Ronald Heifetz defined leadership as the ability to mobilise people and use strategies to solve complex problems.[1] These two definitions make the study of leadership crucial, especially in the field of organisational management. This understanding of the value of leadership drives many to ask a question of its origin – are leaders born, or made? Some suggest that leaders are born while others suggest leaders are made. This paper critically engages with the key statement by examining theoretical viewpoints, empirical studies, academic literature and genetic studies. To help prove or disprove the key statement, this paper explores both sides of the argument, firstly ‘leaders are born’ (trait-based theory), followed by the ‘leaders are made’ (skill-based) paradigm. Following critical engagement with relevant academic sources for each of the two arguments, a closing discussion suggests that the key statement ‘leaders are born not made’ appears to be implausible. Instead, findings suggest that leaders are predominantly made and that heritable traits play a less significant role in the development of leadership than developable skills do. More accurately, behavioural genetic studies suggest leaders appear to be 30% born and 70% made.[2]
Leaders are born (trait theory)
Efforts to substantiate the idea that leaders are born have persisted for centuries. In 1841 Scottish philosopher Thomas Carlyle[3] published a collection of lectures that theorised the heritability of leadership, commonly known as the ‘Great Man’ theory, and reasoned that leaders are born and not made. Referencing a variety of poetic, political and religious heroes, Carlyle suggested leaders are born with the right characteristics and become great men by nature (not nurture). Although plausible, Carlyle’s observations prove limited when probed with logical questioning. For example, if leaders are born with necessary characteristics, why do some possess the necessary traits yet do not become leaders? Why can some leaders succeed in one environment but not in others?[4] Moreover, what is to be said of effective leaders that possess opposing attributes (introvert as opposed to extrovert) and differing leadership styles (laissez-faire as opposed to autocratic leadership styles) yet succeed as leaders?[5] To answer these questions Herbert Spencer suggested great leaders are products of society and environment (not heritable traits), asserting that “the genesis of the great man depends on the long series of complex influences … before he can re-make his society, his society must make him”.[6] Spencer argued that environmental factors make leaders and “that the times produce the person and not the other way around”.[7] This emphasis on environment appears to answer many of the previous questions. One can possess the necessary traits yet not become a leader (or a successful leader) because the environment may not be conducive. It also suggests that different social environments will call forth different leadership styles (laissez-faire as opposed to autocratic).
Despite this kind of opposition, the Great Man theory, which pointed to the intrinsic (not extrinsic) nature of leadership qualities, remained popular in the 19th and early 20th century.[8] Researcher Francis Galton (half-cousin of Charles Darwin) also supported the idea that leaders were born, documenting his findings in the 1869 work, Hereditary Genius.[9]Following his examination of 100 reputed ‘great men’ Galton argued exceptional ability is often familial, stating “characteristics cling to families”.[10] Holding the idea that “since ‘greatness’ appeared to be more prevalent within the family history of these subjects than would be expected in the public at large, ‘greatness’ is wholly due to the action of genes”.[11] However, not everyone agreed, in 1905 Frank Constable,[12] who opposed the theory of hereditary genius, challenged Galton’s method of studying men of great reputation, suggesting that often they achieved their reputed leadership positions through birthright and not through hereditary genius, i.e. they became great because of their lineage and not their genes.
Despite this criticism, Galton’s scientific approach, that coined the expression ‘nature vs nurture’,[13] was considered the first genetic approach to leadership study[14] and triggered further scientific investigation into specific leader attributes (later known and categorised as traits).[15] This increasingly scientific approach to the investigation of trait-based leadership, that hinges on the supposition that leaders are born, became particularly popular among psychologist. Judge et al.[16] completed a meta-analysis of five individual differences related to effective leadership (referred to as the ‘Big Five’ that is Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness). Judge et al. found that extraversion was the most consistent correlate to leadership effectiveness and that this showed “strong support for the leader trait perspective”,[17] inferring that leaders are born. However, this suggestion has limitations, in that, the way of measuring leadership was primarily perceptual by nature and therefore, “the fact remains that our criterion measures carry with them all of the possible attributional biases”.[18]
Using Judge et al. study, Hoffman et al.[19] extended the limited body of research, performing a meta-analysis of 25 individual differences linked to effective leadership. They compared heritable ‘traits’ (personality and intelligence) with developable ‘states’ (knowledge and skills). The results from Hoffman et al. meta-analysis lend “credence to the hypothesis that to some extent, leaders are born, not made”.[20] However, Hoffman et al. noted that “the impact of trait-like and state-like individual differences was modest overall”.[21] This suggests state-like individual differences (knowledge and skills) are also important factors connected to effective leadership, “supporting the perspective that to some extent, effective leadership can be developed”.[22] Although this thorough meta-analytic research highlights the active role of heritable traits, Hoffman et al. comments do not persuasively endorse the statement ‘leaders are born not made’. This indeterminate outcome, combined with the limitations from early aforementioned leadership studies, suggests further study of leadership origin is required to help prove or disprove the key statement ‘leaders are born not made’. What may prove useful at this point, is a further examination into the ‘leaders are made’ paradigm.
