A debate raged years ago over nature verses nurture. Which is the dominant influencing factor in our success in life? Is it the genes passed on by our parents or the support and access to opportunities that determine our lives’ course? While the debate was never definitively resolved, nurture still holds the upper hand. The prevalent thought is that nature and nurture aren’t mutually exclusive but rather the answer is both to a large extent.
A similar question exists regarding leadership as a character trait. There’s no question that many individuals are simply natural-born leaders. Factors like charisma, confidence, swagger, and charm come very easily to an elite few. But is it possible to transfer or learn the numerous leadership traits? Are they merely skills to be refined or is there something deeper in our being that is required for someone to truly be the embodiment of a leader? And is leadership a virtue that must be aspired to?
The nurture argument would suggest that anyone, given enough instruction and determination, could master the art of leadership. The western business world seems to embrace this notion. Hard work is generally rewarded through upward promotion and endless development opportunities. The idea is that soft skill training, emotional intelligence, and uncomfortable workshops will shape our middle managers into the leaders we want them to be. There is usually a one-size-fits-all approach attached to the curriculum and the results in the marketplace aren’t particularly impressive.
The flaw in this mindset is that all people are different. Some are introverted, some are extroverted. Some are naturally imaginative or fearless or curious or analytical or assertive or driven. However, many are not. People’s personalities matter. Also, if the adage of “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink” is true, then you can’t underestimate the power of personal motivation in the leadership equation.
The nature side of the argument is equally flawed. Nature would propose that people are largely hard-coded and inflexible. Therefore, recognizing innate leadership is the proper beginning of effective leadership development. Don’t waste your time on the others. The military is a good example of an organization that generally adheres to this model. However, there are countless examples of individuals taking on the role of leader in times of need or crisis that eventually relinquish it once the crisis has passed. That flies in the face of the nature argument.
So what are we to make of this? I was once told that “If you fancy yourself a leader, but look behind you only to find that no one is following, then you’re just out for a walk.” Leadership, like success, appears to be another case of half-hearted “yes and yes”. Can these traits be treated as skills and learned over time? To a degree yes, but looking at leadership as an achievement is problematic. To do so suggests that not all work has dignity, or at the very least that leadership is markedly more dignified than other roles. This would be a tragic miscalculation, marginalizing the multitude of dependable “doers” that get the real work done. Are you only out for a walk? And if so, is that so bad?
Leadership traits cannot be forcibly imprinted on anyone. Nurture can undoubtedly make strides where nature ends but those strides must be accompanied with personal motivation. Additionally, adapting our thinking will be profoundly limited by our personal flexibility and ambition. Individually we must assess our personal appetite for leadership, our willingness to grow, and our innate ability to energize those around us for the collective good in order to determine our own potential as leaders.
Lean in and Lean on.