are leaders born or are they made

8/13/2019 Are Leaders Born or Are They Made

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/are-leaders-born-or-are-they-made 1/65

“ Are Leaders Born?

75 Answers! - Uncut Bonus Edition

P R E S E N T S

or

Are They Made?”



Found at Answers on LinkedIn

www.Linked2Leadership.com

®

LinkedIn ® is a trademark of LinkedIn Corporation Mountain View, CA USA ©2008. Linked

2 Leadership is a group on LinkedIn. No other affiliation exists. These quotations do not

necessarily reflect the opinion of anyone other than the person quoted.

We asked the question:

“Are Leaders Born? Or Are They Made? Or Both”Many think that "Leaders" are simply born with the DNA to lead.

Many others think that "Leadership" can be learned and grown with proper

education and experience.

Some others think that it is a combination of the two that breeds the

greatest leaders... What is your take?

Quotations may be attributed incorrectly. This is an unedited edition of “Let the People Speak.”™ All quotations have been

previously made available to the general public. This free resource may be re-quoted with the following attribution:




“Are Leaders Born? Or Are They Made? Or Both?”

G. Clarke wrote:

We are, for the most part born thesame. Carbon based organisms.Ten fingers. Ten toes. Excluding birth defects and trauma, we have

the same faculties to exploit.

So, I am a believer that it has to doin large part with environmentalfactors that affect the individual.

M. Wierzgac wrote:

Leaders are made.

Leaders become leaders in 1 of 3 ways:1 - a crisis or event pushes them into leadership

2 - their personality leads them into it3 - they choose to be a leader.

If they choose to become a leader, they alsochoose the depth of their training (some deep,some shallow).





G. Krstulovic wrote:

They are born to be made.

Let me clarify it this way – Leadership is a set of skills that can be learned bypractice over time. This is true of literally any skill. However, you need some

in- born talent or “pre-determination” to master the skill. There is asignificant difference between “learning the skill” and mastering one.

I love basketball, but no matter how hard I practice, I won’t be able to play itlike Michael Jordan. I hope you see where I am coming from.





O. Ballesta wrote:

Leadership is a quality that can be improved by training and experience.

In short, passion, communicational abilities, innovative mindset, abilities tonegotiate, humility, courage, self-determination and empowerment are a mixof personality traits with learned skills that being most of them innate and

inherent to the emotional profile and personality of an individual can beperfectly enhanced, expanded and improved by proper training, successiveand diverse experience in the workplace, mentoring and behaviouralcoaching.





S. Chapple wrote:

The old 'nature' versus 'nurture' question!

I am an advocate that leadership can be developed overtime. It is essentially about understanding other people

and, more importantly, understanding yourself.Of course, there will always be those individuals who have anatural talent for leadership far above the majority!





C. Sorab wrote:

Ahhhh. The old "Nature vs. Nurture" debate. I think the question here is what makes a good leader?

Seeing as we are all individuals we are all led by different things or styles of management, what works well for oneperson may not work well for another. Some like to be led by the nose and others prefer a gentle tap in the rightdirection.

A good leader may be born with the ability to inspire others, but it takes a real leader to learn from others andimprove himself. The ability to learn and adapt is paramount to effective leadership and the only part that natureplays in this is to give the individual the capacity to learn. Even the desire to better ones self is probably learnt

through life.

I think that as a leader, the day you stop learning is the day you cease to be an effective leader.

So I vote that it is the "right" mix of nature and nurture that develops a great leader. I'm sure there are manygreat people born every day that have the potential to be fantastic leaders but who will never grow up in an

environment that enables then to realise their potential.





D. Prasad wrote: To me it's neither; they are self made with will and visionS. Hazra wrote:

Everyone comes into this world by virtue of birth and so do the Leaders!!

Leadership is a skill and like any other skill can be acquired over a period of time by

practicing it. Some people are talented and are born with good leadership qualities. Butlike any other 'skill,' one has to hone it over a period of periods and has to remaindynamic. Not all of the leaders are born with the same, it is through your upbringingand training of your mind, perseverance, ability & aptitude to learn can only make agood leader. There are certain traits but as a Leadership has Application dimension,hence, simply knowing the traits will not make a good leader.





A. Chaplin wrote:

Leadership is learned.

