Are leaders are born or they are made ?? This question semms hard to answer .. . . !! some people got really gud leadership skills . . .. while after spending loads of money on learning leadership qualities still can’t manage even small things .. . . !!
The idea that leaders are only born is the “Great Man” theory, and I believe that it is completely untrue.
Everyone is born with leadership potential. Yes, some people lead more naturally as we are all born with different strengths and weaknesses. However, there is a set of “skills” identified through research that ANYONE can learn as long as they put in the time and effort.
Modeling the way, encouraging the heart, challenging the process, enabling others to act, and inspiring a shared vision are all actions taken by “exemplary” leaders. These are things that can be learned. This 5 things are talked about extensively in the “Leadership Challenge” by Barry Posner and James Kounzes.
We all have the capacity to be leaders because we can choose to lead everyday. We can choose to lead ourselves. Personal leadership is being true to who you are. So if we can all choose to lead ourselves (I see this as a prerequisite) than we all have the capacity to lead others.
Ahhh, the classic question of nature vs. nurture. I think anyone can become a leader… This will, of course, come more naturally to certain people.
I think both factors contribute to making great leaders. Its hard to pick which I lean towards but it history makes it seems like some men were just born to lead.
We are made, not born that way. Noone is born with a personality or mindset, that’s just garbage deception theories that are meant to stifle people and make them blindly follow. You can change pretty much anything about yourself. You become a leader when you take on massive responsibility and have a goal for yourself and your followers. It’s simple, but it takes effort.
Of course how you are born is an influence, but it’s not that big of a deal unless you’re born retarded or severely handicapped.
There is always a leader in any given group, nature has made it so that when there is no leader the best suited individual automatically becomes the new leader. Anyone can be a leader, it’s all about choices (like everything else.)
I think this answers it all:
Good leadership has several characteristics there are some threads on that with interesting thoughts, however as is the case with most things talent does play a role regardless, a simple fact of life that certain configurations are better in performing certain tasks, so nature as well as nurture can have effects on leadership quality / leaders.
Also there is a fundamental difference between managing and leading. A leader is an enabler while a manager is in execution.
Nobody has mentioned context? A logical mathematician might lead a group of students in completing a discovery, while a politician might lead a charismatic church, but not the other way around. Anyone can lead given a situation that matches their personality. And true, people can change personalities, but only to such an extent. I think this blog is about running in positivism with full force towards who you are at your fullest potential, not about becoming a motivational speaker who isn’t afraid of anything.
@ conner context has not so much to do with requirements for leadership qualities in my opinion, context is important when decisions need to be made. The basis on which those decisions are made are determining the quality and capacity of the leader/leadership qualities.
As for the reason for this blog…. yours is as good as mine
@Syn And the basis of those decisions is determined by the way the leader thinks, and if a leader’s thinking process can adapt to the SITUATION, he will lead successfully. But you can’t argue that some minds simply can’t adapt to situations that are opposite of their personality.
Let’s use an extreme case as an example: A nonathletic painter with a passion for poetry has to lead a football team to victory. He can learn the game, study strategies, and use his abstract enlightened view of the world to motivate his players, but he simply will never be as effective as a respected football coach, with a passion for football, who thinks like a football player. Can this painter change his personality and fall completely in love with the game? If so, can a homosexual change his innermost desires and become straight? Can anybody lead if the situation doesn’t match their personality?
Charismatic people lead successfully when the situation requires charisma. Logical-thinkers lead successfully when the situation requires logic. Artistic people lead when the situation requires creativity. War heroes lead when the situation requires bravery.
I do agree that not all are fit to be leader, that is what i meant by talent.
The ability to adapt to situations is a leadership quality, lacking such would disqualify the subject as a leader so therefor obvious.
I meant to state that regardless of situation a/any leader should have certain qualities. Those qualities do not differ from situation to situation. As a leader is not an executer a leader is a motivator and enabler.
The quality of a leader is not to excel at a certain aspect but to allow the followers to achieve the greatest result. In your examples there is no proof whatsoever that the painting poet will be less successful as his contribution to the end result does not require him to have any athletic qualifications, he merely needs to enable the people in the game to do so. The sexuality is such a complex matter and has no reference to any leadership quality i know of. And yes leaders can lead any situation as they are leader.
Adaptation isn’t a strong leadership quality in EVERY situation.
My point in the sexuality/painter argument was this: People can’t just ‘adapt’. So those who can’t adapt might be able to lead, but not in a situation that requires adaptation to bring about success.
A Marriott hotel manager doesn’t need to adapt to the situation. The situation is laid out in front of her: she must manage the franchise by following the rules. So a non adaptive and organized person can lead a Marriott staff perfectly.
ok i agree i would change that to emphatic or sympathetic qualities, imaginative ability… if you will.
as a leader adaptability is not a requirement, i am not disputing it might be beneficial. But that is not a general situation anymore.
that was more or less the case. By creating specific situations there will always be variances in beneficial factors, however as far as leadership goes there is no apparent need for it to be so. I believe that to be the case however ;)
Management is not leadership, it is a form of leadership., i was talking about the various forms of leadership ;)
So my argument was based on my belief that leaders are “those who can direct others to success”. Key word: “success”.
Your argument is based on your belief that leaders are “those whom others can follow effectively”. Key word: can
So though the artist might not be great at bringing about victorious football games, he is still a leader, because he is worthy of being followed.
Good point. ill have to reflect on this one. :)
Yes indeed , a leader needs followers otherwise he is not….
but the result.
As success is the goal of practically any venture, can implies the ability to do so yes. and in regard to the football coach the result is independent of the athletic abilities of the coach as he is not participating in the actual event he has put those who bring success in that position.
So if the outcome of an action performed by a group with a leader is successful this automatically qualifies such as a leader, however if the outcome is negative for the obvious reason this can not be the case.
Good luck on the reflections and let me know what you come up with ;)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.