The purpose of this essay is to discuss the belief that leaders are born and not made. Stogdill (1950) defined leadership as the process of influencing a group’s activities in order to achieve goals. Whether it is in the animal kingdom or modern human society, leaders are necessary in any organized field. Businesses, firms, hospitals, politicians, schools, the military, and sports all require a strong figure who can inspire others and serve as a role model.
The purpose of the essay is to examine different theories of leadership. Firstly, the essay will discuss the Great Man theory and its criticism. Next, it will explore the behaviour theories of leadership as identified by the University of Michigan and the Ohio State University. Then, the essay will examine the contingency theory of leadership, which challenges both the trait and behavioural theories. Finally, a conclusion will be drawn on the topic of whether leaders are born or made.
According to Buchanan and Huczynski (2010), researchers in the first half of the twentieth century believed they could identify the personal traits and attributes of leaders in order to select and promote individuals who possessed those qualities for leadership positions. This quest for the qualities of effective leaders was influenced by the Great Man theory, which suggests that leaders have specific personality, social, and physical traits, as noted by Gordon (1999). Originally introduced in the 1940s and 1950s, trait theory argued that certain individuals were naturally predisposed to be leaders.
More than 100 early studies have shown that leaders and non-leaders exhibit differences in various traits. These traits include intelligence, initiative, persistence in problem-solving, self-confidence, attentiveness to others’ needs, task understanding, desire for responsibility, preference for control and dominance, drive (achievement, ambition, energy, and tenacity), desire to lead, honesty and integrity, cognitive ability, and business knowledge. However, Ellis and Dick (2000) note that as we consider more successful leaders, the list of traits grows longer, raising the question of whether any one person can possess all the necessary qualities to be a great leader. Furthermore, comparing leaders from different fields reveals contradictions in required qualities. For instance, the qualities sought in a leader for a professional sports team differ significantly from those needed in a religious or orchestral setting.
Reflecting on history, there are several influential leaders who have shaped events: Mao Tze Tung, Hitler, Julius Caesar, Napoleon, alongside Gandhi, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, and Martin Luther King. Examining this list reveals that these leaders held different ideals and perspectives, as well as distinct traits and characteristics. Champoux (2000) argues that leadership researchers eventually acknowledged that traits alone were insufficient in explaining leadership effectiveness.
As a result, in the late 1950s, researchers turned to studying leader behaviour. They developed two complementary theories to describe the behaviour that distinguishes effective and ineffective leaders in work groups. The University of Michigan Studies was one group of researchers who conceptualized two dimensions of leadership behaviour: Production-centered focus and Employee-centered behaviour. Production-centered leaders prioritize production and tasks over people, deciding what needs to be done themselves and not trusting others to work independently. They give orders and assign duties and jobs to employees.
Their behavior towards the staff will be autocratic and overbearing in order to achieve every task with method and precision. A practical example of a production-centered leader can be seen in an iron foundry or an assembly line. Conversely, leaders who adhere to the Employee-centered criteria are more concerned about the staff and the team. They have a more open mindset towards the employees, arranging meetings and considering advice and ideas from subordinates.
According to the Michigan University theory, an Employee-centered leader, such as the team leader of a design studio, can promote higher performance among their team members compared to production-centered leaders. While the latter group can effectively complete tasks and follow directions, their working conditions may result in high staff turnover, absenteeism, and a strained relationship between them and their leader.
The Ohio State University Leadership Studies found that there are two dimensions of leadership behavior: Initiating Structure and Consideration. These dimensions can be exhibited at high or low levels by leaders. Leaders with a high level of Initiating Structure will set deadlines and assign tasks to their employees. On the other hand, leaders with a low level of initiating structure will delegate decision-making and responsibility to their staff members without being concerned about setting tasks and deadlines.
On one hand, a leader with high consideration is genuinely concerned about their subordinates and maintains a friendly and warm attitude towards them. In contrast, a leader lacking consideration shows no interest in forming interpersonal connections with their subordinates and often criticizes their work publicly, resulting in an unfavorable working environment. Generally, employees under supervisors who exhibit high levels of consideration on both dimensions tend to have more positive work attitudes compared to those under supervisors who possess varying combinations of these qualities.
According to Champoux (2000), neither the trait nor behavioural approaches adequately explain leadership in organizations, leading researchers to develop the contingency theory of leadership. Ellis and Dick (2000) state that various theories have emerged to explain how leadership styles should adapt to changing situations. Fiedler’s (1967) contingency theory of leadership integrates an organizational situation with the desired management style.
He used a least preferred co-worker (LPC) questionnaire to determine the predominant style of a leader. Fiedler subsequently categorized the results into two groups: individuals who expressed negative opinions about their colleagues were labeled as task oriented, while those who spoke positively and provided good reviews, regardless of their relationship with their LPC, were defined as relationship oriented. In highly favorable or unfavorable situations, leaders belonging to the task oriented group were found to be more productive. In unusual circumstances that deviate from the normal routine, a task oriented leader possesses the ability to offer guidance or establish a well-structured framework to rectify the situation. A military captain exemplifies a task oriented leader as they must lead with authority and organization during wartime. On the other hand, leaders from the relationship oriented group tend to be more effective in intermediate conditions. They engage in discussions with their staff regarding performances and tasks instead of issuing top-down orders.
In the technology industry, leaders should prioritize building relationships and consult with their team to determine the direction for setting new trends. One example of this is the importance of design in selling technology, as exemplified by Apple’s leadership in this sector. To become an effective leader, it is crucial to understand and apply Fiedler’s contingency theory based on the specific situation they are facing. Being fully aware of the demands of their role is essential in choosing the appropriate relationship style.
The theory suggests that when this level of understanding is attained, applying the appropriate style to the appropriate contingency will be advantageous. In conclusion, the debate on whether leaders are born or made has persisted since the time of ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle (who stated in his book “Politics” that individuals were either barbarian or noble) and continues to be unresolved by researchers today.
According to the aforementioned theories, an individual’s inherent qualities may suggest their leadership potential. However, their viewpoint, values, and convictions can be influenced and changed by the social environment and circumstances they face. Traits and characteristics evolve throughout life, with personal experiences playing a vital role in molding a person into becoming an inspiring leader.