Leaders are made (skills theory)
In contrast to the theory that leaders are born is the proposition that they are made. This suggests leaders are not born with definitive heritable attributes but instead they are made through a process of skill acquisition and leadership development. The skills theory of leadership, as opposed to the trait theory, emerged in 1950 primarily due to the work of Robert Katz, who suggested effective leadership “rests on three basic developable skills which obviate the need for identifying specific traits”[23] – namely, technical (knowledge), human (interaction) and conceptual skills (seeing the big picture). This emphasis on ‘developable’ skills implied leadership skills could be learned, and therefore, leaders can be made. Katz further challenged the trait theory, by defining leadership by what people do (skills), as opposed to what they are, (traits).[24] This definition of leadership as an activity and not a person explains how many people exercise effective leadership every day yet without being leaders.[25] This focus on what leaders do, as opposed to who they are, strengthens the concept that effective leadership may be built upon a set of developable skills and thus points to the notion that leaders can be made.
Following on from Katz, Mumford et al. argued that leadership is an activity that involves the solving of complex problems that arise within organisations.[26] Crucially suggesting, developable skills make problem solving achievable. The observation that leadership is skill-based suggests that leaders can be made. As Mumford et al. put it, “leadership skills and subsequent performance are not viewed as the province of a few gifted individuals. Instead, leadership is held to be a potential in many individuals – a potential that emerges through experience and the capability to learn and benefit from experience”.[27] Citing career experience and environmental influences (alongside knowledge, problem solving-skills, solution construction skills and social judgement)[28] Mumford et al. summarised their conclusions stating “some theorists see leadership as the prerogative of a few gifted individuals … here, however, the dynamic interaction of the environment and the person, as it gives rise to the development, acquisition, and application of requisite organizational problem-solving skills is seen as the key to understanding leader performance”.[29] This suggestion, that environment and experience enable leadership skills to be gained, seems to suggest leaders can be made.
Additionally, the idea that leadership can be learnt within correct environments underpins the work of Ronald Heifetz,[30]the impact of which has been recorded in Sharon Parks qualitative research, Leadership Can Be Taught (a formative evaluation of Heifetz’s leadership pedagogy).[31] Observing Heifetz’s ‘Case-in-point’ experience-based teaching of leadership (a mixed method form of teaching leadership that utilises seminars, simulation, coaching, the laboratory and the art studio),[32] Park suggested, although leadership is difficult to teach, it can be learned. Having observed Heifetz’s successful outcomes and having been informed by a decade of qualitative research observation and assessment (utilising interviews and analysis), Parks concluded that “leadership can be taught”.[33]
This environmental development of leadership appears to be supported by scientific, and in particular, behavioural genetic research. In 2006, Arvey et al.[34] completed a multi-collaborative genetic study involving 119 pairs of identical (genetically alike) male twins compared to 94 fraternal (genetically distinct) twin pairs. To better understand how genes impacted leadership relative to environmental factors, twins were asked to confirm if they had or were fulfilling formal leadership roles (in work or professional associations). If environmental influence affected leadership role more than genes, one would expect the environmental value to be higher, and it was. Results showed “that 30% of the variance in leadership role occupancy could be accounted for by genetic factor, while non-shared environmental factor accounted for the remaining variance in leadership role occupancy”.[35] Therefore, leadership role occupancy appears to be 30% genetic and 70% environmental influence. Crucially this study suggested that environmental differences play a larger role in the development of leadership and infers that leaders may be 30% born and 70% made. To better understand this trend Arvey et al. completed a second study[36] involving female twin samples, 107 pairs of identical female twins compared to 89 fraternal twin pairs. Results were a near match for females as they were for males, showing that “32% of the variance in leadership role occupancy was associated with heritability”[37] and therefore 68% resulted from environmental influence. Significantly, this study gives credibility to the idea that leaders are predominantly made and infers that leadership is 32% nature, 68% nurture. These values are further echoed by De Neve et al.[38] in a more recent multi-collaborative study involving twin samples. In attempting to discover a specific gene linked with leadership, Neve et al. estimates the “heritability of leadership to be 24%”.[39]
Conclusion
Having critiqued trait based theoretical viewpoints and meta-analytic studies against behavioural genetic studies which infer leaders are made, the key statement ‘leaders are born not made’ appears to be unconvincing. After critically engaging with both sides of the argument, although innate traits do play a role in leadership effectiveness, other factors such as environment, experiences and skill acquisition also play a larger role in the development of leadership. More accurately, studies suggest leaders appear to be 30% born and 70% made. These findings should not surprise. The ‘leaders are born’ theory, which suggests only a select few can ever hope to achieve leadership effectiveness, proves problematic. In contrast, viewing leadership as an ‘activity’ and not a ‘person’ helps us to understand why society boasts such a diverse set of leaders and leadership styles functioning within a variety of social environments. If leadership is viewed as an activity, not only can it be used in a range of social environments, but an assortment of people can also develop it. Despite these observations, leadership appears to be a complex union of environment, experiences and skills intermingled with a variety of genetic factors.