As a certified facilitator of The Leadership Challenge by Jim Kouzes & Barry Posner, I cite theirfindings based on more than 25 years of research:

"It's nonsense to assume that leadership is genetic. There's no hard evidence to support that

assumption... The truth is that leadership is an observable set of skills and abilities...and any skillcan be strengthened, honed, and enhanced if we have the motivation and desire, the practice andfeedback, the role models and coaching, and the support and recognition."

For more information, I highly recommend adding Jim & Barry's fourth edition of The LeadershipChallenge to your leadership library. Live, learn, and lead!





J.M. Koenig wrote:

I was born.

J.M. Koenig later wrote:

I'm curious about something. How do coaches andtrainers actually make money. I'm mean in real life.Money to pay bills etc.

Do people actually pay you money to tell them howto live and is that money enough to survive on? I just find the whole profession puzzling and it seemsthat almost everyone on this site is either a coach ora recruiter.





K. LaVine wrote:

In order to answer this question an even more basic one must be asked first(I believe); What is a Leader?

By my definition a true leader is one who encourages and ALLOWS thosethey lead to be the best they can be and in doing so facilitates advancement

in a positive direction. By this definition leaders may be found in all areas ofour lives (not just in the board rooms of high powered companies, in themilitary, or in the political arena). We are all capable of leading (Born) tothe degree that we are willing to learn (Made) to bring people together andallow each individuals strengths to contribute to a common goal.





J.S. Webster wrote:

I think that anyone canlearn leadership skills, butthe ability to inspire is whatseparates a person with

'leadership training' and aperson who is a 'leader.'

B. Sanders wrote:

There are those who are bornand those who are taken out by there own troops.





G. Bernier wrote: That question is right up there with the nature or nurture debate over personality. As some the answersthat have posted indicate there has been a great deal of research on the subject, books have been written, and many people make a lot of money selling 'leadership training'.

Personally (and I've been around quite a while) I believe leadership is like athletic ability. Nearlyanyone can learn the skills necessary to play a sport reasonably well. Depending on how much effort

and time they are willing to devote to learning the tools of the trade will directly affect their level ofexpertise. However, regardless of effort there will always be very few Michael Jordan's or Tiger Woods'.

The mechanics of leadership can be effectively learned. The vision and passion that makes really greatleaders comes from somewhere else. (I don't believe the somewhere else is totally genetic - it has to do with personality and that is a complex combination of factors.)





R. Bowker wrote:

Many tend to agree that true leadership qualities are threaded into our DNA and it just

takes proper training/events for those qualities to come out. After spending 11 years in theNavy, I have seen many good and many bad leaders. I, myself never thought I could be aleader early in my career until I was “thrown” into a leadership role. Looking back on it, Ifeel that I always had those qualities in me, but never knew they were there until I had nochoice but to either lead or give up. Now, I can also say that I have seen other individualsfaced with the same challenge fail. I, for one, do believe that there are leaders and thenthere are followers. For any society, military, or organization to thrive, it must have both.

All the training, education, books, and classes cannot turn a follower into a leader. You maymake the follower more educated in leadership methodologies, but that person will never be able to put use it to the full potential. Henry Kissinger said, “If you do not know where you are going, every road will get you nowhere." A leader knows where they are going and itis hard wired into their thinking. A follower only knows how to get somewhere by reading amap or following someone else.





S.M. Diamond wrote:

Perhaps you shouldspecify if you want aserious answer, or ahumorous one - both can

apply - equally . . . :-)

I. Babelli wrote: Leaders are made, by someone who gives them a chance.

Almost every leader has had a person who entrusted him/her with an opportunity that was bigger than his/her ability/skillset/knowledge/etc at the time of the opportunity, so s/hetook it upon him/her-self to learn and advance and become a

leader.

I cannot, for the life of me, come up with an example tocounter the above argument except in the jungle (or similarsittings) where the dominant male fights his way up toleadership.



R. Evans wrote:

Both. I absolutely believe that leadership can be taught/learned. This case has been made in many ways, including variousresearch over the years. This has been addressed by people who have answered your question in one of the three postings.

I also absolutely believe that some people are "born leaders." My father, a career military man, used to say this: "If youthink there's no such thing as a born leader, leave a group of kids on a playground and come back in 20 minutes. Without

fail, when you come back, there will be one kid leading that group. In many cases, it won't be the most popular kid and itoften won't be the kid you expected. Furthermore, it frequently isn't the kid that wanted to lead the group. It will be the kidthat has 'that something' that enables him/her to say, 'let's do (whatever)' and the others will follow. Interestingly, thatsame kid will quite likely become a leader throughout his/her life."

