Constant question – leader is born of made?
This question had dominated debates about leadership for ages. For example, Aristotle claimed that a person was born in the beginning with destiny to rule or to be ruled. There are some prove from existing studies that leadership in our nature to some extent, so it is in-born:
- The genetic studies shows that some are more willing to lead people because of gene or chromosome;
- Also, the “teachers’ concept” claims that students can be divided in two groups: on those with sign of spark and on those - without;
- Another reason of leadership being in-born is that the individual character, style and competence is also something that a person is born with, thus, it is unlikely to be changed.
Firstly, I also was going for in-born leadership and didn’t believed in leadership development, but now I can clearly see that much might happen between in-born characteristics and person’s feelings. Actually, nurture can exceed nature. It is just the matter of moment. Some people cannot possess enough skills and emotional power, others – do so, but experience lack of necessary motivation. Some may have the ability and will but doesn’t have opportunities. Overall, the leadership potential is already in the individual and seeks for recognition and development. Thus, the key question is not “born or made” but “how to develop and how much”.