genetically dependant or environmentally influenced. Similarly fluid intelligence may a the key element in leadership success, however intelligence may be enhanced by knowledge acquired with age and life experiences. Research into transformational and transactional leadership, suggests that effective leadership may be achieved through a combination of innate and learnt, personality and behavioural characteristics. It may be that individuals are 'born' with genetic predispositions, which need to be shaped by experience to develop effective leadership qualities. Personality or intelligence alone may not be enough, as leaders need flexibility for context-dependent leadership styles as shown in Fielder's Contingency Model (1967). It may be that personality and intelligence are genetically based, but there is potential for them to be influenced by environment, and for individuals to become flexible in their behaviour without compromising their personality and values. This may enable leaders to be more adaptable, and adopt a variety of context-dependent leadership styles i.e. person-orientated (transformational), task-orientated (transactional).
In hindsight, it is therefore true that to an extent, leaders are both 'born' and 'made'. Leaders may be born with genetic personality and intellectual predispositions, which give them the potential to become effective leaders. However, it appears to be the development of these predispositions through life experiences and influences, which enables them to achieve effective leadership qualities. It is therefore an interrelation of both genetics and learning, which builds a multi-dimensional leadership approach (Bass, 1998; Yukl, 1998), which creates great leaders.