Organizational success depends ultimately on the qualities of its leaders.

But are
leaders born successful or can they be trained? Use Theories and evidence to
support your discussion.

For centuries, various psychologists have been trying to answer the opinionated
question; they have gone but the question is till there, Are leaders born or
made ? During the course of this essay I will present each argument with
theories and evidence to support the discussion. I will also bring forward another
argument spoken by Professor Alex Haslem 2005, that leaders are not born nor
made, they are formed when leaders and their followers share a social identity.
Before discussing the argument stated above, I will firstly define the word leader
since it has created such controversy;

'Great Leaders move us. They ignite our passion and inspire the best in us. No
matter what leaders set out to do - if leaders fail in this primal task of driving
emotions in the right direction, nothing they do will work as well as it could or
should' (Daniel Goleman. 2002)

I chose this definition of leaders over a thousand other definitions because of its
simplicity. The definition above simply states the primary rule towards becoming
a great/successful leaders, which is keeping a bond between its followers.

Leaders are born successful

There are an infinite number of theories suggesting leaders are made, I will be
discussing the following theories:

- The 'Great Man' approach

- The Trait approach

- The Behavioural approach ?

- Charismatic leadership

The 'Great Man' approach

The 'Great Man' approach was the earliest and probably the simplest view of
leadership. This theory suggested that great leaders were born with instincts that
helped them affect the course of history; they assumed that leaders would have
genius intellects, personal charisma, great vision and personality. Individuals that
would fit into this category would be the likes of Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther
King and Winston Churchill just to name a few.

The 'Great Man' approach also stated that great leaders had some sort of genetic
interference that helped them on their course to great leadership. The Trump
family would be a great example for this theory since Fred Trump, a wealthy real
estate developer, had a son, Donald Trump who is now a billionaire. These set
might get passed on further to both of Donald Trumps son and daughter who are
following in their fathers footsteps. (Jerry L Gray, Frederick A Starke 1988).

The 'Great Man' approach states that leaders are born.

The Trait approach

After the 'Great Man' approach, the next theory that presumed leaders were born
was the trait approach.

The trait approach theory was formed during the 1920s; this is the era where the
actual research towards leadership started thus the reason why a lot of
researchers/psychologists use the trait approach as the first theory regarding
leadership.

The trait approach believes that a leaders personal attributes are the key
features that lead to leadership success. The approach is split up between two
traits, physical and psychological. Physical trait links to features such as: height,
weight and body shape whereas the psychological trait links to features such as:
intelligence, extraversion and verbal fluency. The trait approach was developed
to predict the effectiveness of traits towards leaders; this was proved but the
theory itself never had enough tools to provide evidence to pursue the theory.
(Jerry L Gray, Frederick A Starke 1988)

Therefore I am unable to give examples of leaders who possess certain traits

since the theory was abandoned due to the fact that the trait lists (both physical
and psychological) got too complicated since the number of traits increased.

The trait approach also states that leaders are born.

The Behavioural approach ?

The behavioural approach is quite different than the trait approach, rather than
concentrating on what leaders are, the behavioural approach focussed on what
they do. The behavioural approach started in the 1950s - 1960s, the behavioural
approach was the second main theory regarding leaders.

The main research was conducted by two universities, Ohio State university and
the University of Michigan. (Jerry L Gray, Frederick A Starke 1988).

Both of the universities conducting the research had brought back similar results,
as you can see from the illustrations:

a)

(Wilf H. Ratzburg 05)

As shown above, both universities identified two main leadership behaviours

each.

The researchers from Ohio state found out that initiating structure and
consideration. The initiating structure behaviour establishes the formal line of
communication as well as to determine how the tasks are to be performed. The
consideration behaviour shows that the leader tries to establish a warm and
friendly environment.

On the other hand, the researchers from the Michigan found out the main
leadership behaviours are employee-centred and production-centred. The
employee-centred behaviour is where the leader shows pleasure in ensuring an
employee is satisfied with their job. The production-centred behaviour is where
the leader shows great interest in performance as well as explaining work
procedures.

b)

(Wilf H. Ratzburg 05)

As shown above, the Ohio state showed the characteristics of both leadership
behaviours.

The consideration behaviour shows that leaders with high morale and leaders of
groups with lower productivity are the two characteristics which form the
consideration behaviour.

The Initiating structure behaviour shows that leaders of high producing groups,
leaders rated highly by superiors and a high turnover are the three
characteristics which form the initiating structure behaviour.

c)

To test managers for their preferred leadership behaviour, the Ohio State Studies
developed two measures: (1) the LBDQ (Leader Behaviour Description
Questionnaire) and (2) the LOQ (Leader Opinion Questionnaire).

(Wilf H. Ratzburg 05)

As shown above, two questionnaires were given out to managers to find the
preferred leadership behaviour. The Leadership Behaviour Description
Questionnaire (LBDQ) and the Leader Opinion Questionnaire (LOQ). The LBDQ
measured the perception of the leaders behaviour and the LOQ measured the
perception of the leaders own style.

