dispatches from the new world of work

Born? Or Made?

One thing is sure ... WE WON'T SOLVE IT HERE! "It," being a query within a Comment on my Nelson post. Upon reading my post, our colleague was moved to say that surely such leadership traits are born ... and that's that.

On this eternal issue, I've come down on the "born" (more accurately, born or bred early) side more than the "trained" side more than most of my colleagues—no surprise since many of them are leadership trainers!

Intelligence, dispositions such as energy and enthusiasm, and the likes of a proclivity for hard word work are pretty well set in something like stone before we "employers" get our mitts on a person.

Consider: I worked briefly with a speaking coach decades ago. He declared me a "pleasure" to work with. I remember him saying, "Tom, it's a lot easier to work with someone energetic—and try to help them round off the rough edges—than it is to try and 'spice up' a turnip."

I think that personal vignette is very near the heart of the matter. There is—clearly!—some stuff that one can help with. I had a colleague, a fine and caring person, who never took the time to send "Thank you" notes or perform other overt acts of recognition. (My assessment: He had been raised in a very reserved setting, and one mostly kept one's emotions to oneself.) Now if this person had been a misanthrope, I wouldn't have bothered. But that not being the case, I banged on him for a period of years—and today he surpasses me in this vital area of human interaction.

There are a lot of things, then, that can be brought to life, or things that have worked for others that one can be made aware of. I've observed—back to Nelson—that a lot of high-powered leaders, up to and including U.S. Presidents, devour good biographies and autobiographies. Read enough, a few hundred I should think, and one sees some commonalities in the way certain types of situations are handled—e.g., building support for unpopular causes, such as Roosevelt's efforts to convince a skeptical Congress of the wisdom of going to England's aid in WW II.

Bottom line: Train "fundamental dispositions"? Tough! Provide a bushel of useful strategies for working with people and situations? Yup!

To allow myself to lean a little to the "trained" side, I admit that I am trained in part as a Rat Psychologist. (No, alas, I didn't inspire Spencer to write Who Moved My Cheese.) Thence I believe in the primacy of repeated positive reinforcement—even when dispositions are at issue. Get a person hooked on Toastmasters, for instance, and after she or he has declaimed in public 50 times, the "Inherent" Fear of Public Speaking will indeed wane, even if one does not become the next Reagan.

Tom Peters posted this on 12/03/04.

Comments

I think it comes down to personal desire. I can only be trained to the degree that I'm willing to be permeable to change and eager to learn.

Stephen Covey was asked: Can leadership be taught? His answer: No, but it can be learned.

Posted by Evelyn Rodriguez at December 3, 2004 1:26 PM

You can probably take any person and "train" them for any career, but their success and fufillment will likely be tied to the friction between their training and their true self. Really good training will remove the chains created by poor training (the oppressions of childhood, social pressures, corporate culture, etc.) and reveal the natural strengths, weaknesses, passions, and abilities of individuals.

So, maybe good leadership abilities are inherently born into leaders, but they can be covered up or revealed through training.

Posted by Dustin Staiger at December 3, 2004 1:28 PM

we are all born naked wet and hungry.. and things just get worse after that !!! Everyone is born with that skill of leadership in thier own sphere of skills.. a Good Carpenter is a good teacher /leader for woodwork skills.. likewise in any other work env or in life in general.. I think that we are all born with leadership abilities.. but as we grow up..we as human beings either tend to become lazy, demeshed from values and lose the leadership abilities..its easier to follow correct ?? makes life hecka better ..hassle free kinda way of living.... actually its a lot of CYA (cover your A$$) attitude....that breaks the leadership principles, values and abilities.. !!

Posted by /pd at December 3, 2004 3:10 PM

This learning vs. natural talent is a subject I've had strong feelings about since I studied child development in college (a very long time ago). I'm firmly on the side of nature in the nature vs. nurture question. I think people learn most easily what they already have inclinations toward. Kevin Costner once said that he was an indifferent student until he started studying acting, then everything he read on that subject made perfect sense.

I can sew. I can read and understand everything on the subject. How many of you can say the same? Wouldn't you go right off to sleep presented with a treatise on the desirability of French seams? (See, aren't you saying to yourself right now, "What in the world is a French seam?") I can teach you how to sew, but I can't put that inherent understanding into you. Same with guitar playing. (You can become proficient with practice, but become Stevie Ray Vaughn? Not likely.) Golf. (Do you think you can practice your way to Tiger Woods's status? I don't.) Or basketball. (Practice, practice, practice will never make me 1/1,000th the player Michael Jordan is, all 5 feet 3 inches of me.) Even he couldn't turn himself into a baseball player.

So, yes, leadership can be learned, but the learners will always be a bit uncomfortable in the role, I think. The ones who don't come to leadership naturally would have to keep the rules of "how to lead" (whatever they determine those to be) always in mind, and, especially with a good team, do fine.

