Another kind of nature-nurture: Are leaders born or made?

Yesterday I posted already a nature-nurture post, this new study has a similar tone but discusses the question if you are born as a leader or not. a The U of I study supports the idea that leaders are made, not born, and that leadership development follows a specific progression. Do note the research is more on the effect of a developed course and doesn’t really exclude the possibility of a genetic basis.

One could argue if only the fact that these students enroll in such a course is an important element. What is interesting in this research is the idea that the course works on 3 components of leadership: self-efficacy, or confidence in their ability to lead; skills; and motivation to lead.

Still: one could also say that doing this kind of research is actually a smart way of promoting a course…

From the press release:

Past research suggests that leadership is 30 percent genetic and 70 percent a result of lessons learned through life experiences. Given these percentages, U of I professors Kari Keating, David Rosch, and Lisa Burgoon suggest a more efficient pathway to leadership development.

“In only 15 weeks in our introductory class, students reported significant gains in three important components of leadership: self-efficacy, or confidence in their ability to lead; skills; and motivation to lead,” said Keating, who teachers leadership courses in the College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences’ agricultural leadership education major.

The new study shows that science is involved in teaching leadership development, Rosch said.

“It’s a three-legged stool: we call it being ready, willing, and able. Students first become ready to learn about being a leader; then they become willing to learn the skills necessary to practice leadership; and finally they’re able to lead because they have the skills and the motivation to do it. You can’t really move on to the other legs of the stool until you’ve achieved a certain amount of this readiness,” he explained.

If students enter the course with low levels of self-efficacy—saying ‘I don’t really think of myself as a leader’ or ‘I’m not confident in my abilities’—they don’t increase in being willing and able in 15 weeks, but they make big increases in readiness, he added.

“It’s like a math class. You’re not ready to do calculus if you don’t know the basics of algebra,” he noted. “This shows us we need to work on readiness so students can make the most of advanced leadership courses.”

Students who come into the introductory class with leadership readiness saying, “I’ve got this, I’m a leader” have a different learning experience. They become willing to lead people even when it’s not a big resume builder, Keating said.

So what is leadership? “Historically, leaders have been viewed as being male and power oriented. It used to be if you were tall, articulate, and well-schooled, you were a leader in other people’s minds,” Burgoon said.

And students often take a positional view of leadership. “But, just as a year in a cave doesn’t make you a geologist, being senior class president doesn’t make you a leader,” Rosch said.

But leadership is more than that, he said. “The definition we use in the course is that leadership is an individual influencing a group of people toward a common goal. So how do you influence people? You can lead through your interactions, your relationships, your communication, the way you express thanks, your ethics,” he said.

“Leadership isn’t done in a vacuum. It’s done with others,” Keating added.

Students in the class complete 10 to 12 self-assessments to learn where their own strengths and weaknesses as a leader lie. By the end of the semester, they may say: “I don’t do any of this relationship stuff. I’m mainly authoritative in the way I lead. Maybe I need to alter what I’m doing so our team can get better results,” she said.

Rosch said every semester a dozen students come back to him from job interviews in which they advanced because they were able to demonstrate and talk about leadership. He added that academic advisers are beginning to recommend leadership courses to students who aren’t in the leadership major or minor.

“If we could pre-test students for leadership proficiency in much the same way we test for chemistry placement, we’d be able to make our resources more efficient and maximize the learning potential that we have in our program,” he noted.

Abstract of the study:

The development of effective leadership capacity involves multiple factors including increasing students’ leadership self-efficacy, motivation to lead, and leadershipskills. This study of 165 undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory leadership theory course explores the degree to which students report changes in these three areas of leadership from the beginning to the end of the course. Our analysis showed two important findings. First, students report significant gains in leadership self-efficacy, transformational and transactional leadership skill, and each measured form of motivation to lead at the conclusion of the course. Second, a closer examination shows that student learning is not across-the-board but, rather, differentiated. Students experience significantly different outcomes depending on their levels of self-efficacy and motivation to lead when they enter the course. These findings not only have broad implications for theway colleges and universities structure curricula around leadership development, but they also inform theoretical model-building regarding the process of student leadership development.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.