The results from both universities partially showed that leaders are made, but
are they ?

According to Professor Adrian Furnham 2005, the behavioural approach formed

two types of typologies: the autocratic leader and the democratic leader. An
autocratic leader is where a leader has as much power and decision-making
authority as possible, employees are not consulted nor do they have right to give
any input. On the other hand, an democratic leader is the complete opposite of
the autocratic leader. An democratic leader would prefer his employees giving as
much input as possible even though the leader would have the final say.
However, these two types of typologies, according to Professor Adrian Furnham
2005, were formed by personality and ability.

Therefore, the behavioural approach partially states leaders are born successful.

Charismatic leadership

'A certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which he is set apart

from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at
least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These are such as are not
accessible to the ordinary person, but are regarded as of divine origin or as
exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated as a
leader' (Max Weber 1922)

The definition of charismatic leadership, given by Max Weber 1922, describes a

charismatic leader as some with 'a certain quality of personality' and the he goes
on to say that 'these are not accessible to the ordinary person'; the two phrases
mean that charismatic leadership comes from the inside, it is beyond the reach
of someone who is trying to learn the skill. Therefore, through Max Weber's
definition, he has made it clear that leaders are born with this type of leadership
skill and it can not be learnt in any way possible.

An example of someone who possessed the charismatic leadership skill is,

Muhammad Ali. Muhammad Ali is not charismatic from his fights or the number
of world titles he has held but to the fact that he was an excellent speaker.
Muhammad Ali had was untouchable, no one could touch when he spoke, the
whole world be shook up when he spoke. His body language, the way he used to
move around made him an charismatic leader and I doubt even if someone said
the exact same words he said, they wouldn't have gotten a response like him,
since it was from inside.

Leaders are born successful !

Leaders can be trained

According to many, leadership is a bunch of skills that can be learned through

various different ways.

Paul Brewerton 2005, believes that leadership skills can be learned. Some of the
key skills that successful leaders have are:

- Powerful Communication

Powerful communication is a must when wanting to become a successful leader,

you wouldn't want to be a leader who mumbles or be a leader who doesn't affect

people with the sound of their own voice. When a leader speaks, everyone
should pay interest automatically rather than asking for everyone to be quite.

- Inspire People

Inspiring people is also necessary, most successful leaders have a huge number
of people wanting to become like them, which leads to a huge portion of
followers. Therefore it is very important to inspire people.

- Developing and Coaching

Leaders will need to have the skills to effectively train employees to receive a
higher level of efficiency. All leaders will need to develop and improve their
employees on a consistent basis in order to become successful. Otherwise, the
leader will be at the same position over and over again.

- Networking

As a leader, you will have to work with a variety of different people, both inside
and outside of your group; this will make it necessary to learn how to do this in
order to balance both sides consistently and effectively.

- Handling Emotions

Nearly every leader will have faced a variety of different emotions from its
employees, but handling them is another matter. A successful leader will most
definitely have to handle conflicts and other behaviours during work.

Any leader who has such skills listed above will have gained a higher revenue of
growth, achieved a high efficiency level and would also have achieved
profitability within their team. But, how can someone achieve the skills listed
above and are there any obstacles in achieving these skills. The only obstacle in
achieving these skills is yourself, nobody can tell you how successful or smart
you can be except you.

Achieving these skills take up a lot of time, since you will need to practise these
skills regularly. Self confidence is very important when trying to learn these skills,
if you are not confident, you will not achieve these skills and wouldn't become a
successful leader. The same with motivation, motivation will be needed because

since learning the skills to become a successful leader is ever lasting, every
leader will have to improve as they go along therefore motivation will be highly
regarded. A plan is also needed, planning on learning the key skills each step at
a time is proven to be better than jumping straight into the deep end. A goal and
a target will also achieve the key skills, working to a specific regime where you
complete each skill at a time while improving that new skill which you've just
completed. (Paul Brewerton 2005)

Some famous leaders who fit into this theory are: Richard Branson, Sir Alan
Sugar and George W. Bush. George W. Bush is known for not being the smarted
person on the block, even though he's the President of the United State of
America (USA). George W. Bush has a team of people advising him constantly
throughout various obstacles that he faced, from these obstacles thrown at him
he is still the President, but how? This is because he has learnt a lot of leadership
skills throughout the time he was being advised and used them to his advantage
to gain a huge portion of the United States of America in his favour.

Leaders can be trained to become successful!

Leaders are successful when they share a social identity with its followers

Professor Alex Haslem 2005, argued that leadership is not about personality or
having certain traits within themselves, its all about leaders and its followers
sharing a social identity.

Social Identity is a theory developed by Tajfel and Turner in 1979 to understand

the psychological basis of intergroup discrimination (Wikipedia 1). The theory is
composed of three different variables:

- Categorisation: This is where we put others into groups.

- Identification: This is where we associate ourselves with a certain group.

- Comparison: This is where we compare our group with another.