Posted by cathy at December 3, 2004 3:30 PM

Cathy, I agree with some of your ideas. There are some activities that demand outstanding skills to their performers. You tell people like Michael Jordan who was an amazing performer and no doubt a leader. In this activities to be such a performer you nedd natural born endowments. But one thing is to be a great performer and other different to be the leader. Leading demands a community and you can be a great performer but lack some leading qualities.

On the other side, as leading is a human relationship it demands some traits that can be learnt and some other that are related with the leaders biography and personality development.

The context always plays a role, for some leaders are pushed to lead by their environment while others are desperatly searching for followers.

Posted by felix gerena at December 3, 2004 4:01 PM

On the other side, as leading is a human relationship it demands some traits that can be learnt and some other that are related with the leaders biography and personality development.

The context always plays a role, for some leaders are pushed to lead by their environment while others are desperatly searching for followers.

Posted by felix gerena at December 3, 2004 4:02 PM

Nature vs. nurture. The verdict, by some scientists, is that it's nature AND nurture. Still, the twin studies, where they compare twins separated at birth years later, present compelling evidence to support that nature trumps nurture and some estimate it at 80% to 20%. It doesn't preclude learning as a way to improve on the basics--even to spice up a turnip!
Just like The Greek Oracle at Delphi said: "Self-awareness is key."--are you a turnip or tulip?

Posted by Dr. Pam Brill at December 3, 2004 4:58 PM

Pam, tulips v. turnips reminds me of a favorite Churchill quote: "We're all worms, but I like to think I'm a gloworm." (Or something very close.)

Posted by tom peters at December 3, 2004 5:48 PM

tp: Correct. The british bulldog did say exactly that !! to quote " we are all worm. but I do belive that I am a glow-worm" he remarked to Violet Bonham-Carter. He also said.."Dogs look up at man, Cats look on them but pigs just treat us as equals"..needless to say is Private Secretary once called him a 'rather nice pig in silk suit' when he come out of the bulldogs bedroom !!
solly..this is just off topic posting !! :)-

Posted by /pd at December 3, 2004 7:02 PM

Glowing--now that may equal roaring. It attests to the power of the human psyche to view our own reality with language. Glowworm, roarworm, either way, I'll take it!

Posted by Dr. Pam Brill at December 3, 2004 9:24 PM

Pam, James Hillman wrote a beautiful book some years ago (not his best book but still acceptable) titled "The soulÂ´s code". One of the chapters was called "Neither nature nor nurture, something else". He presented some empirical evidence about differences among twins and people with similar backgrounds but different outputs.

He called for a revaluation of personality according to a symbolic perspective. Each individual can be symbolically represented as something unique, has a daimon or what flamenco players call "duende".

ThatÂ´s perhaps the point leaders are different from other people, for they have "something else".

generic viagra prescription online Posted by felix gerena at December 4, 2004 5:05 AM

I guess I am essentially an existentialist, (Purposeful tongue in cheek contradiction) meaning that I believe that, although we are certainly born with talents and abilities, it is up to us to use those to create our own unique, personal existence. Yes, your talent and abilities have a major bearing on the boundaries of what is possible, but it is personal initiative that creates your eventual reality.

Posted by Steve Yastrow at December 4, 2004 1:41 PM

I think there are knacks we have based on clusters of aptitudes we are born with and instilled with at a very early age. Most of the skills required to manage or lead, beyond the mechanics of organizing information or breaking things down systemically and modularising them so one can turn a big problem into several smaller ones, are not easily teachable.

One of the smartest managers I've ever known, Kay Kendall, also an anthropolologist, used to build what she called "ladders," targeted lessons to raise individuals' particular aptitudes. She suggested, and I agree, that we can't make people natural successes at these things (can't make them taller than they are), but we can build extensions/tools that allow them to succeed (reach as high as a tall person would). So while the manager-with-ladder will never have the effortless, "in the zone" knack for a particular behavior, he can have the tools to recognize the pattern and copy successful behaviors. I believe ecven very successful people need to work on acquiring new ladders, and some successful people are only successful because they have and use their ladder collection, not because they have the natural aptitudes for everything at which they succeed.

Like being a major league hitter, if one already has the aptitudes but isn't achieving, they can be trained; if she doesn't have the underlying aptitudes, she's not going to be successful at a very high level regardless of determination or training skill.

Posted by jeff angus at December 4, 2004 5:42 PM

Thank you, Jeff, I am basking in the delightful image of a major league hitter being a "she"--loving it given that I plan to come back as Wayne Gretzky. Regardless of whether we call it nature or nurture, the power of will to access and be all that we can be is the real key, isn't it? As Jeff says, "even very successful people need to work on acquiring new ladders, and some successful people are only successful because they have and use their ladder collection, not because they have the natural aptitudes for everything at which they succeed." No matter what your ladder looks like or the age of the rungs--use it or lose it.

Posted by Dr. Pam Brill at December 4, 2004 10:48 PM