I am certain that some people, particularly those who cite traditional research will disagree with this scenario. The mostlikely argument is that "leading" kids on a playground is not really leadership. I submit that one key aspect of leadership isevoking in others the desire to follow. After all, without followers, leaders are just people out for a walk.

I believe one reason that many people argue against born leaders is that it would seem to doom others to being permanentfollowers. Many people insist that it must be one or the other, born leaders vs. developed leaders, and since there are clearlymany developed leaders, then there can be no such thing as born leaders. In my opinion, accepting both pathways toleadership is more logical, and less narrow minded. It is also easily observable.

Leadership is often attributable to charisma, something that cannot be taught. Yes, there are leaders who are notcharismatic. But there are leaders -- very successful leaders -- who derive much of their leadership success from charismaalone. I believe the most dynamic and effective leaders are those who posses the natural instincts for leadership and then work to develop leadership skills through refinement and training.





R. Iyer wrote:

I presume you are asking in the context of a business organisation.

Some take to leadership naturally, by learning and observing.Others can learn / or be taught this skill, if they wish to!

In either case, the will to lead must come from within.




R. Betts wrote:

The short answer is yes. There are certain traits that have to be organic to you nature. Inother words, some things you just can't fake. "Soft skills" can be explained, but notengrained. The "Hard skills" can be learned until conscious competence is achieved. Untilthe become second nature, if you will. But the ability to share your vision for yourcompany in a way that is not only understood completely, but generates the sort of rabidsupport you find a English football matches isn't learnable. It takes more than a polishedPowerPoint deck and some pithy words on a bunch of 3x5 cards. You must be able show your passion without looking like you are a straight jacket a way from the funny farm. Youhave to be able to generate a rare sort of commitment and loyalty. Your employees have to be ready to take it to the wall for you, because they know that you'll do the same for them. You have to hurt when they hurt and laugh when they laugh. You have to be ready to

admit you are wrong and not rub it in when you are right. You have to know how to buildand grow meaningful relationships. Even if you don't have a title or corner office, a leader,a truly great leader, will shine with the blinding intensity of a supernova.

It's not nature vs. nurture, but nature and nurture.

Combine them and it's magic.





O. Lawrence wrote:

The truly gifted leaders are born with certain supporting traits likepatience, perseverance, creative thoughtfulness and ability tochange. They have the required traits more than the ordinary oraverage. They become honed through adversity which everyoneencounters and rather than simply surviving, they are thriving.

Most leaders are born without those qualities and are simply trainedto behave as leaders and receive respect from the leadershipappointed status. One can easily spot them since they are thegatekeepers surrounded by mediocrity who prevent the talent to rise.




T. Modeste wrote:

The problem with great leaders is that they are too few and far between. So waitingaround or searching for a great leader can soon run afoul of the law of diminishingreturns. Because, in the meantime, we’ve got an organization to run and simply

cannot afford to wait around until the next great leader deigns to walk through thedoor. Besides, we probably couldn’t afford him/her and he/she would probably have better things in mind than fooling around with our organization.

Luckily for us, in our everyday work, we can get along very well without greatleadership. And we'd be highly inefficient if we waited around for a great leaderevery time we needed to fill a leadership slot.

Therefore, what we do is that we take the people we have and work with them tomake them into the kind of leaders we need to get the job done. Experience showsthat as a rule, such leaders do a good enough job at the level needed. In fact, some ofthem even turn out to be superb leaders.




A. Bose wrote:

Leaders are born.

Not everyone can be a Leader. I would rather say Leaders are synonymous to"Great Communicators who have an aggressive attitude to win". Whether youmotivate people, lead a team, or possess great negotiation skills, you should be a good communicator first.

A leader should command and vision for their team, or organisation, andmost importantly, the people in his team. They give a strategic direction to thepeople of his team and set goals with an objective to achieve with optimumutilization of resources. The best part about the leaders are they are able tomotivate their team and they take the team along with them. They just don'tlead a team but also teach them how to lead and make them responsible.





K. Rao wrote:

I think i depends on your perspective - Leadership as ascience or as an art..

Leadership is like, say... Painting. You can go to a paintingschool and learn the techniques; though one in a million is da Vinci or Michelangelo. One in a million is a Jack Welch or aLee Iacocca!

