Leadership is among the most sought-after traits today. Increased competitiveness in political, social, and economic sectors has raised the need to have capable persons to lead others. Leadership can generally be defined as creating a way for a group of people to achieve something extraordinary (Kouzes & Posner, 2007). The main question, however, is whether leaders are born or made. Choosing any of the two options would bring obvious disagreements and contention from the society; on one hand, if leaders can only be born, then the world can only have a certain number of leaders at any one time, limited by the occurrence of leadership traits. On the other hand, if leaders are made, then in the proper environment, anybody can become a leader; and thus everyone has leadership potential within him/herself.
The debate regarding the origin of a leader has been long and controversial. The idea that great men are born is not new. This was a very popular opinion in the 19th and early 20th centuries. In that era, bloodlines were very important; and the consensus was that certain families, usually from the upper class tended to produce leaders for various sectors ranging from political and business, to religious and academic (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991; Spillane et al, 2006). This line of thinking is the predecessor of the trait theory, the first academic theory on leadership.
The trait theory
This theory suggests that persons with certain traits tend to become leaders, based on their personality or psychological conformation. As such, key traits are identified as being key in allowing someone to ascend to a position of leadership; these include drive (a broadly meaning achievement, motivation, ambition, energy, tenacity, and initiative), leadership motivation (the desire to lead but not to seek power as an end in itself), honesty, integrity, self-confidence (which is associated with emotional stability), cognitive ability, and knowledge of the business. Other traits such as charisma, creativity, and flexibility were identified as being supported by little empirical evidence (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991).
The trait theory has moved away from the idea that great men (and women) generally tend to come from certain families. Indeed, leaders have been shown to emerge from the lowest of the social classes and go-ahead to change their situation and that of the world at the same time. As such, it would be safe only to assume that leadership traits are not hereditary; and the possessing of certain genes does not automatically confer leadership qualities to an individual. However, the general principle remains the same; that traits do matter.
Traits do matter
It would be fallacious to suggest that people with a specific set of traits automatically become leaders; indeed, something else had to be added to these traits to transform a follower into a leader. Indeed, different traits are useful in different contexts of leadership. As such, a military leader may not perform as well in a corporate setup; and vise versa. As such, a person carrying the trait would have to make deliberate and specific actions towards achieving what s/he desires for him/herself and the groups s/he is in; such include setting goals and having a vision.
It is, however, prudent to acknowledge that given the same kind of situation and the same amount of resources, different people achieve different things. On one hand, some exhibit relative or complete failure while others excel even with limited resources. As such, it is safe to assume that leadership requires a trait prerequisite mindset or behavior pattern; but is not entirely dependent on it. For example, in the face of imminent failure, different people would react differently; some would tend to give up and retreat while others may decide to forge ahead and handle the fallout when the situation is over. The decision to give up would be determined by the person’s tenacity or determination; such are the traits that would designate a person as a leader (Vroom & Sternberg, 2002).
It therefore would be fairly difficult to ‘make’ a leader; since traits or personalities cannot be trained. In a social setup, people generally tend to sort themselves out into leaders and followers once a situation that requires this sorting arises. Indeed, as certain traits would predispose one to take a leadership role, there are those which would relegate another to be a follower (Dasborough, 2006).
Is leadership necessary?
Many are instances in world history where strong and charismatic leaders have led people down the wrong path; either into war, mass murder, or financial ruin. The concept of leadership has been attacked as belittling the ability of man as a thinking being to make individual decisions; and abrogating (his) responsibility to make intelligent decisions. By delineating a special class of people for possessing traits that allow them to grow into leaders, a man may be very well giving up (his) role as the intelligent being on the planet; and depend on social structures of leader-follower characteristic of species lower than (him).
References
Dasborough M.T. 2006. Cognitive asymmetry in employee emotional reactions to leadership behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly 17(2): 163-178.
Kirkpatrick S.A. and Locke E.A. 1991. Leadership: Do traits matter? Academy of Management Executive 5 (2).
Kouzes, J., and Posner, B. 2007. The Leadership Challenge. CA: Jossey Bass.
Spillane, James P., Halverson R., Diamond, J. B. 2004. Towards a theory of leadership practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies 36 (1): 3-34.
Vroom V. and Sternberg R. J. 2002. Theoretical Letters: The person versus the situation in leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 13: 301-323.