What do you believe in?

Are leaders born or made?

How does the skills approach help answer this?

Why does nature versus nurture matter in this context?

Those are great questions, and hopefully I will answer all of them over the course of the next few paragraphs. I want to start by diving into the skills approach. So what is it? Basically, the skills approach is the idea that a person must possess a certain set of abilities in order to operate as a leader (Northouse, 2019, p. 68). Specifically, the abilities are not traits, but instead behaviors. Such behaviors would ideally allow them to act appropriately in accordance with their situation. The skills approach parallels the nature versus nurture debate in that their key terms share similar definitions, each concept as a whole encountered similar misconceptions and a middle ground has been found in each of the respective areas of study.

To begin, the skills approach has been around for nearly a century. Robert Katz is the person who is credited with being the first to present this idea (Northouse, 2019, p. 43). In 1995, he published his research on skills in the Harvard Business Review under the title of “Skills of an Effective Administrator” (Northouse, 2019, p.43). He was seeking skills that could be taught or developed in order to create leaders (Northouse, 2019, p.43). The skills he defined include technical, human and conceptual (Northouse, 2019, pp. 44-45). In brief, these are skills that involve the skills of knowing how to use tools and processes, the ability to work with people and understanding ideas and thought processes (Northouse, 2019, pp. 44-45). At the time, the popular idea was that leaders were born, not made (PSU WC, 2021, L.4).

Furthermore, the definitions of the skills approach are crucial for the purpose of comparing the two concepts at hand. Based on chapter one, a trait is an inborn characteristic (Northouse, 2019, p. 7). It is again defined in chapter three, and this time as who a leader is, what they are made of, their inborn characteristics (Northouse, 2019, p. 43). Whereas a behavior is something that can be learned (PSU WC, 2021, L. 4). Again, the skills approach examines this in light of the idea that leaders can be made.

Equally important are the definitions of the concept of the nature versus nurture debate. The idea of nature versus nurture came into play in the mid-1800s by Francis Galton (Pain, 2013). This concept can be defined as the debate of whether a person’s genetics or upbringing and culture determine the person’s behavior (McLeod, 2018). In the context of this article, I am proposing that an individual’s leadership traits are much like their nature, innate and part of who they are. On the other hand, an individual’s behaviors are much like their nurture, taught or modeled and learned over time.

Early on in the development of both the skills approach and the nature versus nurture debate, there were misconceptions that arose. Most notably for the skills approach was the idea that leaders were only born, never made (PSU WC, 2021, L4). Similarly, in the beginnings of behavior study psychologists thought behaviors were only controlled by genetics. It was not until later that either party took behavior or environment into consideration, let alone thinking they were relevant. Thus, the skills approach and the nature versus nurture debate were born.

Consider this example, intelligence is generally thought of as a relatively fixed trait (Weingberg, 1989, p.101). For the sake of simplicity, we will assume that it is; although, it could host a debate of nature versus nurture of its own. Regardless, there is a correlation between high intelligence quotients (IQ) and leadership abilities (Schmidt & Hunter, 2004, pp. 163 -166). Considering this, based on the nature (genetic) perspective and the misconceptions of leadership, a person born with a high IQ has it in their blood to become a leader. Based on these same principles, a person born with a low IQ stands no chance of holding a leadership role.

Alternatively, if we consider the nurture and behavior aspect, there is a completely different outcome. The same individual with a high IQ can still become a leader. Next, we will contrast this with the individual who has a low IQ. Under these circumstances, of nature (environment) and behavior, the low IQ individual can learn leadership skills such as the technical, human and conceptual ones that Katz (1995) defined (Northouse, 2019, pp. 44-45). Developing these skills could be done in order to make up for their area of weakness, which in this case is intelligence (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001, p. 27). Doing so would allow them to still go on to be a leader.

Since the 19th and 20th centuries, the misconceptions of the skills approach and the nature versus nurture debate have been almost entirely refuted. That does not mean there are no camps for the various sides of each concept, but most people and researchers tend to find a middle ground (Gruber, 2013 & Northouse, 2019, p. 68). For the skills approach, researchers admit individuals can be born with innate leadership traits (Northouse, 2019, p. 43). Additionally, they acknowledge that skills can be developed to better a “born” leader or to develop a potential leader (Northouse, 2019, p. 54). Likewise, most professionals profess that genetics lays the groundwork for a person’s behavior, while also acknowledging the importance that environment plays as well (Gruber, 2013).

The skills approach parallels the nature versus nurture debate, as their key terms share similar definitions, they each had similar misconceptions and have been able to find middle ground within their respective studies since the time of their establishments. As mentioned, these concepts have their similarities, yet they hold a very different range of applications. The skills approach may be limited to military scenarios, as that is the context most of its research was performed under (Northouse, 2019, p. 59). On the other hand, the nature versus nurture debate can be applied to a wide range of behavioral observations from empathy to anger issues. The skills approach is a newer concept, and it holds the potential to follow in similar footsteps of the older, nature versus nurture debate. Perhaps it will one day be as widely known and recognized.