In my opinion, leadership is an inherent birth trait that, atmost, can be influenced by training in situations faced, butnot created by them.




L.J. Anderson wrote:

This is a complex subject and there is no simple answer. Different cultural styles demand differentleadership styles and what goes down well in one culture fails in another.

One of the problems with attempting to teach leadership is that it can only be really learnt by doing it, partly

because there are no universally applicable rules, so you have to get out there and get your hands dirty todevelop the instincts you need to do the job properly. This also means that there is no way to develop leadersfast, which is why HR people prefer to recruit experienced leaders rather than train their own.

In essence the leadership debate is a spin off from the 'nature vs. nurture' debate. As far as i can see, to trainleaders effectively, you have to put them in real leadership situations for your organisations, let them get on with it while watching them like a hawk and making sure that they are pointing in the right direction.

This takes up the time of the apprentice leader and the person coaching him/her. Most business don't havethe time and they don't want to take the risk of having him run the show unsupervised, so they stick withexperienced hires.

Hope this adds something to the debate.





N. Vassudhev wrote:

That leaders are born is Maya believed to be true byPoliticians.

It's the circumstances that affectthe individual, upbringing,education and the developedattitude that makes a Leader.

C. Braverman wrote:

Leaders have found their place. Whether it is a physical placeor an idea, they bring theirpassion and motivation to that

place.

Many have just not found theirpassion yet.





R. Knill wrote:

Both! Recollect if you will your elementary school years.

Most of us will recall groups of both extroverts and introverts. What does it look like ifleadership training was applied to both extrovert and introvert groups at the early ageof 7? Imagine that same group of youngsters learning…contextual listening, neutrallanguage, effective and timely messaging, acknowledging, asking vs. telling, discoveryquestioning, balanced emotional & social intelligence, effective delegation, motivationtechniques, accountability metrics, etc.

More than likely the extrovert group would excel faster and if sustained may become better leaders than the introvert group. However, 20 to 30 years later individuals from both groups, if leadership training was sustained, may rise to become excellent leaders.So, are leaders born, or made? Regardless of group, the best leaders are those thatallow themselves to change-transform, empower, measure, coach and grow.




R.T. Greene wrote:

Leadership is neither learned not born into us. It is entirely contingent. That is,the person or group that does what another group needs now in order tothrive/survive, becomes "leader" regardless of who has positional power. That is what makes monkey hierarchies in business so funny--all those pompous littlemale egos looking managerial daily while an entirely different set of peopleflicker in and out as actual leaders daily--two parallel universes, and thepompous little monkey one often gets uppity and snuffs out the flickeringcontingent leadership when it gets in the way of their tiny strutting little egos.

Fools who "try to be leader-ly" all the time just blind themselves from spotting what leading is actually now needed somewhere by their strenuous efforts toapply to future situations a handbag of tools they got away with using in somepast cases. A sort of Harvard Business School child's play at leading, not the realthing.





D. Burns wrote:

Born and Made...but most importantly, leaders need togive birth to themselves at some point in their journey.

Parents give you life, but you have to make a decision to

give meaning and life to your life.





R. Hurst wrote:

I wish we could once and for all put this question to bed and move on to the real work of

developing leaders. If leaders are simply born that way then what is the point of leadershipdevelopment. The answer perhaps creates controversy because the answer is simply both.

Clearly there are those who have certain abilities that allow them to more easily assumeleadership roles while others of us work to develop the necessary skills. The reality is thateach person is unique in their skills and abilities as is each leader.

One may be charismatic while another is empathetic, one may have clear vision anotherremarkable communication skill. We all have a different mix of skills and abilities thatallow us the opportunity to lead. The question is do we discover within ourselves thepassion to want to lead others to achieve a worthy goal and then learn how to do it. When you get to how do I learn to lead better, I think you find the "right" question.





R. Liu wrote:

I think most of them are born with it. I am sorry if I had offended some people.I have seen people who have really good professional skills and great insights, however,they just lack of some charisma. Some other people are not that great in the insights, noteven professional skills. I found it weird why people would even follow them with thosedisastrous thoughts. I certainly wish that latter type is not leading the company,otherwise it would be a definite mistake.