[1] Ronald A. Heifetz, Leadership without Easy Answers (Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1994).
[2] Richard D. Arvey et al., “The Determinants of Leadership Role Occupancy: Genetic and Personality Factors,” The Leadership Quarterly 17, no. 1 (February 2006): 1–20.
[3] Thomas Carlyle, On Heroes and Hero Worship and the Heroic in History (Pinnacle Press, 2017).
[4] Stephen J. Zaccaro, Cary Kemp, and Paige Bader, “Leader Traits and Attributes,” in The Nature of Leadership(Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc, 2004), 104.
[5] Kurt Lewin, Ronald Lippitt, and Ralph K. White, “Patterns of Aggressive Behavior in Experimentally Created ‘Social Climates,’” The Journal of Social Psychology 10, no. 2 (May 1, 1939): 269–299.
[6] Herbert Spencer, The Study of Sociology (D. Appleton, 1873), 34–35.
[7] Heifetz, Leadership without Easy Answers, 16.
[8] S. A. Kirkpatrick and E. A. Locke, “Leadership: Do Traits Matter?,” Academy of Management Executive 5 (May 1991): 48.
[9] Francis Galton, Hereditary Genius: An Inquiry into Its Laws and Consequences (Honolulu, Hawaii: University Press of the Pacific, 2001).
[10] Ibid., 5.
[11] Andrew M. Johnson et al., “Nature vs Nurture: Are Leaders Born or Made? A Behavior Genetic Investigation of Leadership Style,” Twin Research and Human Genetics 1, no. 4 (August 1998): 1.
[12] Frank Challice Constable, Poverty and Hereditary Genius: A Criticism of Mr. Francis Galton’s Theory of Hereditary Genius (Forgotten Books, 2017).
[13] Arnold Sameroff, “A Unified Theory of Development: A Dialectic Integration of Nature and Nurture,” Child Development 81, no. 1 (January 2010): 6–22.
[14] Johnson et al., “Nature vs Nurture.”
[15] Bernard M. Bass and Ralph Melvin Stogdill, Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications (Simon and Schuster, 1990).
[16] Timothy A. Judge et al., “Personality and Leadership: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review.,” Journal of Applied Psychology 87, no. 4 (2002): 765–780.
[17] Ibid., 765.
[18] Ibid., 775.
[19] Brian J. Hoffman et al., “Great Man or Great Myth? A Quantitative Review of the Relationship between Individual Differences and Leader Effectiveness: Leader Traits, Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 84, no. 2 (June 2011): 347–381.
[20] Ibid., 365.
[21] Ibid., 347.
[22] Ibid., 365.
[23] Robert L. Katz, Skills of an Effective Administrator (Harvard Business Review Press, 2009), 5.
[24] Elesa Zehndorfer, Leadership: A Critical Introduction (London ; New York: Routledge, 2014), 50.
[25] Heifetz, Leadership without Easy Answers, 20.
[26] Michael D Mumford et al., “Leadership Skills for a Changing World: Solving Complex Social Problems,” The Leadership Quarterly 11, no. 1 (March 1, 2000): 11.
[27] Ibid., 21.
[28] Michael D Mumford et al., “Leadership Skills: Conclusions and Future Directions,” The Leadership Quarterly 11, no. 1 (March 1, 2000): 155–170.
[29] Mumford et al., “Leadership Skills for a Changing World,” 27.
[30] Heifetz, Leadership without Easy Answers.
[31] Sharon Daloz Parks, Leadership Can Be Taught: A Bold Approach for a Complex World (Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press, 2005).
[32] Ibid., 6–7.
[33] Ibid., 5.
[34] Arvey et al., “The Determinants of Leadership Role Occupancy.”
[35] Ibid., 1.
[36] Richard D. Arvey et al., “Developmental and Genetic Determinants of Leadership Role Occupancy among Women.,” Journal of Applied Psychology 92, no. 3 (2007): 693–706.
[37] Ibid., 693.
[38] Jan-Emmanuel De Neve et al., “Born to Lead? A Twin Design and Genetic Association Study of Leadership Role Occupancy,” The Leadership Quarterly 24, no. 1 (February 1, 2013): 45–60.
[39] Ibid., 1.