Are early trait theories of leadership that focused on identifying the innate qualities and characteristics possessed by great social political and military leaders?

Alexander Corby

Alexander Corby

Battalion Commander, 4th Battalion 60th Air Defense Artillery Regiment (Divisional-SHORAD)

Published Dec 20, 2019

Are leaders born or made? That is the question that those studying leadership have asked and attempted to answer beginning with Aristotle in the fourth century BC. Aristotle maintained that “Men are marked out from the moment of birth to rule or be ruled” bringing forth the Great Man Theory. The Great Man Theory prevailed through to the twentieth century focusing on both the physical and personality traits of leaders. Sir Francis Galton extensively studied the power of genetics and hereditary traits coining the term nature versus nurture culminating in his work “Hereditary Genius” in 1869. In the early twentieth century the belief that leaders are born and not made was defined as the trait approach which like those before it focused on identifying the innate qualities and characteristics possessed by great social, political, and military leaders. Again, these traits (intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity, and sociability) were inherent and could not be learned.

           These historians, philosophers, and scientists strove to explain what can easily be observed in a grade school classroom. There are individuals who from a very young age exhibit leadership traits and are capable of influencing others to follow them. Seeing these young leaders at the age of five and younger effectively lead their peers it is easy to argue that leadership is in fact an inherent trait or natural ability within individuals. Robin Sacks in her work “Natural Born Leaders” found that children as young as three assert influence over their classmates possessing traits that include high verbal ability, independence, a sense of structure, creativity, emotional intelligence, and social skills. Again, given the age of the individuals observed it is far more likely that the traits identified are inherent in nature bringing further credence to the lesson provided in the first book of Corinthians. Paul likens individuals (the body of Christ) to a human body: Each individual unique with their own inherent strengths but together making a whole, the body complete 1 Corinthians 12 (ESV).

           However, the skills approach supplanted the traits approach in the mid twentieth century as leadership experts argued that leaders are not born but are the result of skills that can be taught and learned. Robert Katz defined these skills (technical, conceptual, and human) in 1955 for the Harvard Business Review arguing that they were different from traits in the sense that they could be acquired and leaders trained to develop them. This on its face is attractive because it means that in theory anyone can be made a leader if they apply themselves and learn the correct set of skills that a leader should have. The Army and its officer education program beginning at West Point, Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC), or Officer Candidate School (OCS) and culminating at the War College over twenty years later strives to teach an individual the skills required for an effective leader. The belief being that regardless of where an individual comes from and the trait’s they possess it is possible to teach them to be a leader. The Book of Psalms speaks to this in Psalm 32:8 (ESV) “I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go; I will counsel you with my loving eye on you.”

           What if the answer was not an either or but both traits and skills working in concert? To maintain that leaders are purely nature (trait approach) discounts the experiences and education an individual is exposed to throughout their life essentially stating that nothing an individual experiences from the moment they are born affects their leadership potential. Conversely arguing that leadership is a skill that is learned (skills approach) discounts the fact that natural born leaders are evident as outlined by Robin Sacks as early as three years old. It is far more likely that leadership is both traits and skills based where individuals are born with inherent traits or gifts and then must nurture them in order to realize their full potential as leaders. The bible directs individuals to use their gifts to serve one another “as good stewards of God’s grace” 1 Peter 4:10 (ESV). Furthermore, the Book of Matthew cautions those who do not effectively develop and use their gifts (traits). In the Parable of the Talents the servants that invest and build upon their gifts are rewarded while the servant who does not is chastised. “But his master answered him, ‘You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own interest’” Matthew 25:26-27 (ESV). Natural gifts will wither and individuals not realize their full potential unless nurtured and refined. Leaders must not only rely on their natural gifts and abilities but continuously strive to hone them to achieve their full potential.