 

References

Buckingham, M. & Clifton, D. O. (2001). Now, discover your strengths. The Free Press.

Gruber, T. R. (2013). Nature, nurture and knowledge acquisition. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 71(2), 191-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2012.10.004

McLeod, S. (2018). Nature vs. nurture in psychology. Simply Psychology.https://www.simplypsychology.org/naturevsnurture.html

Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Introduction (p. 7). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Skills approach (pp. 43-68). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Pain, B. J. (2013). Nature and nurture. (M. Serpell, Ed.). British Journal of Pain. Sage Publications. 10.1177/2049463713507019

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2021). PSYCH 485 Lesson 4: Skills approach. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2132629/modules/items/32790541

Schmidt, F. L. & Hunter, J. (2004). General mental ability in the world of work: Occupational attainment and job performance. American Psychologist Association. 10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.162

Weingberg, R. A. (1989). Intelligence and IQ: Landmark issues and great debates. American Psychologist Association

In today’s world, just about everyone has access to endless amounts of knowledge and it is right at our fingertips. The growing use of the internet in our daily lives has made learning and becoming educated easier than ever. However, just because it is there does not mean people are going to take advantage of it. With such ready access to an infinite supply of knowledge, anyone has the ability to form an opinion on any matter, at any time. To some, this is an overwhelming concept to think about, while others feed on the ability to know more and do more. The latter are leaders. The following paragraphs will break leadership down into bite sized pieces in order to provide better understanding of the interactions and outcomes between leaders and followers.  

The definition of a leader is as follows, one who guides, is in command, in the position of influence or in a position of importance (Webster’s Dictionary, p. 165). On the other end of the spectrum is a follower, which is defined as, a person who supports and is guided by another person (Webster’s Dictionary, p. 131). Notice that one cannot be a leader without something to lead, and one cannot follow without one who leads. This seems obvious, yes, so what lies below the surface that separates a leader from a follower? 

A difficulty of studying leadership is measuring what it takes to be a good leader. Leaders generally have characteristics such as integrity, self-control, decisiveness, humility, being respectable. All of these are true and it is no one thing that makes a leader. As part of my leadership research, I spoke with a wise woman and a strong leader who I know well, Brittney Howard. She and I have narrowed down what it ultimately takes to be a leader into two things. The two key characteristics that separate the leaders from the followers are mindset and willingness to learn.

It is important to keep in mind that these characteristics mean nothing if they are not coupled with action. A couple of my favorite traits of leadership are Stogdill’s (1974) vigor and persistence (Northouse, 2019, p. 20). I believe that when a person combines vigor, persistence, a strong mindset and willingness to learn, anything is possible for them. These traits, when applied, open the door for an individual to find success in all of their endeavors. Of course, that is assuming they apply themselves and commit to the process.

There it is again though, that qualifying condition, taking action. John Maxwell, a highly respected and admired leadership coach and speaker. In his book from 2020, “Success is a Choice,” Maxwell elaborates on the actions and 14 different choices that need to be made in order to achieve success. I believe they are all important, but in the context of focusing on followership, cultivating good relationships and committing to responsibility are probably the most important.

In reality, these two choices and actions go hand in hand. However, I believe committing to responsibility should come first. In doing so a person builds up their own reputation. They become recognized as a person that can be counted on (Maxwell, 2020, p. 162). When done consistently that person is then recognized for their solidity. In turn, this makes the second action of choosing to cultivate quality relationships much easier. Trust is a two-way street in relationships, so having a solid reputation makes it easier to gain trust.

As mentioned before, there are no leaders without followers. In the past, followers were often considered in the realms of leadership research (Northouse, 2019, p.293). In hindsight, such ignorance is rather foolish. Followers are no different than leaders, they bring strengths, unique characteristic expectations and other behaviors to the table. Followers play their own role in the process of leadership. Specifically, followers get to learn from, support and challenge leaders, not to mention they get the work done (Northouse, 2019, p.306). For these reasons, they are equally important as leaders.

So why mention all of that? Well, leaders and followers both influence each other, like a feedback loop. It comes back to Maxwell’s (2020) choices of cultivating good relationships and committing to responsibility (pp. 143-158). After acknowledging the importance of followers, a leader is more likely to make these choices. These choices will lead to a higher quality leadership, then a higher quality of followers, which will then lead to a higher quality of followership (PSU WC, 2021, L. 3). In total, the higher followership will produce the return of higher results, which can ideally be measured as success.

References

Maxwell, J.C. (2020). Success is a choice (pp. 143 -158). HarperCollins Leadership

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2021). PSYCH 485 Lesson 1: Introduction to Leadership. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2132629/modules/items/32790500

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2021). PSYCH 485 Lesson 3: Followership. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2132629/modules/items/32790532

Webster. (2006). Follower. In The new international Webster’s standard dictionary (p. 131). Trident Reference Publishing.

Webster. (2006). Leader. In The new international Webster’s standard dictionary (p. 165). Trident Reference Publishing.