http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7033398.stm
Are leaders born or made? You could ask the same question concerning many attributes. I've noticed a tendency in recent decades for 'society' to assume that anyone can do anything, given the right training. This may be true but, given the same training, some people will still be better because of genetic attributes. This bit is usually ignored because it is not politically correct to refer to inherent personal differences.
It amuses me that many companies send their employees on courses to develop creativity skills. Whether these courses achieve much is highly debatable. However, very few companies actually take on demonstrably creative people, which might seem a more obvious course of action, because they are seen as 'difficult'. I think creativity is mostly genetic but if anyone has come across any evidence that it can be learned, I'd be interested in hearing it.
Can leadership skills be learnt?
I think they can be learnt but can they be sustained?
Or are we only being given a band aid that drops off at the first real hurdle.
I think real leaders are born leaders.
Which brings us back to the beginning. How willing are you to lead?
I was the oldest of five kids, I am now the oldest of a pretty close family, brothers, sisters, kids and grandkids. I would put myself under the category that I could lead but I don't want to. I'm bossy enough, I'm a good organiser, a good adviser, and I'm stubborn as hell! But I just can't be bothered.
Leaders aren't born or made, they are followed. It's not necessarily the leader that is important, it's the people who want to be led. For example, look at the 9/11 conspiracy nuts. There isn't a single person in the whole movement who is even vaguely competent at leadership, yet they are followed all the same. Or look at the army. If you sign on as an officer you have people volunteering to be led by you before you've even had your leadership abilities tested. You don't need to inspire people in order to lead them, you just need to be in the right place at the right time and people will latch onto you as the easiest thing to follow.
Cuddles, I think your view of leadership is too one-sided. For instance, one can easily imagine that WW2 might have had a very different outcome if Churchill hadn't taken over when he did. From what I've read about WW2, it would have been perfectly 'reasonable' for a 'lesser' leader to have decided to sue for peace. You can argue about whether that might have been a good thing or not, of course, but even if another leader had tried to follow the same 'no surrender' course as Churchill, they might easily have failed. I think he inspired the population. Even today his speeches stir emotions in a way few others can manage.
I think true leaders are born. It is interesting that point about enlisting in the army and then being led without choice. Though I feel that even in that scenario if a senior ranking officer is not a natural leader the foot ranking soldiers will automaticall gravitate to the 'born' and maybe more junior ranking (leader) soldier. If you catch my drift.
I relate it back to conception. My theory is that the 'sperm race' is not a race at all and that with every 'legitimate' (ha! ha!) ejaculation that all the sperms communicate and they know and help the 'chosen' sperm reach the egg. I don't think it is random. And so this theory in some way backs my theory of the inevitability of born leaders. No puns on reply.
Paul Gadd was the leader of a gang, look where that got him.
I think leadership is a whole combination of factors, some taught and some learnt.
A good leader needs to be confident, decisive, empathic (in the non-paranormal sense), a good actor and speaker, intelligent and good at whatever his job is. Add a splash of psychology for mob mentality and you're mostly there.
None of it is inherent but you can't teach someone all that and have them be a successful leader either
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks