The Nature versus Nurture Leadership Debate - Essay Example

The Nature versus Nurture Leadership Debate Introduction Are leaders born or made? This is an issue that is frequently debated but remains, in the view of many people, unanswered. Nevertheless, it is still a crucial issue to deal with because the idea that leadership is mostly inborn still strengthens the way that multitudes of people view leaders, their assumptions about their personal ability to lead, and their perceptions about the self-leadership capability of their followers. Rational beliefs about employees’ or followers’ inherent leadership attributes are also commonly used by organizations when selecting, recruiting, hiring, firing, and promoting (Avolio 2004). The first scientific investigations of leadership, performed in the 1930s, were interested with naming several individual psychological qualities that may differentiate leaders from non-leaders. Eventually, this became widely recognized as ‘The Great Man’ leadership theory (Hersey, Blanchard & Johnson 2008). They also determined that the qualities they had classified seemed to vary randomly, differed from leader to leader, and merely became evident after individuals had attained leadership positions (Kouzes & Posner 2007). This was a normal outcome of the reality that they may only examine leaders after the incident, when they had become leaders themselves. Additional research suggested that the relationship between leadership and particular leadership attributes is insignificant, comprising only roughly 10 per cent of the aspects that determine whether an individual was a leader or not (Kouzes & Posner 2007). Unexpectedly, further research has failed to resolve conclusively the issue ‘Are leaders born or made?’ and this lingers a subject of intense debate among scholars. In terms of this ongoing debate between nurture and nature, this essay will try to answer this lingering issue of leadership by drawing on concepts of human motivation and various leadership approaches. However, as Gardner (1990) argued: “Many dismiss the subject with the confident assertion that ‘leaders are born not made.’ Nonsense! Most of what leaders have that enables them to lead is learned. Leadership is not a mysterious activity… And the capacity to perform those tasks is widely distributed in the population” (p. xv). Stogdill (1974) emphasized that “there are almost as many definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the concept” (p. 259). This essay does not aim to add still another definition. However, there are fundamental defining components of leadership in organizations that have some agreement with the leadership literature and offer an integrated perspective for the concepts that will be presented here. The following definitions of leadership will be used for the purposes of the discussion (Avolio 2004, 4-5): (1) leadership requires processes and outcomes, such as employee commitment, that support the improvement and achievement of organizational goals; (2) leadership is characterized by the exercise of non-routine authority or influence on organizational activities; (3) leader legitimacy is anchored in political, social, and cognitive processes; and (4) leadership in organizations is naturally limited by system dynamics and features, specifically, leadership is defined and justified contextually. Organizations nowadays prosper on relationships and nearly all relationships are led by interactions among individuals. Leadership involves being guided, and the significance of leadership is linked to organizations realizing continuing success (Hersey et al. 2008). In order to continue achieving and generating profits, organizations require a mission and a vision. Leaders should learn how to determine the vision and the mission statements in order for organizational teams to become well aware of the common purposes (Northouse 2009). Hence making sure that their motivation is sustained at the proper level favorable to organizational development and performance (Northouse 2009). Without adequate leadership in control, most organizations would merely persist to survive, but may approach extinction. One of the models that leaders can learn and use to sustain organizational growth and performance is the ACHIEVE model. The acronym stands for Ability, Clarity, Help, Incentive and Environment. In terms of Ability, a leader must know how to give his/her followers new experiences as a personal growth (Kouzes & Posner 2007). In terms of Clarity, a leader must be aware that not everyone has the same understanding or knowledge as s/he does. In terms of Help, a leader must know how to delegate tasks effectively in order to achieve better outcomes. In terms of Incentive, a leader must be knowledgeable of the effect of rewards on various types of tasks (Kouzes & Posner 2007). According to several psychological experiments, higher rewards do not always result in higher performance. There are certain tasks, such as cognitive tasks, that require more of the intrinsic motivator (e.g. interest) rather than the extrinsic one, such as rewards (TED 2009c). And lastly, in terms of Environment, a leader must be skilled and determined in teaching his/her followers of the organizational procedures (Miner 2005). The predecessor of the ACHIEVE model is Frederick Taylor’s Scientific Management, which revolutionized the field of management. Taylor’s model assumes that there is one best technique of performing things, and that technique is disclosed through ‘time and motion studies’ (Northouse 2009).The best technique of conducting business, according to the studies, is to enhance the methods or techniques of the employees (Miner 2005). So what is the implication of Taylor’s model on leadership? The Scientific Management model states that leaders should focus on influencing the methods and techniques of their followers. Employees have to adapt themselves to the notions of leadership, and leaders should not focus on the employees’ emotions or human situations. The primary focus of a scientific leader is to fulfill the requirements of the organization, not the requirements of the individual. Hence, leaders should be trained to focus on the organization and dismiss their inherent concern for others. Elton Mayo, on the other hand, argued that the reason employees are more intensely motivated by mundane things is that people have a profound psychological need to think