[Dilmah G]

Topic title is on the list of potential questions to be answered by a mate of mine who's going to an interview for ADF Officer on Monday, and as I was discussing it with a friend I found myself siding with the more archaic 'Leaders are Born' school of thought. I think the politically correct way of saying it these days is calling it 'trait theory'.

What do you guys think?

I recalled a few instances at leadership courses as a Cadet/Scout/Councilor and realised that whilst you can teach someone 'leadership skills', like more efficient strategies of coordinating your team, keeping a clean mouth and eating last, you can't teach someone to have 'vision', confidence in themselves and  leadership initiative.

One of Miranda's lines to Shepard about him having a fire in his eyes in ME2 was one that sprung to mind; you can't teach someone those things.

[QuantumDelta]

You can teach anyone anything supposing they have the mental capacity and the open mindedness.
While I agree that there are people who will always be naturally better leaders than others, I honestly don't see any leadership skills or qualities that aren't trainable.

And, more than born, I am fairly sure these qualities (when speaking naturally) are developed based on life up to around 16?

[Dilmah G]

Yeah, I think part of that mental capacity and open-mindedness is the innate quality I was getting at that makes people in my observation, better leaders. I've seen people who went to courses and took positions with the interest of genuinely wanting to be better leaders, and have come out exactly that.

I agree with you as well about the life experience having some influence, but using someone like General Abizaid as an example (if you haven't heard of him, you should have a google of him, he was quite interesting), I don't think you can impart the innate 'vision' qualities of leadership. He did a fair bit in transforming West Point's culture and was supposedly a well adaptable leader who could transition through several styles very easily. I don't think you can teach someone to do that and have those visions about how they want their organization to look.

I've seen many people who are appointed to leadership positions, in school, for example, who are given a Captaincy and simply perform the day to day tasks, look neat, and occasionally voice their opinions on design committees. A definition for leadership I was given once at an out of school course on it went something along the lines of 'Motivating a group to achieve a goal'. I think the first part, the motivating, you can teach someone. The goal, or the vision, beyond a certain point isn't something you can teach someone.

[Mika]

I'm leaning on that the leadership is a born in capability. There's something that can be done to improve the leading skills by education, but I'm largely of the opinion that in itself one has the capability to become a leader or not.

The other way to ask the same question is to ask if somebody would be a good leader or a bad leader. Everyone can become a bad leader one way or the other. Being a good leader requires a lot more, which I understand as "leadership".

Come to think of it, in Reserve Officer School there wasn't a lot of material about how to be a good leader - they showed a film that everybody has already seen around here to demonstrate some psychological qualities of a leader, but not much more. Everything else was about learning how to control a large group of people and learning about yourself in the process. There were lots of benefits about this education in the hindsight, but it absolutely didn't feel like it when I was there!

[Pred the Penguin]

I'm not even out of high school so my knowledge of leadership qualities is limited, but I've noticed a persistent quality in almost all leaders is the ability to observe. I have a maybe natural ability to read into people and it helped immensely when I had to lead a group of people myself.
If you could teach someone to be open-minded and observant I think you could make a leader, maybe not a good one, but at least someone who can make decisions.

[Dilmah G]

I'm not even out of high school myself (as you may have been able to gather by my other posts, if not the OP), I get what you're saying though. I think what you're saying is part of what's often linked to extroverts (in leadership texts, anyway) who appear to be more in-tune with other people's feelings/better able to read them.

[Pred the Penguin]

I'm no extrovert, so I'm not sure that helps, I just can tell what people are thinking sometimes. For example, I can tell when people are making excuses... and not just when making lame ones either.
I'm no expert though, I just think some traits help with being a leader, but may not be entitled as a leadership quality.

In fact, I used to be pretty indecisive, which is something definitely don't wanna see in a leader. It was only through experience did I learn how to make choices better and faster... for the most part.

[Dilmah G]

Well I'm pretty sure those fall under people skills regardless. But yeah, I agree that there are a bunch of traits that help, but that fire in one's eyes, natural desire to lead, those things set people apart from the rest and again, things that I don't believe one can be taught.

[JCDNWarrior]

Well at this point, leaders are those that are the most evil of all, doing anything to get power. Often, criminals get in power so they can continue their rackets, their criminal syndicates, that way. Many smaller leaders are appointed, not voted in, though the latter is being taught to the publics. There's a huge rigged game around it that does its best to make sure that establishment candidates and people working for international, globalist, interests get in positions of power.

In tribal times though, leaders were those that were the strongest, wisest, and that the tribe looked towards for answers and examples. That's a type of real leader. In modern days there's practically none of such left.

Just my opinion on this matter though.

[StarSlayer]

Tin foil hat explanations aside...

