Born or made leaders

French | Spanish | Portuguese | Italian | German | Japanese | Chinese | Korean | Russian | Arabic

This is a question that is often debated but is still, in many people’s eyes, unresolved. However, it remains an important issue to address because the notion that leadership is largely innate still underpins the way that many people think about leaders, their beliefs about their own capacity for leadership, and their views about the self-leadership potential of their followers. Common-sense assumptions about employees’ innate leadership qualities are also used frequently by organizations when making hiring, firing and promotion decisions. The earliest scientific studies of leadership, conducted in the USA in the 1930s, were concerned with identifying a list of personal psychological traits that could distinguish leaders from non-leaders. Over time, this became known as ‘The Great Man’ theory of leadership. In 1948, Stogdill reviewed the results of dozens of trait studies that had been conducted over the preceding two decades, and summarized the characteristics of a great leader as follows. Note that women leaders did not appear in the thinking of male academics at this time, an issue we will return to. Leaving this unconscious oversight aside for now, Stogdill did report that research studies had not been able to locate any traits that consistently differentiated leaders from non-leaders.

They also observed that the traits they had identified appeared to come and go at random, varied from leader to leader, and only became apparent after people had achieved leadership positions. This was a natural consequence of the fact that they could only look at leaders after the event, when they had already become leaders. Further research indicated that the correlation between specific psychological traits and leadership is low, accounting for only about 10 per cent of the factors that predict whether someone was a leader or not (Stogdill, 1974). Surprisingly, subsequent research has failed to answer definitively the question ‘Are leaders born or made?’ and this remains a topic of heated debate amongst academics. In terms of this continuing nature/nurture debate, there are three basic positions that have been adopted by academic researchers, reflecting the intellectual subjectivity of their disciplinary backgrounds.

1 Our potential for leadership is entirely determined by the genetic programming we inherit from our natural parents (many geneticists).

2 Our potential for leadership is determined by a combination of genetic predispositions, psychological development and socialization experiences (particularly during childhood), school and peer group influences, social class and culture (all psychologists and social psychologists).

3 Our potential for leadership is determined by the socialization processes we experience after birth and social–psychological development (particularly during childhood), school and peer group influences, social class and culture (most sociologists).

So, who’s right? Recent advances in evolutionary psychology and genetic mapping leave little doubt that our genetic inheritance has an influence on our physical and psychological development in life. Some studies of twins, raised separately, show that genetics shape personality; in particular, key psychological characteristics such as introversion and extroversion. Furthermore, twins raised apart often show stunning similarities in their scholastic achievements, choice of occupations, clothing, hobbies, musical preferences and even their choice of spouses. Advances in genetic mapping have also confirmed that there is a genetic component to the human Intelligence Quotient (IQ), although at birth this is simply potential: it still has to be ‘actualized’ through learning and socialization. For example, in Albert Einstein’s case, the two areas of his brain involved in the generation and manipulation of spatial images were 1cm larger than those of a normally intelligent person. This meant that he possessed an ‘extra’ 15 per centgrooves that separate the left and right hemispheres of the brain. As a result, he had many more neural connections between the logical/linear and spatial/creative parts of his brain than would be found in a more typical human brain. In other words, the unique combined genetic inheritance he acquired from his parents gave him a propensity to be a paradigm-breaking genius, although he was not regarded as being an academically outstanding student at school or university.

In a similar vein, the ability to produce seratonin has a genetic basis. It has been suggested that this is linked to leadership potential because it is known to be a key modulator of mood and emotions. In other words, certain people have a genetic predisposition to produce this natural ‘drug’ when under pressure and, as a result, are better equipped to deal with uncertain situations, competing demands, interpersonal conflict and stress (Goleman et al., 2002). There is also some evidence to suggest that genetic predispositions can have an influence on the careers we choose and the environments we choose to work in (Nicholson, 2000: 97–127). In other words, there may be a kind of autopilot – at the genetic level – that impels us to ‘choose’ particular careers and professions, and which can also influence the particular leadership and people management styles that we utilize as adults. Edward O. Wilson best described this process when he argued that the human mind was not a blank slate to be simply ‘filled in’ by experience, as most sociologists would argue, but ‘an exposed negative waiting to be slipped into developer fluid’ (cited by Uren, 1999). Some commentators have taken this suggestion one stage further and argued that, while social influences and life experiences may modify our innate genetic programming, these can affect the development of our basic personalities and the operation of our brains only in so far as they inhibit or activate propensities that were already there at birth (for example, Ridley, 2003; Stock, 2002).

Another way of looking at the influence of innate ‘programming’ and environmental influences on our psychological development is with the hardware/software analogy. The hardware represents the raw genetic material we inherit from our parents at conception. The software represents the ‘files’ of information, knowledge and feedback that we receive from the environment before and after birth, and during our formative years. Without these, the hardware cannot ever be activated and actualized. Conversely, without functional hardware, no amount of software is going to work. Having said this, the evidence concerning genetic influences on human personalities and psychologies still does not tell us if leadership is something we are born with. Complex organisms like human beings are not simply the sum of their genes, nor do genes alone build an individual’s unique personality and psychology. These certainly have an influence, but represent at birth a set of potentialities, nothing more. They operate in complex and symbiotic relationships with environmental, social and cultural influences; relationships that researchers are only now beginning to unravel and understand. The most powerful example that can be cited to support this statement is the radical transformation of the role of women in management and business leadership over the last 30 years in industrialized countries. Their collective genetic make-up has not changed one iota during this period of time, and yet their collective beliefs about what they are capable of have changed enormously, as have the beliefs of some men about the capabilities of women. There is also research which has shown that the first wave of women to reach senior leadership positions in the 1970s and 1980s grew up in family environments that insulated or dissuaded them from accepting social and cultural stereotypes about their ‘correct’ roles and potential in life.

These women were then able to develop the drive, ambition and tenacity that enabled them to battle their way to the top of male-dominated professions and organizations (Sinclair and Wilson, 2002; Sinclair, 1998: 80). And while there is a genetic component underpinning intelligence – as measured by IQ tests – there is little evidence that a high IQ is needed for leadership. Under some conditions, a very high IQ may occasionally be useful, but it is not essential for leaders. In fact, there is a body of evidence that suggests that very high intelligence is closely associated with psychopathology and deviant behaviour. Furthermore, IQ is only one form of ‘intelligence’. We now know that there are many other forms of human intelligence, including linguistic, interpersonal, spatial, bodily/kinesthetic, creative, musical, logical/mathematical and naturalistic intelligences (Gardner, 1993). To these we could also add moral/ethical and social intelligences, which we will return to. These other types of intelligence can only be developed though the complex processes of human learning and socialization and, of equal importance, can be developed in adulthood (Goleman et al., 2002). As we progress through this article, we will show how these forms of intelligence can be enhanced throughout life. For example, do you believe that you are not particularly innovative or creative? Why do you believe this? Who first told you that you were not creative? How many opportunities have you had to acquire these skills? We will see how almost anyone can learn to be better at lateral thinking and, thereby, become more creative and innovative. Another example is public speaking. Do you believe that you are not particularly good at this (perhaps because you are ‘introverted’)? Why do you believe this? We will show how anyone can learn to become better at public speaking and, thereby, increase their ability to influence their bosses, colleagues, followers, customers and clients.