A timeless debate like the age-old controversy
about “a chicken and an egg” is more or less applicable also to the question
whether leaders are born or made. In the most texts I've so far read the
prevalent answer is: a leader is born.
Personally, I’m more for a kind of the
in-between position: early genetics shown in childhood is an imprint that is
hard to undo. Later, learning and practice bring new qualities and dimensions
to leadership. Statistically, leadership capability will definitively fall
along the Gaussian distribution. Some
people are, indeed, born leaders but they still need a lot of work and learning
to become true leaders and to get even better as they go along. At the bottom
of the curve there are others who, no matter how hard they try, simply aren't
ever going to be leaders. They just
don’t have the innate wiring. All in between start out with a very good
prerequisites and are hard workers and learners but mostly never become
outstanding leaders.
It may be true that some people feel more
inclined and are better prepared to take on leadership roles and then
consequently learn and develop the necessary skills to become a superior
leader. Certain basics of good leadership can be self-taught, but a number of useful
skills will be acquired through experience developed over a time. Understanding
leadership functions is important to develop skills and capabilities to then
achieve a successful leadership style matching one’s own character and talents.
Therefore, modern theories about leadership involve a combination of
personality traits and also specific skills, capabilities learned over time and
gained through experience. It is rather a life learning process and not a
semester at an MBA school.