Having said that, I believe some part of the leadership can be trained and polished in thelater days through PROPER (please note, it should be proper, not what you think it isproper that counts) process and methods. But I haven't seen any of the so called"training program" having anything interesting and out of the box that could help train aleader. Please feel free to enlighten me if I had been blind sighted.





K. Kelley wrote:

I'm studying leadership right now for my master's thesis as it relates to the Myers-Briggs. What is so fascinating is that there are many, many theories on leadershipstyles and nothing has been quantified. However, our personal styles, such as withthe Myers-Briggs, have been studied and quantified for many years now.

I think that there are so many different forms of leadership. One could take theform of learned behavior, such as with servant leadership, and another could beinherited, as with transactional leadership. There is no denying, however, that anindividual cannot possibly be a leader without followers. Perhaps we should seek toquantify leadership rather than qualify.





A. Lockhart wrote:

I believe that Leaders are born of the situations that they are thrustin. Those that step up and do the things that are necessary to bedone because it is the right thing to do. They do this, not becausethey have to, but because no one else can or will. I am not talkingabout in an everyday situation, I am talking about when adversity

comes and people who should be leading you are off hiding some where under a desk.

'Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some havegreatness thrust upon them.' -Shakespeare”





T. Cunniff wrote:

In my experience, the answer is both and -- more often than should be for anyone's good -- neither.

Some "leaders" in business are more like Chauncey Gardener than George Washington.They arrive at their position through corporate happenstance rather than throughexceptional merit.

Some Chauncey's recognize their luck and work hard to fill their gaps with leadershiptraining and surrounding themselves with first-rate talent. The lesser Chauncey's riskmaking themselves (and their employers and investors) miserable.

I believe no matter how good a leader you are, you can always become better.





M. Mitra wrote:

Twins growing in the same environment among same friends havedifferent personalities.

Are Leaders born that way?

Well, I believe that there are traits that some people possess, by birth, which may help them become very good leaders, but their actions andimplementation of them ultimately decides if they grow up to become goodleaders.Having leadership trait and being a leader are two different things, I think.





A. Bhatnagar wrote:

Well, NONE of “Born Vs Made”. It works in combinations of followingcomplex stages.

1. Grooming (of Inherited OR Acquired Syndrome) =>Produces=> Charisma

2. Charisma (applied to identically attributed People) =>Produces=> ValueCreator (Disposable)3. Value Creator (If brings diversified attributed people TOGETHER)=>Produces=> A Mass Leader





A. Mittal wrote:

I would say a men is made of circumstances. It all depends what kind of circumstances a men has lived in his life. Ithink leadership is a skill and like many other skills in somepeople it is by birth and they refine it further but some are

not born with this skill but they are brought up in suchenvironment where they learn these skills and refine it withthe time & practice.

Hope it helps. Please let me know.





R. Miller wrote:

I think in most cases the spark forleadership resides in many of us.

In most cases the circumstances do

not inspire people to act on it.

Under trying circumstances theopportunity arises for people to riseto the challenge.

S. Balakrishnan wrote:

From my personal view, it is 80:20(The Pareto principle.)

80% is made and 20% is born.





J. Parsons wrote:

While some leaders definitely have a genetic advantage on leadership, and may find it

easier and more intuitive, I think all of us can learn to improve our leadership and nogood leader is strictly intuitive - all were mentored by good leaders. I don't think it isunlike athleticism. Some people are going to naturally excel at sports, but others mightstruggle to get to the same point. However, as much of it is about heart and passion asnatural talent. The ones who are born with the most natural ability, if not carefullycrafted, may fail in the end. While some people may lack enough natural abilities thatlend themselves to leadership (and thus can't ever hope to learn enough to prevail), I

think that group is small. Often, it is our own egos of not wanting to learn (andassuming that we know best) that keeps even naturally gifted leaders from being able toprevail.

At the end of the day, I think leadership is not about the leader at all. It is about theteam!!





R. Bhan wrote:

Nice question - great answers.

Reminds me of something my father wrote to me when I was entering high school.

"Be Deaf to people who say you can't do it. A school teacher scolded a boy for not

paying attention to his mathematics and for not being able to solve simpleproblems. She told him that you would not become anybody in life. The boy was Albert Einstein"

Does that answer?





F. Hayashi, PMP wrote:

Each leader isborn with his ownsignature but.......

He MUST also learn how to be a

efficient leader.

R. Torres wrote:

They are neither born or made, butrather "fabricated."





