Born Leader: Leaders Are Born And Not Made

Early research was based on the study of people who were already great leaders and from an aristocratic lineage thereby contributing to the notion leadership had something to do with breeding. A number of scenarios confirm the assertion leaders are actually born and not made. One of the evidences is that leaders are noticed when they are at their prime or tender age. They readily assume command and leadership skills to them appears to be so effortless (Waldman, Bernard and Walter, 2009).

Can enrolling for a programme on management and leadership makes someone a leader upon completion? Can Charisma, Influence, Integrity and the ability to Inspire be taught? Will the granting of a certificate and a few letters after one’s name make them a leader? Soft skills can be explained, but not implanted (Anton, 2004 and Andersen, 2012). Thomas Carlyle (1840) popularized this theory in the 1840s and in later years Spencer (1896) argued successfully that great men are the product of their society and that their actions would be impossible without the social conditions built before their lifetime. Nevertheless, they all believe people inherit certain qualities and traits that make them better suited to leadership (Thomas Carlyle 1840).

Great Man Theory

Formulated by Scottish philosopher Thomas Carlyle in the 1840s, the theory refers to individuals who succeed in reshaping the society with their inherent attributes including leadership prowess, superior intellect, heroic courage, divine inspiration and destined to rise to leadership when needed (Hyacinth, 2014).

Holding the notion that leadership is predominantly a masculine distinctive – particularly in military nomenclature – Carlyle implies “the history of the world was but the biography of great men” thus reflecting heroes shape history through personal attributes and divine inspiration. The theory contends these traits remain stable over time and across different groups. If everyone were born to a royal family, the social elite or even to the polity, chances are that they continue the legacy and succeed as leaders. For instance, a king or queen who rules a monarch would want their blood to take charge in time (Seltzer and Bernard, 2008).

The mythology behind some of the world's most famous leaders such as Napoleon, Queen Elizabeth I, George W. Bush, Mahatma Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher, Sir Winston Churchill, Benito Mussolini, Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, Julius Caesar, Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Alexander the Great and Mahinda Rajapaksa contribute to the notion that great leaders are born and not made. These individuals often include aristocratic rulers who achieved their position through birthright (Jacobs, 2006; Prigg, 2013). While prominent personalities such as Frederick Adams Woods and William James have lauded this theory, critics in the likes of Sidney Hook and Herbert Spencer have vehemently condemned the approach claiming there is no factual data to support the theory and that leaders were made by societies more than they form societies (Carlyle, 1888). However, over a period of time and with the emergence of great women leaders, the philosophy was renamed as the ‘Great Person’ theory (Waldman 2009). Prompted by this theory and the emerging interest in understanding what leadership is, researchers focused on the leader – who is a leader? What are the distinguishing characteristics of great and effective leaders? This gave rise to the early research efforts to the trait approach to leadership (Cherry, 2018).

Traits Theory

Closely related to the ‘Great Man’ theory, trait theories by Allport, Cattell and Eysenck assumes people inherit certain qualities that ultimately determine their behaviour and prepare them for leadership. Trait theories often identify particular personality or behavioural characteristics shared by leaders (Gurriello, 2008 and Wagner, 2008). Recent advances in personality research including the development of comprehensive trait frameworks have inspired a reassessment of the role of individual differences in leadership and sparked renewed interest in trait approaches to understanding leader emergence and leadership effectiveness (Judge and LePine, 2007).

Among the core traits identified in this theory are drive (energy, ambition, focus), conscientiousness (honesty, integrity, ethics), self-confidence, openness (flexibility, adaptability, innovative), charisma (vision, inspiring, good communication skills, persuasive), emotional intelligence (balance of emotions, self-control, consistency, caring, empathy, consultative, approachable, listening skills), assertiveness, adaptability, review and follow-up (Cox, 1996; Hasan, 2017; Spears, 1998; Swaroop and Prasad, 2013).

Gordon Allport branches these traits into three levels; 01) Cardinal traits – Dominate and shape an individual’s behaviour (Example – Ebenezer Scrooge’s greed or Mother Theresa’s altruism); 02) Central traits (General characteristics found in varying degrees in every person such as loyalty, kindness, agreeableness, friendliness, sneakiness, wildness, or grouchiness); and 03) Secondary traits (Plentiful but only present under specific circumstances like in preferences and attitudes). He hypothesized that genotypes (internal forces) and phenotypes (external forces) influence an individual’s behaviour and personality.

