Are leaders made or born? I know, a cliché argument of nature versus nurture but one that is usually good at generating discussion.
There is only one litmus test I know about leadership. Margaret Thatcher said it best:
"Being a leader is like being a lady, if you have to go around telling people you are one, you aren't."
So, assuming one passes that test, how do leaders come to be?
Before diving into my opinion, I think it should be mentioned that leadership, like all human things, are rarely an either – or proposition. There is a continuum, if you will of leadership.
Near leaders – people who are good at creating. Entrepreneurs, artists, etc. would fall into this category. However, once the thing is built, they really do not know how to sustain it. It is why many entrepreneurs will sell their business and go try something else.
Leaders – the more classical definition of the term - someone who is outstanding in their particular domain that others try to follow. Many leaders are very good at what they do professionally, but just ask their spouse about their habits at home. It is here that morality jumps in as well. Does the outcome of one’s action influence whether you are a leader. For example, was Hitler a leader? Yikes! This is an entirely separate topic of discussion.
Great Leader – the rarest of them all. Someone who transcends all walks of life and provides a vision that many willingly follow. These individuals are usually in the history books. They are also usually killed by their contemporaries.
So back to my question –are leaders made or born?
My own answer is leaders are born.
This is not to say that nurture does not have its influence. I think leaders can be undone by their own upbringing, geography, health, etc. It is why sometimes people only become leaders later in life. It is not that they learned leadership – rather they have removed the personal obstacles that were preventing them from being a leader.
Any thoughts?