G. Sadler wrote:

Great question and lots of great answers! Here’s my take:

First, I'd say that great leaders are FORGED not made because all great leaders have beentested or challenged to overcome adversity.

Next, I’d say that Leaders (not managers or administers) emerge from LUCK which iscreated when opportunity meets preparation. Leaders must study and refine their skills

and must also be given the opportunity to demonstrate those skills.

Finally, I’d say that Leadership can be LEARNED. The military and other greatorganizations demonstrate this everyday. However, great leaders (like great athletes) get ahuge advantage from natural ability (e.g. looks/charisma to name one.)





L.T. de Carvalho wrote:

I think that leaders that think they're leaders because ofsome skill, an experience, a connection, or whatever, willshow weaknesses in the future. Weakness that will surelyput at risk one or more objectives of the team.

True leaders aren't born; but rather they're forged on theheat of a situation where initiative, inspired views, andexperience converge and set the new born leader inmotion.





S. Otterson wrote:

Both.

Some of the qualities of a leader are learned, others are part of one'spersonality.

For example, a good leader can't be an introvert. Most likely those people whochoose to a be leader already possess some of the character traits that they willneed: courage, strength, flexibility, ambition, etc.

Did they learn these, or were they "born" with them? Who is to say?





M. Ingle wrote:

It can be said leaders are born and will always be successful but there isalso an aspect of being in the right place in the right time.

Leading some businesses is also a matter of being in the business within which one excels not just leading. If you get a gifted individual he or she

may never lead given the circumstances.

So I firmly believe it is not as simple as being a "born leader" but also amatter of whether or not you are in the position within which yournatural talents as a leader can come to fruition





T. Willette wrote:

As an individual develops, their abilities develop. Attitudes, personality, beliefs, behaviors, motivations all come into play when defining who an individual is. When anindividual takes everything that they are and invests that into what they have a burningdesire to achieve, they become leaders. Now, everyone is living for something right? So why is it that we aren't all leaders? Confidence.

Confidence in personal abilities is what sets one person apart from another. So now weget into the issue of confidence and how to build it. To build confidence in personalability, an individual must have two things, knowledge and experience. So can a leader bemade? Yes, so long as they have knowledge, experience, and motivation. Can a leader be born? No, because all of the qualities needed to be a leader must be developed.





J.H. Brondum wrote:

We are all born. So guess the answer is yes. However, leadership is mainly based onpersonality - and of course the knowledge, skills and attitude can be improved. But as with so many other things in life you will only excel at what you are good at. You canstruggle your whole life to improve areas where you lack - but most likely you will bestcase arrive at good.

Excellent leaders are already potential leaders when they are born. The rest are trying tocatch up - and mostly for the wrong reason and with mediocre results.That being said – I believe that most people can learn to manage well, since goodmanagement is based on rules - rules that can be learned and mastered - leadership hasno common rules. It is a gift.





D. Grossu wrote:

Leaders are born but theyalso learn how to becomesuccessful; each leader hasits own challenges but theyknow how to bring successregardless of how different

people are, and that is anart that not everybody has itin its genetic print.

C. Braverman wrote:

Leader....Desire......

M. Krasnyansky wrote:

Let's go to the basic: Encyclopedia Britannica

"Leadership: Exercising of influence over otherson behalf of the leader's purposes, aims or goals.“ I think 80/20 rule works here as well: 80% born with individual, and 20% by training.




M. Herbert wrote:

Leadership is earned, it is a gift from those who are willing to trust you and follow yourdirection. I am a believer in the Marcus Buckingham school of leadership in that themost important task of a leader is to create clarity of purpose.

I have seen any people with attributes that we mistakenly label as leadership- they werecharismatic, or visionary, or very smart. Perhaps it is overly simplistic, but to me themost important element of leadership is trust. Do I believe you have my interests andthe interests of the organization in mind when you make decisions?

The time to measure an effective leader is at the end of the journey. We can all beeffective at leading a project or a task- true leadership endures the test of time.If you want to be a true leader then you have to be willing to put the interests of theorganization above your own interests and demonstrate that consistently.





M. Parkyn wrote:

The answer is yes...

Yes, they are born; but if their talents are not developed, their chances of leading aremuch lower.

Yes, they are "made." Marines are trained from day one to walk the walk of leaders.Thanks to Marine Corps Recruiting Command, a substantial number of Marine recruitsand officer candidate enter our ranks having already made the commitment to lead.

