Are leaders born or made?
Among management professionals there is a question that has always aroused some interest:"The leaderIs it born or is it made? The answers are not uniform in any case. Some managers bet that the leader is born; others that it is done; and the majority think that the leader is a bit of everything: he is born, but he is also made.
My personal vision, however, departs somewhat from the previous proposals. Rather than being done, the leader - to a large extent - is done. Education is the true bulwark of leadership.
"The classic question that people ask about leadership is this: the leader, is he born or is he made? Perhaps when asking the question, the idea of a charismatic leadership floats in the environment, together with power, blood or other factors (religious, family, etc.)"
In some cases it may even be the children of famous leaders, who in some way could be said to have inherited that condition from their parents or, at least, that inclination that may become a vocation for them. I honestly think that they are minority cases around which, especially nowadays, the thesis of a hereditary leadership as the dominant thesis when explaining the phenomenon.
Leaders in the traditional sense of the term jump from the mind without difficulty because they are synonymous with great men (Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Gandhi, etc.). More recently we could say Einstein, John F. Kennedy, John Paul II, Gorbachev, the Mother Teresa of Calcutta, Walea, Mandela, or a few great generals, athletes or scientists. Figures of the first order who have exerted a notorious influence as shapers of today's society.
We do not put into that category characters like Hitler, who can represent a type of leadership in our view that is deficient in a fundamental aspect that is values, which in itself reduces it to a charismatic but manipulative influence on the masses. Let's say it is the leadership or misnamed leadership of that type of exceptional men in their capacity for evil.
Without going into discussing this type of leadership, it could be said that it is not the one that primarily interests us when we try to answer the question whether the leader is born or made. We are not inquiring about the leaders who are born or who inherit these characteristics, nor those who, due to their greatness, have had a particular influence on the communities. It seems to us that he embodies a type of leadership very worthy of being taken into account.
But here we ask ourselves rather for a leadership that has to do with the human group that surrounds the leader, with the community in which he exercises his influence. Then the surface to find those leaders became more extensive, because it is not necessarily thinking of great personalities of history or world events.
To answer whether the leader is born or becomes, we would like to ask ourselves about a leadership that depends more on the effect of the leader on the followers than on the personality of the leader or his exceptional conditions, without ceasing to be important when considering his action against the group in question.
With that idea in front of you, then the most pertinent answer to that question is that the leader is not born but made. This means that we are talking about a leadership accessible to many people, not reserved for an elite or a minority, or for the great people we referred to earlier.
It is a leadership that is assumed, that results or that appears in the lives of many people: in the , in the family, in school, in the university, in the church, in the government, in politics. It can even be situational leadership, linked to specific circumstances and a type of relationship.
Let's say that there are leaders who not only are not born, but are not necessarily made, as a result of a deliberate process of building the leadership, but they arise and grow in certain environments. But there are others who explicitly propose it and become leaders by virtue of the responsibilities they assume and the influence they come to exert over others due to their exemplary behavior and their ability to drive and help them achieve certain objectives. .
They are the leaders to whom the affirmation made by Toynbee corresponds: Those creative personalities who always give successful answers to the challenges of the environment and who, due to their integrity and commitment to the group, are freely followed by the majority. It seems to us that this definition embodies in a fairly approximate way the essence of leadership, without enclosing it in psychological formulas.
Within the thesis that the leader is made fits a democratizing and participative conception of leadership more than an elitist one. And it has more to do with leadership that delegates to the group the possibility of taking the strategic (democratic leadership) than with authoritarian leadership (which takes strategic unilaterally or using the group as an excuse to pretend participation). "
"The future is in the hands of the youth," said a Spanish thinker, "but the youth is in the hands of those who train it. Education in childhood sows habits that reflect right behaviors in adult life. A values-woven education ensures the exercise of effective leadership. Knowing about values is fine, but the important thing is to put them into practice; and practice, the sooner you start, the better:
“Do you realize that the most important thing is the beginning of anything, especially if it is young and tender? Well that's when it takes shape and acquires the modeling that you want to print ”(Plato). The family is the true frame of reference of the people. Values are discovered at home and are strengthened throughout life.
Author: BA BA: Karin Silvina Hiebaum