that their organization is concerned of them (Miner 2005). According to the Hawthorne studies, employees want to think their organization is eager to listen, concerned, and open (Avolio 2004). When employees complain, they do not usually have any accurate grounds for a reasonable grievance because all they want is a certain ‘confirmation’ they belong to the organization. The leadership implications are that the human domains of group relations or work greatly influence behavior, dominating individual’s self-interests and even organizational norms (Avolio 2004). Dan Ariely, in his study of cheating behavior, finds out that in-group behavior greatly influences the likelihood of the group members to cheat. If one of the members cheats and s/he got away with it, it is highly likely that the other group members will also cheat (TED 2009b). The recognition of ‘social capacity’ was a revolutionary finding for leadership development and launched a new age of ‘follower-centered leadership.’ Traits and Skills of Leaders Organizational leadership is at the top nowadays and there is an apparent acceptance of the fact that in majority of circumstances the motivation and interest stimulated in people by proactive and powerful leadership, according to House- Mitchell Path-Goal theory, is the greatest strategic instrument that gives strong competitive advantage (Miner 2005). Powerful and proactive leaders have an exceptional capability of stimulating such levels of motivation and enthusiasm in individuals that the unattainable seems to become attainable (Gardner 1990). The interest stimulated by a leader in an organization turns into higher performance and success. Most leadership studies and theories have tended to highlight the personality traits, personal background, and behaviors of leaders. From this leader-centered perspective, the followers have been treated as moderators or receivers of the leader’s authority, and as instruments for the realization of the vision and mission of a leader (Kouzes & Posner 2007). One of the leading challengers of this prevailing perspective was James Meindl. He presented a follower-centered perspective as an alternative to the leader-centered approach (Avolio 2004). The follower-centric approach views leadership and its outcomes as mainly created by followers and thus guided by followers’ social influence process and cognitive mechanisms (Avolio 2004). Leadership that facilitates a growth-oriented environment for others and themselves furnish an essential function in effecting and enabling open communication, giving importance to diversity and the inclination, empowerment, and creativity of groups and individuals towards organizational, professional, and personal growth to perform and reach their greatest potential (Kouzes & Posner 2007). In the meantime, it is fascinating to know that studies found that even though every leader had his/her unique leadership approach, they all have in common four leadership skills. These have been recognized as the keys to effective leadership: management of attention, management of meaning, management of trust, and management of self (Hersey et al. 2008): Management of attention is characterized as the capability of drawing others to themselves through a strong focus of attention. People who have this skill have normally been capable of getting others to adopt their personally created visions. Management of meaning is the capability of communicating ideas, aspirations, and visions successfully to others. These leaders are aware that mere talk is ineffective and that expressions and actions are the effective means to communicate. Management of trust is a fundamental feature of leadership. This is all about focus and loyalty. Successful leaders have the ability to encourage trust among their followers. Management of self is the capability of knowing one’s own strengths and weaknesses and to take advantage of them. Leaders focus on constructive goals and do not concentrate on risks (Hersey et al. 2008). All of these leadership skills are learned. On the other hand, there is also what is referred to as ‘bad leadership.’ A transformational environment without constancy in behavioral expectations aids the reinforcement of traditional leadership styles, essentially distinguished as bureaucratic, paternalistic, individualistic, and oppressive (Bennis 1990). Negative implications of these traditional leadership approaches on followers’ organizational commitment behavior can be probable. Under the influence of bad leaders, employee moral weakens and workers become less dedicated to the organization and its goals (Bennis 1990). That has a tendency to result in poor employee performance. Poor morale drains enthusiasm and energy and reinforces an uncomfortable environment that turns trivial conflicts into interpersonal disputes. And employees who lose their commitment and focus are prone to committing more errors (Vroom & Jago 1988). Worse, bad leadership can prevent planners from generating innovative insights and solutions to problems (Kouzes & Posner 2007). Leadership grid is a simple instrument for leaders to evaluate their own leadership style, whether they are successful or poor leaders (Northouse 2009). Leadership grid presents a model for evaluation leadership in a wide-ranging manner. Leaders can employ their scores on the grid to assess their actions or behaviors in the two domains and can identify how they can transform to enhance their success needed in the particular situation (Northouse 2009). Researchers exploring leadership style have extensively based their idea on two forms of leadership behavior (Avolio 2004): (1) employee or relationship orientation and (2) task or production orientation. Employee or relationship orientation is the act of making followers comfortable with the task and themselves, building respect, commitment and trust in groups, and highlighting human relations. Task or behavior orientation is the act of strengthening and facilitating accomplishment of a given task. This involves activities such as processes, organizing, planning and product development and outcomes (Northouse 2009). However, positive leadership attitudes do not automatically result in a positive leadership behavior. Neither does a positive leadership behavior imply positive leadership attitude (Garic 2009). For instance, there are leaders who can talk about what can be done and should be done. They lead with confidence and they sincerely believe in their vision. But once in the actual setting, they do not persevere at accomplishing their task. But others persevere at their jobs but lack the enthusiasm they bring into the work. Attitude implies the ‘feel’ element of leadership work. A leader’s followers cannot see it, but they can feel it (Gardner 1990). They can feel if a leader performs his/her obligations with confidence. They can feel whether a leader trust his/her work or not. They know if a leader has passion in his/her work. On the other hand, behavior implies the ‘do’ component of leadership work. It is the real work. Leaders can see the outcome of their leadership behavior (Gardner 1990). Their followers can see it. It is, in other words, the ‘action.’ Successful leaders have a great leadership attitude as well as a great leadership behavior at work. Current Perspectives on Leadership: Are Leaders Born or Made? A leader’s disposition has the capability of infiltrating the organization and it can negatively or positively affect the organization. In reality, the emotion that the leader exhibits in an organization can be quite transmittable. Normally, the emotion of a leader, negative or positive, has a direct influence on the productivity of employees (Avolio 2004). If a leader does not possess social and personal competence, he has no ability to emotionally relate with his followers, as shown by the Hawthorne studies. Leadership is a process, it is not innate. The leaders have to acquire the skill of influencing followers, which necessitates the leader to use a variety of leadership approaches in any particular situation, as demonstrated by the Tannenbaum-Shmidt Continuum of leader-behavior (Miner 2005). Still, despite of valid assumptions that leaders are made, gender and leadership remains one of the main concerns in research. A number of explanations are given for the low percentage of female leaders (Kouzes & Posner 2007). One is that life aspirations of women are weakened by their early childhood socialization. Normally the nuclear family passes on definitions of proper gender behavior to youngsters. For young girls, this consists of tameness, submissiveness, avoidance of competition and conflict, and other attributes regarded as ‘feminine’ (Kouzes & Posner 2007). One outcome of this childhood socialization is the likelihood for women to be stereotyped as incompetent or inappropriate for leadership roles. A number of studies have revealed that people view successful leaders to have the qualities normally related with men, though the real attributes effective leaders possess are a fusion of masculine (e.g. task orientation, aggressiveness, initiative) and feminine (e.g. relationship orientation, feelings, and concern for others) qualities (Miner 2005). Hence, it can be concluded here that leaders are made since inappropriateness of women and appropriateness of men for leadership positions is caused by their early childhood socialization. There is a tendency to view leadership as tantamount to White male in command. There is a form of understood model of what leadership should look like, an assumption that leaders are born. But based on the preceding discussion, we now know that it is not valid. Successful leaders do not follow a model. Everybody can develop their ability to lead, from political parties to business groups. When a person is dedicated to, and exercises their leadership abilities at all aspects of their lives, then they can and will enhance their own capacity as a leader. Even born leaders have to improve and practice their leadership traits and skills. Conclusions Leaders are made, not born. And I am not the only one embracing this certainty: as argued by Warren Bennis (1990) “… leaders are made, not born, and made more by themselves than by any external means. Second… that no leader sets out to be a leader per se, but rather to express himself freely and fully” (p. 5). The reality is that most people have the capacity to become leaders. The actual concern is that leadership requires considerable time to grow. Individuals need time to discover their passion. They need time to work out their own vision and goal. They need time to acquire the skill of expressing who they are, of exercising their unique skills and competencies, and of communicating their vision in their own distinctive way. As noted by Harold Geneen (1984), “Leadership cannot really be taught. It can only be learned” (p.127). Leaders acquire the necessary skills through life experience. Leaders are made when they discover and appreciate their purpose, their distinctive strengths and have an intense motivation to change things by expressing who they are in the real world. References Avolio, Bruce. Leadership Development in Balance: Made/Born. New York: The Free Press, 2004. Bennis, Warren. On Becoming a Leader. New York: Perseus Books, 1990. "Dan Ariely asks, Are we in control of our own decisions?" TED Ideas worth spreading (2009a): http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_asks_are_we_in_control_of_our_own_decisions.html. "Dan Ariely on our buggy moral code." TED Ideas worth spreading (2009b): http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_on_our_buggy_moral_code.html. "Dan Pink on the surprising science of motivation." TED Ideas worth spreading (2009c): http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_pink_on_motivation.html. Gardner, J. On Leadership. New York: The Free Press, 1990. Garic, David. "Are leaders born or made?" National Research Bureau (2009): http:/www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-155477171 Geneen, Harold. Managing. Australia: Doubleday Books, 1984. Hersey, P., K. Blanchard & D. Johnson. Management of Organizational Behavior: Leading Human Resources. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2008. Kouzes, J. & B. Posner. The Leadership Challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2007. Miner, J.B. Organizational Behavior: Behavior 1: Essential Theories of Motivation and Leadership. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, 2005. Northouse, Peter, ed. Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc., 2009. Stogdill, R.M. Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and Research. New York: Free Press, 1974. Vroom, V. & A. Jago. The New Leadership: Managing Participation in Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1988. Read More