Others, however, make the decision when they experience their defining moment, whenthey confront their weaknesses and fears with core values that become their own.





A. Campbell wrote:

Leaders are bred like thoroughbred racing horses. But, even the most genetically endowed

thoroughbred is no more guaranteed to win than a common plow horse; it must work to become a recognized champion; because by all practical accounts they are physically thesame. Likewise we are very similar to each other, we each possess potential, but it is ourtraining, experience and socialization that evoke leadership.Time and again the “dark horse” has come from behind, conquered all odds and shatteredstereotypes, this is because effective leadership results are the sum of personal talents, and

experiences based upon the development and application of innate traits. One cannoteffectively lead others if their personal abilities are so limited that they easily becomeoverwhelmed with personal challenges. They must first have the capability to managethemselves followed with the capacity to then turn outward and influence others. Thisrequisite for leadership is not a physical breeding like animals rather it is based uponconjoining experience with natural abilities which then produces a leader.





A. Tupan wrote:

A good discussion with some very interesting points being made. For the statistics of this question my take isthat leaders are born and then made.

Leadership thus is 40% innate and the rest is a matterof developing the talent.





S. Subramanian wrote:

"DNA to lead"? - I don't think so.

I think what makes good leaders is that 'fire in the belly' to reach there,“never die” attitude and the continuous process of being in good companyand the positive environment (it is a choice, again!)

All of this, coupled with good education (not to be confused with schooling,)teachers & mentors can make a person a 'leader stuff' - To be a leader or not,it is a choice of that individual again!

In simple words, the mold in which the individual chose to be molded in!





M. Shyam wrote:

Not everyone can be a leader just like not everyone can become an actor. People have different skills,

talents and nature. Some people inherit that from parents and some people learn as they grow.

A person who is shy, afraid to speak in public cannot be trained to be a leader. A person who isconcerned about the society, well being of others and want to have authority over others can be trained.Such person will need formal training to be a leader of an organization but that training will only help ifthe person has a desire to have authority or command others to get the work done.

A person can be a very good actor. But he/she still would needs to learn how to appear in front of a

camera, do make up and become familiar with the stage before going for a movie shooting. The sameapplies to a leader. Mahatma Gandhi is a good example of a person who had no formal training but became a leader. He did not inherit leadership skills from his parents or ancestors but became a leadersince he had a great passion to serve his motherland.

However, to be a leader in a structured environment, one needs some formal training besides havingpassion for leadership.





M. Krasnyansky wrote:

Let's go to the basic Encyclopedia Britannica: "Leadership-exercising ofinfluence over others on behalf of the leader's purposes, aims or goals".

I think 80/20 rule works here as well, 80% born with individual, and 20% by training.

M. Pohto wrote:

Yes.




J.A. Cole wrote:

My take is the latter - a combination of the two. While I may believe that some people are born with'Leader DNA', if they don't have the opportunity to exercise those skills properly, they're not leaders. Bythe same token, should someone have all the best training, nurturing and opportunities, but would rather be on the ground directing traffic....not a leader. An unwilling participant, however hidden or

unconscious. An actor, a tourist who's never on vacation. The combination hands down of 'born' and'made' spawn the best, greatest and most productive leaders.

It's really interesting to read what others have answered. Especially looking at the responses wherepeople have cited textbooks or assigned their own homegrown labels for leadership qualities. I realizethat people have a lot of 'baggage' about this topic, and in some cases it's apparent what their rub is withregard to their personal experience, and what their expectations of a leader is. Everyone wants a person

who is just like them, but at the same time, their expectations of a leader clash with the human factor oftrial and error or by-products of a learning curve, as well as dealing with interpersonal team issues. Oftena leader is like a nanny in a big corporate/institutional playpen that has to enforce the rule of 'everyoneplay nice, now', then on the drive home wonders 'I got an MBA for this?' Maybe that's where the DNAplays a factor - good genes, good balance, healthy system, healthy outlook - makes it easier to maintaingrace under pressure.

That's my take.





J. Letton wrote:

Leaders are the "Ones" that areprepared to make mistakes, andultimately learn from them.

The best executive is the one who has

sense enough to pick good men to do what he wants done, and self-restraint to keep from meddling withthem while they do it.Theodore Roosevelt

Y. Hanoulle wrote:

I think it can be learned. Somepeople learned this in theirchildhood, or at the first companiesthey work for.I have created a leadership gametogether with my father. In thisgame people learn to look atdifferent leadership styles.I see this as the beginning of howpeople learn to look at leaders.





