Are leaders born or made?
Since the leadership development industry really got going in 1982 with the publication of Richard Boyatzis' highly influential book The Competent Manager, it's been fashionable to say that good leaders are made, not born. But anyone who works in the field of leadership development will know that this simply isn't true – not everyone has the capability to be a great leader. Some of it is genetic, some of it is down to early life experiences. What are the implications of this for developing leaders in your organisation?
As the science of genetics continues to develop, it's becoming clearer that genes have a big impact on our behaviour and personality. Geneticists have already identified genes implicated in optimism, confidence and risk taking – all qualities associated with leadership.
But just because you have a gene associated with a particular behaviour doesn't mean you'll necessarily demonstrate that behaviour. The relationship between genes and environment – nature and nurture – is very complex. An increasingly important area of study in leadership development is that of crucibles – challenging experiences that help turn a person into a leader. When Howard Schultz was seven years old his father lost his job and health insurance after an accident at work. For the rest of his childhood the family struggled financially. This painful experience made Schultz determined not only to achieve financial independence by running his own company, but also to provide health care insurance for all his employees so that none of their families would struggle as he had. That company is Starbucks, and Schultz attributes much of his leadership abilities to that early crucible experience.
Not everyone responds to their crucible as positively as Howard Schultz – maybe there's a genetic component there – but most leaders can point to a challenging situation at some point in their lives, that made them the leader they are today.
So what are the implications for formal leadership development programmes?
Even today, most leadership development programmes are based on some kind of competency framework, and look like this: Step one, draw up a list of competencies you consider all leaders in your organisation should have. Step two, assess them in some way against this list – through performance appraisal, 360 or maybe a development centre. Step three, give them training, coaching or something to develop their weaknesses.
This approach is flawed. Leadership isn't a list of competencies. It's a set of relationships between a person and other people, to achieve a particular purpose, in a particular context. Great leadership development programmes acknowledge that different leaders need to behave in different ways depending on their people, purpose and context.
The best way of develop someone isn't to try and remedy their weaknesses, it's to build on their strengths. Tiger Woods isn't a great golfer because he's tried to improve his ability to get the ball out of sand bunkers (which, by his own admission he's pretty useless at); he's a great golfer because he's worked on his swing so that instead of being just brilliant, it's astoundingly extraordinarily brilliant.
People learn more from experiences than from formal training – providing they have the right opportunity to reflect on and make sense of those opportunities. Great leadership development programmes create opportunities to learn from experiences. What kind of experiences? Leadership experiences – experiences of working with a group of people to achieve a worthwhile goal. The best kind of leadership development is built around real leadership challenges.