Are leaders born, or are they made?
One of the crew and I had this discussion last month over dinner. I've been thinking about it a lot since then. Every book I read, every article I look through, that question stays at the forefront. It's an old question that we've all asked ourselves before, and plenty of people have offered up an answer, but I'm not really concerned with what they think...I'd rather figure it out on my own.
Having a good answer to this question is important. For one thing, it shapes your recruiting decisions. If you're looking for new Creatives who could be leaders someday, do you only look for people who were "born" to lead? Or do you instead look for people who have creative talent and who could learn to lead? It also affects your training budget. If people are born leaders, should you be spending money on leadership development education? These aren't abstract questions, these are things you deal with every day. As a result, you need a perspective on the "born vs made" question in order to guide you.
My friend was focused, I think, on qualities that are critical for leadership: charisma, self-confidence, speaking ability, a problem-solving mind. These are concepts that we often think people are born with, and either you have them or you don't. They're definitely important for a leader. The question of whether you're born with a finite amount of these attributes, or if they can be developed, is one that can be (and often is) debated. But if someone is born with them, that certainly seems to give them a leg up.
Can someone with these qualities, but no leadership development, be a leader? Maybe. Can they be a GOOD leader? That's a little more doubtful.
We see plenty of people who display style without substance. How many of us have had a boss who sounds good but never accomplishes anything? I've had a boss in the past who talked a lot, talked loudly, waved her arms in the air, and generally looked overworked, but if you look at what she actually accomplished, the result is a big zero. She would create a lot of interest in a project, then wait for that interest to wane and let it die a quiet death. She would look like she was working on things but then subtly pass responsibility to her bosses above her, getting the monkey off her back but at least look like she was carrying monkeys (and right now I'm picturing her with a monkey literally on her back, and yeah, it's weird). She had a lot of the surface qualities you expect in a leader -- speaking, self-confidence, a seemingly positive attitude -- but it was all just an act; she had no ability whatsoever.
Can someone learn how to lead? Sure. I'm putting together a leadership development program for my office now, and I'm emphasizing concepts such as mentorship, effective feedback, motivation, problem solving, and others. There are skills that people can learn and talents they can develop that will help them get the most out of their employees. I want to see us recruiting people who are open to learning, and while we need some people who are content to develop their technical skills over time, we also need to look for folks who want to be leaders and want to learn.
But can those people actually lead if they don't have some of those innate skills? If they have no self-confidence, if they can't look others in the eye while speaking, if they aren't risk-takers, if they don't have any passion, if their minds can't look beyond a narrow focus and see something bigger, can they really use what they learn? It's one thing to learn about leadership, it's another to be a leader. If they aren't born with certain characteristics, and if they aren't able to develop them (remember, the ability to do that is open to question), then they're going to have a lot of trouble putting into practice they things they study in a classroom.
So in the end, the answer to "are leaders born, or are they made?," seems to be "both." Not a very satisfactory answer, I suppose, especially if you insist on an either/or frame of mind, but hopefully, a useful answer nonetheless for those of us trying to develop new leaders...or develop ourselves.
What do you think?
2 comments:
Contrary to conventional wisdom, charisma isn’t the best solution in every situation. Many commentators on the various schools of leadership skew their research, opinions and recommendations to suit their personal predilections on leadership. If a Traditional leadership model is affecting positive outcomes, the need for immediate charisma may not be necessary. In this case, charismatic leadership can be effective as a supplemental tool within traditionally led organizations. When an important committee has challenges recruiting dedicated members to carry out the objectives of an organization, charismatic leaders are highly effective in inspiring productivity and loyalty to an initiative. If a special project is being weighed down by employees waiting for management to draw the “Big Picture,” charismatic leaders are brilliant at vocalizing imagery.
Charismatic leadership is one of the only models where sheer tenacity, determination and personality are the intangibles for producing phenomenal results. A “die hard” charismatic is as much a product of a ceaseless need to prove himself valuable as well as a personality quirk. When individuals study to become more charismatic, they are confusing the affectations of charisma with the charismatic personality. You can develop the skill sets for reciting compelling stories, developing a sense of humor, and exuding confidence. But, being compelled to lead a crusade, mission or trail blaze requires biological and environment influences that merge organically.
Leadership models are designed to encourage people to act for the good of the organization with rewards and punishment. Charismatic leadership comes with similar sanctions. But, the biggest disappointment a follower could endure is not meeting the standard of the charismatic leader. Such exacting standards transcend organizational structures.
Edward Brown
Core Edge Image & Charisma Institute
www.core-edge.com
Excellent points, thank you! I definitely agree that, while charisma can be useful, and at times even necessary, it can't be the ONLY thing someone brings to the table if they're going to be a successful leader.
I'd be interested in your thoughts on whether charisma can actually be a bad thing in some situations? The most extreme example would be the Hitler model, where a charismatic leader can lead people down a path they wouldn't normally choose, following a course of action that will hurt them and that, if they'd stop to think about it, they'd realize is a bad idea. But how common is that in the modern business world? While there are charismatic leaders who fail (Fiorina at HP leaps to mind), how often is it their charismatic personality, or their affectations of charisma, that proves to be their undoing?
Post a Comment