From what I've been made to understand your fresh out of OCS Butterbar while technically outranking even the most senior NCO in reality comes in below PFC when it comes to experience/respect.  Being honest with that situation and realizing your first few commands are basically a continuation of the training process will probably get the person a lot farther then a lot of false bravado and exerting their rank's authority. 

[ShadowWolf_IH]

I think that while some are truly born with "the look of eagles", and the ability to inspire, these things are but seeds to be grown.  Leading requires two things of you, the ability to lead and the desire to lead.  What if Sun Tzu had no desire?  What if Custer's leadership abilities were as inept as his tactical abilities?

And Starlord is correct.  Any officer worth his rank realizes that while rank gives him rights, noncoms keep him alive. 

[Nohiki]

I think leadership is just as any other stuff. You may have talent, but you still need to learn and practise. the born part is about if you have to earn respect or if you have it naturally, but the impact of your decisions will be related to your experience and training.

[IceFire]

We had this discussion in a night course that I'm taking right now. My conclusion is that leadership is about 85% to 90% born and the remainder is developed later. I have had some fantastic bosses that knew how to lead and inspire confidence and I've also unfortunately had to deal with the exact opposite. The kind of "leader" who isn't really one and who leaves chaos, confusion, ill will and so forth wherever that person went.

Some people think that leadership is being decisive and making quick reactions and all sorts of bravado. That, in my book, is bull****. I've seen those so called leaders too and they ultimately fail. You do need a certain level of decisiveness and the ability to judge a situation and say... alright we have to make this decision now. But if you do that all the time then you just wheel around wielding your opinion which is probably flawed. Good leaders trust and work with their team...they observe and listen and when their team needs backing then then they are there to back them up.

[Dilmah G]

Yeah, I agree. If you've seen those task/team/individual diagrams from the John Adair model of leadership, it just seems like some people don't even know that the 'team' exists, and they subsequently get drowned out by autocracy and needless yelling. Like you said, there are times where you need to put your foot down and say the word, but too early for the sake of being decisive and waving around one's authority is just immature.

Tin foil hat explanations aside...

From what I've been made to understand your fresh out of OCS Butterbar while technically outranking even the most senior NCO in reality comes in below PFC when it comes to experience/respect.  Being honest with that situation and realizing your first few commands are basically a continuation of the training process will probably get the person a lot farther then a lot of false bravado and exerting their rank's authority. 

Yeah, that's the funny thing about the military, the Officers with the least experience are the platoon commanders that go out with the boys and girls on the front, whilst those that do have the experience are usually promoted out of the dirt. I've heard it summed up once before with '(in a contact) The Lieutenant's job is to wave his arms around to draw enemy fire and make tea while the Secco's sort it out'. I daresay though, that the good Officers who have real leadership skills can make the divide between experience work for the last million years that its been the case.

[jr2]

Can it be both?  You have what you are given at birth, and what you do with that is the result of your decisions and circumstances.

[Mika]

Yeah, that's the funny thing about the military, the Officers with the least experience are the platoon commanders that go out with the boys and girls on the front, whilst those that do have the experience are usually promoted out of the dirt. I've heard it summed up once before with '(in a contact) The Lieutenant's job is to wave his arms around to draw enemy fire and make tea while the Secco's sort it out'. I daresay though, that the good Officers who have real leadership skills can make the divide between experience work for the last million years that its been the case.

This depends on the army. Here it didn't exactly work out that way last time.

Some people think that leadership is being decisive and making quick reactions and all sorts of bravado. That, in my book, is bull****. I've seen those so called leaders too and they ultimately fail. You do need a certain level of decisiveness and the ability to judge a situation and say... alright we have to make this decision now. But if you do that all the time then you just wheel around wielding your opinion which is probably flawed. Good leaders trust and work with their team...they observe and listen and when their team needs backing then then they are there to back them up.

This is quite a good summary. The army leadership emphasizes quick correct decisions sometimes disregarding the opinions of those who you are leading (there is simply not time), in the civilian leadership the people skills are more emphasized - but a fundamental grasp of the tasks of what each worker does helps too!

[Dilmah G]

This depends on the army. Here it didn't exactly work out that way last time.

Really? How so?

[Mika]

Can it be both?  You have what you are given at birth, and what you do with that is the result of your decisions and circumstances.

Interesting question as it lead me to think if it is possible to train everyone to become a scientist. My gut feeling is no - one needs to have certain sort kind of thinking method to do well in science, that sometimes contradicts with the thinking of everyday life. Also, at this age I'm confident to say that the ability to notice something is simply something that not everyone has and this is a requirement of being a good scientist. It doesn't make them inferior, though. Different people succeed a lot more better in other fields of life. The same applies to leadership.

[Mika]

Really? How so?

The answer to this one will inevitably be long, are you willing to read / listen, or shall we skip this one?

[Dilmah G]

I'm willing to read, but a lot of people probably won't. You can PM it if you'd be willing to type it; I'm genuinely interested.