Anyone can become a great leader with the proper training and environment. Experts tell us this:

• “Leaders are made, not born!”
• “Leadership can be nurtured into existence!”
• “Nature versus nurture? Clearly, nurture wins!”
• “Invest in leadership training and anyone can lead!”

Great advice.

But with thousands of books and trainings on developing leaders, how are the results?

I asked the people who would know  - CEOs. 

Autopsy – Let’s Nurture Some Inconvenient Questions

After a speech where I was presenting early research in this area, a CEO came up and asked, "Have you seen how leadership development programs improve the balance-sheet?"

I said no. 

"Neither have I," he said. "Maybe you should make that your next research project."

I did. 

Many CEOs investing in leadership nurturing programs ended up not being overwhelmed with great leaders in their company.

Why are leadership experts failing to notice this?

No idea. 

But when conducting strategic transformation programs across hundreds of industries, I started asking uncomfortable questions. The conversation always went something like this:

“Have you ever invested in leadership development programs for your organization?” 

“Yes, a lot over the years!” they say.

I then ask, “How many became great leaders that impacted the company’s financial performance, direction, and organizational change?”

Silence.

Then someone timidly says, “Well, there were a few, of course.”

“So you put dozens of managers through the best leadership development programs and you only end up with a few successes?” I ask.

More silence.

Then, the pivotal question, “OK, well, how many of these great leaders did you feel were already great BEFORE the training?” 

 

The reactions more than answered the question.

This drove me to explore whether maybe leaders are born, not made.

"Wow, Don, this new insight must've been welcomed by experts everywhere!"

Really? 

I brought this up while I was working with the former head of the Army War College. "We train the top leaders in the world! We graduate almost 400 annually." When I asked how many of their graduates end up becoming top leaders in the military, he was kind and said, "Ummm, Ok. I see your point."

He was polite. Other institutions just hang up on me. 

So what’s going on?

Busted - Nature Happens

I’m not saying that nurture doesn’t happen. It does. But you also need nature. This is why the notion that anyone can be a leader with the right training is as inaccurate as it is misleading. Research argues that leadership traits and styles are not just learned or influenced by environment; they may also be genetically predetermined to a substantial extent .

So how do we add nature to the nurture soup we’ve been sipping for so long? 

Just add meat (the role of  genes)

A multitude of studies have now moved us beyond this nurturist view.

In January 1999 an article from Twin Research and Human Genetics "Nature vs nurture: Are leaders born or made? A behavior genetic investigation of leadership style"  found many aspects of leadership style inheritable - 48% of the variance in transactional leadership can be explained by genetics, 59% of the variance in transformational leadership may be due to traits that aren't simply the sum of inherited genes but may involve interactions between them. 

Dr. Richard D. Arvey, one of the leading researchers on the genetic basis of leadership, published in Genetics and Organizational Behavior (2006) that genetic factors accounted for 30% of the variance in leadership role occupancy.  "Findings were replicated in another two studies, which
found genetic factors to explain, respectively, 29% and 24% of the variance in leadership role
occupancy (De Neve et al. 2013, Li et al. 2012). In addition, another study (Chaturvedi et al. 2012)
also revealed that genes explained a significant portion of variance for the emergent leadership
behavior (approximately 44% for women and 37% for men)."

One groundbreaking study published in the PMAS Journal "Genetics, leadership position, and well-being: An investigation with a large-scale GWAS" (genome-wide association study) by Zhaoli Song, et al.  found that genetic factors in Twin studies reported a heritability estimate of ∼ 30% for leadership role occupancy.

Another article is referenced in the NIH medical library: Born to Lead? A Twin Design and Genetic Association Study of Leadership Role Occupancy (NIHMSID: NIHMS415600) by Jan-Emmanuel De Neve, et al. estimated the heritability of leadership role occupancy at 24%. Their analysis of the available genetic markers found that leadership role occupancy is associated with rs4950, a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) residing on a neuronal acetylcholine receptor gene (CHRNB3).  The first study to identify a specific genotype associated with the tendency to occupy a leadership position.

it's clear that both nature and nurture are involved in leadership development, but genes provide the underlying foundation.

Leadership training can only enhance a person’s skills within a range of their natural capabilities.

More bluntly and less elegantly, for over 25 years I've been teaching that when it comes to nature or nurture, nature wins. Why? Because nature provides the capacity for nurturing. If it didn’t, all nurturing would fail.

CEOs can smell it

I took this compelling data to my CEO network, many of whom had attended my workshops over the years. Not surprisingly, many could recall natural inclinations toward leadership roles from a young age. "It felt innate, like a part of my DNA," one executive mused. This anecdotal evidence may not be published in scientific journals, but it’s still a vital piece of the puzzle.

Why didn’t we jump on this genetic research earlier?

Someone smarter than me probably knows the answer, but I’m betting on “fear”. Two areas are plausible:

1. Bad genetic science is scary. The early eugenics movement drove us to fear using genetics to define us. According to The National Human Genome Institute (https://www.genome.gov), eugenics was the scientifically erroneous and immoral theory of ‘racial improvement’ and ‘planned breeding’ by using methods such as involuntary sterilization, segregation, and social exclusion. Probably a good idea to be afraid of this.

2. Good genetic science is scary. It’s difficult enough to learn leadership theory without having to also study evidence-based research on the latest discoveries in genetics, evolutionary psychology, and brain science. It’s just easier to take statements out of a best-selling management book where many authors never read the scientific literature but sound smart.

What To Do

Another myth bites the dust, and now we know that leadership isn't all nurture; nature plays a critical role too. So, let’s step back a bit on the theme that “leadership can be taught to anyone.” Leadership isn't just about the environment you’re in; it's also about the genes you were born with.

Here’s a smarter approach:
• Seek the Inheritors: It's OK if you detect those who have a natural inclination toward leadership.

• Sharpen, Don’t Fabricate: Use training programs to sharpen inherent skills rather than trying to instill something that might not be there. Lou Tice pioneered this 50 years ago when he created the concepts Mindset(™)  and "Find Your WHY."

• Be Self-Reflective: If you're already in a leadership role, consider how your innate traits have contributed and focus on honing them.

Share this with your colleagues! 

Get unique speeches and leadership programs for your organization, reach out to Don at [email protected].