Leaders: Born Or Made? The Debate In Leadership Psychology

Leaders: Born or Made? The debate in leadership psychology

Assignment Instructions

Choose one or more of the current debates in the field of leadership psychology and defend a position. Specifically, your paper should include the following components:

1. Background – Provide detailed information about a prevalent debate in psychology, including:

• Which debate was chosen and why?
• The historical importance of the debate.

2. Positions – Discuss the opposing viewpoints of the debate:

• Present the distinct positions with accurate and well-developed distinctions.
• Evaluate whether each side is sustainable and justify your reasoning.
• Discuss whether leaders' responsibilities are practical in each position.

3. Defense – Take a clear stance on the debate and defend your position:

• State which side you support and why, supported by scholarly research.
• Provide a comprehensive argument, incorporating scholarly evidence and logical reasoning to justify your viewpoint.

The paper should be double-spaced, formatted in 12-point Times New Roman font, with 1-inch margins, and follow APA style. It should be 12–15 pages in length.

Please ensure the paper is well-organized, free of grammatical and citation errors, and written in a professional tone suitable for academic submission.

Paper For Above instruction

The ongoing debate in leadership psychology over whether leaders are born or made has persisted for decades, influencing leadership development strategies and shaping our understanding of leadership efficacy. This discussion is multifaceted, involving historical viewpoints, psychological theories, empirical evidence, and practical considerations regarding leadership responsibilities. This paper seeks to explore the debate thoroughly, presenting the opposing perspectives, evaluating their sustainability, and defending a reasoned position supported by scholarly research.

Background of the Debate

The question "Are leaders born or made?" encapsulates a fundamental dichotomy in leadership psychology. The "born" perspective aligns with trait theories and the Great Man Theory, asserting that innate qualities such as intelligence, charisma, and personality significantly predispose individuals to leadership roles. Historically, figures like Alexander the Great and other renowned leaders have been viewed as possessing natural endowments that set them apart (Pinnington, 2011). These theories have historically emphasized inherited traits and innate dispositions as critical determinants of leadership success (Stogdill, 1948).

Contrasting this view, the "made" perspective emphasizes the role of environment, education, experience, and training in developing leadership capacity. Behavioral theories and contemporary leadership development practices support the notion that leadership skills can be learned and refined over time (Hotho & Dowling, 2010). For instance, frequent interventions such as management training, mentorship, and experiential learning underscore the potential for individuals to acquire leadership competencies regardless of innate traits (Olivares, 2011). The debate's historical importance lies in its influence on leadership training policies and organizational practices—shaping whether organizations prioritize innate talent or invest in developing potential leaders.

Opposing Positions of the Debate

The "born" advocates contend that leadership qualities such as charisma, decisiveness, and emotional intelligence are predominantly innate. They argue that certain individuals are naturally predisposed to lead, possessing inherent traits that give them an advantage in leadership roles (Pinnington, 2011). In contrast, the "made" camp posits that effective leadership is primarily developed through experience, education, and intentional practice (Hotho & Dowling, 2010). They highlight evidence showing that individuals lacking innate traits can become influential leaders through training and exposure to leadership contexts.

Supporters of the innate leadership theory cite the consistency of traits such as extraversion and self-confidence among successful leaders across various contexts (Judge et al., 2002). Conversely, the reinforced by behavioral and situational theories, suggest that leadership is contingent on learned skills and contextual factors (Bell & Kozlowski, 2008). The sustainability of each position depends on empirical validation; trait theories face criticism for overlooking environmental influences, while learning-based theories sometimes underestimate the role of inherent qualities.

Evaluation of Sustainability

Assessing the sustainability of both positions requires examining empirical evidence. Trait theories suggest that certain qualities are fixed and difficult to change, which challenges the practicality of developing innate traits (Judge et al., 2002). However, recent research indicates that some traits, like emotional intelligence, can be cultivated to an extent (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). On the other hand, behavioral and experiential models advocate that leadership skills can be acquired through deliberate practice, mentorship, and training programs (Avolio & Bass, 2004).

Nevertheless, some traits—such as cognitive ability—are less malleable and may influence leadership potential more fundamentally. For instance, high IQ has been associated with leadership success, but it is not solely determinant (Goleman, 1995). Therefore, the sustainability of the "born" perspective is limited by evidence showing the capacity to develop leadership qualities over time. Conversely, leadership development initiatives continue to demonstrate significant improvements in individuals' capacities, supporting the "made" perspective's viability (Hawkins, 2011).

Practicality of Leader Responsibilities

The practical implications of these perspectives influence how organizations select and develop leaders. If leadership is innate, organizations may prioritize recruitment based on natural traits, potentially neglecting development opportunities for others. Conversely, if leadership can be cultivated, resource investment in training, coaching, and experiential learning becomes justified and strategic (Northouse, 2018). Empirical evidence favors the latter approach, emphasizing continuous development and the importance of environment in shaping leadership capacities (Day, 2001). The responsible organization should thus adopt a hybrid approach, recognizing innate qualities but emphasizing skill development.

Defending the Position

Supporting the balanced view, this paper defends the position that leadership is both born and made—an interplay of innate traits and acquired skills. While certain personality dispositions and cognitive abilities provide a foundation, leadership effectiveness significantly depends on deliberate development through experience, education, and contextual learning (Olivares, 2011). Empirical research indicates that traits such as extraversion and emotional intelligence are associated with leadership success but are also trainable (Goleman, 1995; Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Training programs and real-world experience help individuals enhance their leadership capabilities, regardless of native traits (Hotho & Dowling, 2010). The consensus emerging from the literature is that innate qualities facilitate leadership development, but they are not exclusive determinants (Judge et al., 2002; Northouse, 2018).

Furthermore, leadership development initiatives demonstrate that individuals can evolve into effective leaders through targeted interventions. For instance, emotional intelligence training has been linked to increased leadership effectiveness (Goleman, 1995). Mentorship and experiential learning foster critical leadership skills like decision-making, communication, and influence. This integrated perspective encourages organizations to adopt a comprehensive approach—selecting individuals with promising traits and actively investing in their development (Day, 2001). Ultimately, leadership is a dynamic and multifaceted process, with both born and made elements contributing to success (Olivares, 2011).

Conclusion

The debate over whether leaders are born or made remains complex, with compelling arguments on both sides. Evidence suggests that innate traits such as personality and intelligence provide an initial advantage but are insufficient without development and experience. Conversely, leadership skills can be cultivated through systematic training and practice, reinforcing the importance of organizational investment in leadership development. Recognizing the interplay between inherent qualities and acquired skills allows for a more nuanced understanding of leadership and informs effective practices for identifying and nurturing future leaders.

References

• Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire manual. Mind Garden.
• Bell, S. T., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2008). Active learning: Effects of core training design elements on self-regulatory processes, training outcomes, and transfer. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 296-316.
• Day, D. V. (2001). Leadership development: A review in context. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 581-613.
• Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. Bantam Books.
• Hawkins, P. (2011). Leadership team coaching: Developing collective leadership beyond the boundaries of competence. Routledge.
• Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765-780.
• Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and practice (8th ed.). Sage Publications.
• Olivares, O. (2011). The formative capacity of momentous events and leadership development. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 32(8), 805-821.
• Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9(3), 185-211.
• Pinnington, A. (2011). Leadership development: Applying the same leadership theories and development practices to different contexts? Leadership, 7(3), 243-258.