Charismatic Leadership Theory

One of the three leadership styles described by German sociologist Max Weber, the charismatic leadership theory was posthumously published in 1947 along with bureaucratic and traditional leadership styles (House, 1976). It relies on charm and persuasiveness of a leader driven by conviction and commitment who shows up when need arises (Nikezic et al., 2013). He believes charismatic leaders “rest on devotion to the exceptional sanctity” and tend to have an ideological component (Tucker, 1968).

Charismatic leaders are generally fortified with articulation skills, persuasion, force of personality, humility and compassion (Downton, 1973; Paul, 2014 and Oakes, 1997). Some of them include Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Martin Luther King, Jr., Mother Teresa, Pope John Paul II, Ronald Reagan, Sir Winston Churchill, Lee Iacocca, Jack Welch and Steve Jobs. Furthermore, neo-charismatic leadership deals with the process of change and consequently the transformation of followers. This process contains charismatic and visionary aspects (Kendall, Murray and Linden, 2000)

Transformational Leadership

There are a number of similarities between charismatic and transformational leadership. Inspirational motivation is the second quality of transformational leaders and it is what charismatic leaders are known for. However, through this continually growing relationship, the parties essentially change the moral norms of behaviour. The leader begins a continuing cycle of change in which the organization itself is ultimately transformed (Bernard, 1990 and Paul, 2016).

Transformational leaders are known for leading groups and teams that perform excellently. In addition, they gain fame for their ability to identify and foster leadership capacity in the followers. They also devise methods of assisting the organization or group to innovate and change (Ames and Flynn, 2007). They inspiring people and are known for intellectual simulation, idealized influence and individualized consideration among many other distinguished traits (Judge and Timothy, 2004). Some of them include Aristotle, Richard Branson, Fidel Castro, Oliver Cromwell, Walt Disney, Benjamin Franklin, Henry Kissinger, Dalai Lama and Eleanor Roosevelt (Antonakis et al, 2003).

Situational Leadership

Developed by Kenneth Blanchard and Paul Hersey, the theory scrutinizes four leadership styles: directing, coaching, supporting, and delegating. It refers to when the leader or manager of an organization must adjust his style to fit the development level of the followers he is trying to influence (Hersey and Blanchard, 1969). 

According to this theory, the most effective leaders are those that are able to adapt their style to the situation and look at cues such as the type of task, the nature of the group, and other factors that might contribute to getting the job done (Kanfer and Ackerman, 1989). Blanchard's situational leadership II model uses the terms 'competence' (ability, knowledge, and skill) and 'commitment' (confidence and motivation) to describe different levels of development. According to Ken Blanchard, 'Four combinations of competence and commitment make up what we call 'development level” (Vecchio, 1987). Examples: Colin Powell, Dolly Parton, Steve jobs, Marc Russell Benioff, Mary Kay Ash, Sirimavo Bandaranaike

Leaders Are Made

Behavioural theories believe individuals can become leaders through the process of teaching, learning and observation (Hyacinth, 2014). Leadership is a set of skills that can be learned by training, perception, practice and experience over time (Farlow, 2012). Leadership learning is lifetime activity. Good leaders seek out development opportunities that will help them learn new skills (Geiger, 2016). The military embraces this doctrine which is evident through its leadership training programme (Northouse, 2016).

Remarkable leaders like Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr., Aung San Suu Kyi and Quaid-e-Azam Mohomad Ali Jinna who sought neither wealth nor fame, worked for the greater good of others (Arvey et al., 2006). The argument by Colin Powel that leaders are made is valid (Johnson et al, 1998). He advocates for learnt leadership. According to him, good leadership is only achievable through trial and error (Chen and Bliese, 2002).

On the other hand, Kippenberger (1997) mentions three levels of leadership that replace single leaders – 01) Team leaders; 02) Operational leaders; and 03) Strategic leaders. Similar sentiments are expressed by influential philosopher and theorist, Kenneth Benne who contends it is vital to see leadership in terms of functions to be performed in helping groups to grow and to operate productively, not in terms of qualities inherent in certain persons (Benne, 1948 and Nakayama, 2013). However, if leaders cannot be made, this concern wouldn’t have progressed into a prolonged debate (Dincher, 2013). If they can be made, then this justifies the diligence of industry that has emerged for leadership consultants and experts in the field. (Aline and Ramkumar, 2018).

Lewin's Leadership Styles

In 1939, a team lead by psychologist Kurt Lewin sketched different leadership styles. While further research has identified more distinct types of leadership, this early study was very influential and established three major leadership styles – authoritarian, participative and delegative – that have provided a springboard for more defined leadership theories. However, Lewin infer the most effective style to be democratic. Overly autocratic styles led to revolution, whilst under a laissez-faire approach, people did not work together and did not work as hard as they did when being actively led. (Vikenburg et al., 2011).