According to Professor Alex Haslem 2005, without social identity, there cannot be
a leader. Any leader, in order to become successful, will have to make a group
where we (as followers) would have to categorise, identify and compare
ourselves as part of that group. In order words, a leader will have to make us
(followers) understand that there "group" isn't about them, its about us; this is

what attracts followers and this is what makes leaders successful. For example,
people like: Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi or even Tony Blair shared a sense
of social identity before he lost the plot and started to referring to many things
as "I" rather than "Us", which led to Tony Blair losing a ton of faithful followers.

During the elections for the position of Prime Minister or President, the winner
would have a greater social identity than its oppositions. The person that is
declared Prime Minister or President would have talked about how "we" or "us"
would make a difference during the next couple of years rather than bragging
about how they, themselves "I" would make a difference.

This is a known factor of successful leaders, we (as followers) are the main
difference between a successful leader and a not so successful leader. So,
leaders are successful when they share an social identity with its followers.

Leaders are (The verdict !) ...

Are leaders born successful, or can they be trained to become successful or are
they successful only when they share a social identity with their followers ?

Well, the answer is all three of them. Yes, I know, all the fuss over nothing if the
answer is all three of them. If you look at each proposition logically, you will see
that they are all linked. A successful leader will have to be born with certain
attributes, but some of the attributes can be learned through various courses but
not all of them, as well as sharing social identity; without a social identity there
won't be a leader.

But, if I were to choose one over the other, I would choose that leaders are
successful when they share a social identity with their followers. I personally
believe that is only one trait of a leader, its followers. It doesn't even matter if
leaders are born or if they can be trained to become successful, they both
approximately share the same variables and key skills needed to become
successful but if they don't share an social identity with their leaders, they can
throw these skills in the bin because they won't be of any use. Without a social
identity with is followers, there won't be a successful leader.

Can you imagine what would've happened if people like: Nelson Mandela,
Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X and Winston Churchill didn't
share a social identity with its followers; they would've been just another person
with a dream, even though one can argue that they were born, or learnt with
certain skills that are hard to come by without anyone followers, I doubt they
would be what they are.

In the future, it will be impossible to create a new theory regarding leaders since
the number of leaders is on an all time high. As time changes the view of
leadership will also change, so there will never be a definite answer to the
question. The quote below emphasizes my point exactly:

'Unfortunately, in real time, it is unclear who will be known as visionaries and

who will be known as failures' (Quoted by Professor Alex Haslem 2005 from
Nadler an Tushman)

References/Bibliography

Citation:

(Daniel Goleman. 2002)

Reference:

Goleman, D. (2002). Leadership: Realizing the Power of Emotional Intelligence

________________________________________________________________________

Citation:

(Jerry L Gray, Frederick A Starke 1988).

Reference:

(Gray, J L. Starke, F A. (1988). Organizational Behavior: Concepts and

Applications, 3rd Edition

________________________________________________________________________

Citation:

(Professor Alex Haslem 2005)

Reference:

Naked Science: Are Leaders Born or Made? (Video) (2005)

________________________________________________________________________

Citation:

(Wikipedia 1)

Reference:

Social Identity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_identity

________________________________________________________________________

Citation:

(Wilf H. Ratzburg 05)

Reference:

Ratzburg, W H. (2005). Behavioural Theory

http://www.geocities.com/athens/forum/1650/htmlleaderbehavioral.html

________________________________________________________________________

Citation: (Professor Adrian Furnham 2005)

Reference:

Naked Science: Are Leaders Born or Made? (Video) (2005)

________________________________________________________________________

Citation: (Max Weber 1922)

Reference: Weber, M. (1922). Theory of Social and Economic Organization.

Chapter: "The Nature of Charismatic Authority and its Routinization"

Citation: (Paul Brewerton 2005 )

Reference: Reference:

Naked Science: Are Leaders Born or Made? (Video) (2005)

________________________________________________________________________

Other Books and Websites used:

- John Bratton: Work and Organizational Behaviour

- Victor H. Vroom and Phillip W. Yetton: Leadership and Decision-Making

- http://www.academon.com/lib/paper/58669.html

- http://www.saladltd.co.uk/catalog/download/Peter_Freeth/peter_freeth-Are
%20leaders%20born%20or%20bred.pdf

- http://self-help.smartads.info/leadership/article.php?art=5729

- http://www.danacentre.org.uk/events/2005/05/10/27

- http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/teaching/338/transformational_leadership.htm

-http://www.tcw.utwente.nl/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Interpersonal
%20Communication%20and%20Relations/Social_Identity_Theory.doc/

- http://ut.essortment.com/leadershipstyle_rrnq.htm

- http://www.myarticlearchive.com/articles/6/211.htm

- http://www.bodybyjake.com/motivation.aspx?q=3

http://changingminds.org/disciplines/leadership/styles/charismatic_leadership.ht
m

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_authority#_note-0

??

??

??

??

Dr Peter Prowse Organisational Behaviour and the Sociology of Work