Nature v Nurture

“Leaders tend to be born not made”     

Sir Alan Sugar

The nature v nurture debate in regards to leadership looks at the ideas that leaders can be born with the right skills and qualities and therefore it is innate, but also at the argument that behaviour of leaders is learnt through training from organisations and that leaders can be developed and made (Harvey, 2009)

It is important to note that a lot of leadership cannot be taught as a leader needs essential intelligence and the psychological and character traits to become a leader. However, leadership can be seen as an 'apprentice trade' with leaders learning about 80% of their craft on the job (Bock,2006).

Harvey (2009) states that leaders have qualities such as:

• Charisma.
• Extraversion.
• Rapport with others.
• Creativity

He notes that while some of these qualities may be based on genetics and therefore may be considered 'natural', a real leader is someone who can develop and fine tune those qualities though training and observing others and not rely on what they have been born with. Goldeman (1998:229) found that the most effective leaders are alike in one way; they all have a high degree of emotional intelligence, without this a person can have the best training in the world but still wont make a great leader.

Swanoop and Prasad (2013) conducted a study and fount that the majority of their respondents believed that leaders are made not born. They state that 'if you have the desire and will power, you can become an effective leader- good leaders develop through a never ending process of self-study, education, training and experience (pg.36) Stephenson (2004) agrees with this. She believes that the best leaders learn to lead. they come to appreciate the value of candour and trust- they seek to understand and be understood. 

Different organisations take different approaches to the subject of the nature v nurture debate. Many companies focus on the ‘Darwin’ approach which looks at the concept of survival of the fittest; meaning that the fittest will move up the ladder/hierarchy of the company. This concept of natural selection therefore contributes theories to the nurture side of the debate.

Other organisations take different approaches and instead look for potential in employees and then use training to create leaders that are specific to that organisation. However there are some issues that can arise through this concept:

•           Training can not only be expensive but also takes a great deal of time.
•         There could be a lack of fresh ideas if the ideas are only coming from professionals internally.

Believing people are born leaders will result in an organisation focusing on selection (identifying the right people) rather than on development. Gentry et al (2012: 4) state that businesses need to consider what their employers believe to be true: whether leaders are born or made. This is essential as their attitudes 'play out in recruiting, promotion and development decisions'. 

By looking at research conducted throughout the years and investigating both arguments to the debate, the concept of leaders are either born or made is not as simple as once thought. It is now evident that a successful and effective leader not only uses skills that they are born with but develop their skills through learning, meaning that leaders aren't one or another but instead a combination of both. 

In regards to Alan Sugar, an argument can be made that due to his lower class background and the fact that he started developing business ideas from the young age of 16, you could say that he was born with the skills and qualities that make up a efficient leader. However, it is important to note that without his education and work experience throughout the years he may not be the same business entrepreneur he is today.