J. Munoz wrote:

I think all great leaders are to some degree a combination of both born and made.

Leadership is so much more and "art" than a "science" thatthere has to be some innate desire to take charge in a givensituation already present in the person or they will not seekout or succeed at the training necessary to take this personaltrait and shape it into a true ability to lead successfully.





T. McDonald wrote:

I think that they are made not born - Ithink with our backgrounds and the waythat we are raised by our parents tends tolead to leadership in our lives. As a formerathlete, I also think that plays a huge role

in both our ability and our want to lead. Iknow that the days of participating insports helped me a great deal both with myability to want to lead and the ability to beable to lead.

H. Cuevas wrote:

This is a quintessentialquestion. My answer:leaders are born althoughthey might get better andpolished with time.

Also, leadership styles varies along time as youreach maturity





R.E.G. Smith wrote:

When I think of leadership, I look for qualities such as strength of character, honesty,

honor, backbone, accountability and in the ability to inspire others. Can this belearned? Some things, yes -- from childhood as a matter of fact. I think people showleadership qualities early on - and then it is acquiring and fine-tuning the skillsneeded to support the 'leadership' personality. IMHO, I don't think it's a selectiveprocess ... that of possessing leadership qualities. I also do not think just becausesomeone is a considered an effective team leader at work, or has a seniormanagement position, is testimony to them being a good leader. It has to be in a

fabric of the person and carry over into their personal life as well - outside of theprotective, and sometimes insulated, confines of brick and mortar. Leaders emergeand while their skills may be sharpened, along with their wit, humor and otherattractive attributes - the qualities that make a true leader is what makes them up asa whole person and that evolves over the course of a lifetime.





B. Simpson wrote:

I like Gary's answer liking it to Athletics - you can be naturally great atLeadership - or not so great. But you can make yourself better.

Winston Churchill was the greatest leader the UK has ever seen (in myhumble opinion). I don't for one minute believe that anyone who had

spent a lifetime studying leadership could carry off what he did.

Having said that - everyone should try and improve their leadershipability. And I include in that anyone who is anyone - not just leaders.





J. Foster wrote:

Both.

Look back to human roots, leaders were the strongest. Survival of thefittest, hunters and gatherers, the strongest was most often the leader.Now did that mean that person was the best leader?

What you learn, is life experiences. Based on those life experiences,training mentoring, you can hopefully make better more sound choices.

The born traits are personality traits, and of the personality traits somecan be molded from birth, some stick with the person regardless.





A. Garoo wrote:

"I wish I knew the formulae, to make the test tube baby influence the doctors!"

Leaders are born first & made later! The environment and the people play animportant role in influencing humans. A leader's IQ is a result of his DNA as well asquality education, while EQ is a result of atmosphere / surrounding and people with whom he/she interacts.

Both DNA as well as environment play an important role in making a difference between Good to Great! A person with the right set of traits/characteristics can be groomed and guidedtowards excellence in leadership.





S. Das wrote:

Made, made....simple made. There are lots of theories and ideas pointingtowards the opposite, but leaders are made not only circumstances and theenvironment, but also by how they choose and shape their personalitiesaccording to the rigors and challenges of the business and professionalenvironment.

If all leaders were born, then there would be a dearth of these individualseverywhere. Organizations now exert more influence on the globalenvironment than governments, and since they are run by individuals at alllevels, I think the answer is very clear...





J. Jeckmans wrote:

Interesting question to start with.

Is it so, that the question behind the question is maybeeven more important

Meaning, it only matters what you believe to be true. If you believe that true leaders are born, than no matter what,this will be true to you. If you believe the other belief, thanthis will be true to you.





T. Schulte

Both.



Answers on LinkedIn


®

LinkedIn ® is a trademark of LinkedIn Corporation Mountain View, CA USA ©2008. Linked

2 L d hi i Li k dI N th ffili ti i t Th t ti d t

~ The End ~

Brought to you byLinked 2 Leadership

™

Quotations may be attributed incorrectly. This is an unedited edition of “Let the People Speak.”™ All quotations have been

previously made available to the general public. This free resource may be re-quoted with the following attribution:

are leaders born or are they made

Documents