Leaders: Born or Made?

image from http://gunningforthetruth.wordpress.com

Recently, founding father of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, was asked by a group of Japanese officials and businessmen about his views on leadership. He relates his experience with sheepdogs in Australia and how they are chosen based on certain traits that they are born with. To get a good sheepdog, one needs to find the 'right dog'.

This view is not uncommon. In the 1940s to the 1950s, management gurus proposed the idea that leaders were born and not made. This view is known as the Trait Theory of Leadership. Most of us in this day and age have probably heard others mention that leaders can be 'made'. This might fall under the Behavioural Theory of Leadership. What this means is that researchers study the successful habits of leaders, past and present, compile them into bite sizes and then pass on the knowledge to those keen on being a good leader. This theory proposes that with observation and practice, anyone can become a good leader.

If one believes in Trait Theory, then there will be no need for trainers and academics helping people to be better leaders. Instead, psychologists and behavioural scientists would create a host of tests to help affirm that you have good leadership genes. This does not bode well for business schools and leadership consultants, does it?

If one believes in the Behavioural Theory, then the reverse is true. Business schools and leadership consultants will do very well, not psychologists and behavioural scientists.

I do believe that despite motivation and proper training, some catch on rather quickly, while others find it hard to put into practice. The question is this --- why then do some find it easier to learn while others struggle at the application stage? Why are some better leaders than others? Why are some better employees than others?

In the latest HRM magazine (Issue 116), page 10 attracted my attention. The title was 'Grooming average Joes'. The magazine interviewed 3 senior managers on how a leader should bring out the potential in an employee displaying average performance. 2 out of the 3 believed that 'no employee is average'.

Let me weigh in on this.

If 'no employee is average', then why do we have some staff who are more efficient and others who are 'simply useless'? The general argument is that the 'useless employees' are not fulfilling their potential, thus the dip in their performance. The solution? Leaders should, in the words of one of the senior managers, 'Marshall and Motivate'.

But my question is this --- assuming all things being equal, what if a person's maximum potential is a 5/10, and his colleague's is 8/10? I propose that this is not far fetched. Instead, unpopular as it may be, this is reality. Very simply, I believe that some people make better leaders and better employees than others. One might think that I am stating the obvious, but if you believe that there are 'no average employees', what you are saying is that with enough motivation, everyone has an equal chance of being promoted and becoming a good leader.

Believing that there are 'no employees are average' may also lead to unrealistic expectations. If you do not recognise that different employees have different levels of potential, you are likely to unfairly blame an employee should he or she not meet your expectations. On the flip side, the employee might unfairly blame the leader for not doing enough to unveil his or her potential.

When a colleague is observed to be consistently delivering sub-par work, one should ask whether the colleague has already achieved his or her potential in the presence of motivation and support. If the answer is a firm 'Yes', then you will have to decide whether your organization should continue keeping this person. However, if the colleague has shown sparks of good work and added value occasionally, but is inconsistent, then we can probably say that his or her potential has not been achieved.

We are all born different, talented in a variety of ways. Politically correct as it may be, it would be a terrible thing to assume that we are all mold-able to a desired end.

Paul Lim is an adjunct faculty member with the Organisational Behaviour & Human Resources (OBHR) discipline at the Lee Kong Chian School of Business, Singapore Management University; an Academic Associate and an Adjunct Associate with the Centre of Innovation & Enterprise, Republic Polytechnic, Singapore. He teaches courses in Leadership, Organisational Behaviour and Cross Generational Management. A doctoral student with French business school - Grenoble Ecole de Management, he is currently writing his dissertation on the impact of mentoring on employee retention in millennials (Generation Y).