Who becomes the leaders?

To the editor:
    Leadership has been studied by scholars in many varied fields including the arts, business, education, government, the military, religions, the sciences, the social sciences, and technological areas. Many theories have emerged that explains how leadership manifests itself. We are concerned here with how leadership comes about in the management world.     One theory about leadership states that “Leaders are born.” Certain people are imbued with natural leadership abilities that are detected early on. These abilities are not fully developed early on but are honed with experience. Many people with such skills are never recognized or given opportunities to use their skills. Others choose not to go into careers or life experiences where their natural skills might come to light. “Natural born leaders” make poor teachers of leadership due to their “natural” acquisition of such abilities. These leaders have a difficult time adapting or modifying their approaches to leadership. Scholars who favor this explanation cite Alexander the Great, Leonardo DaVinci and Thomas A. Edison as examples.
    Another leadership theory posts that leadership emerges when individuals exhibit certain traits, intrinsic qualities that leaders possess. There is no uniform list of traits; however, many recent scholars tend to agree on most of them. Specific leadership circumstances require specialized skills not typically on trait lists. According to the trait theory, traits do not come with birth; they are acquired with education/experiences. Scholars who favor this theory often cite Sigmund Freud, father of psychotherapy; Gen. Robert E. Lee, leader of the Confederate Army; and Arturo Toscanini, longtime director of the New York Philharmonic Symphony as examples.
    Yet another leadership theory states that leaders emerge to meet specific demands. It is the specific circumstance that dictates needs that only emergent leaders can and do meet, thus they become leaders. Such unique circumstances requiring specialized leadership skills were: the 1979-80 Iranian hostage crisis; the 2001 911 attack; the 2004 Indonesian tsunami; and the 1982 Tylenol poisoning incident. Each incident presented leadership demands, opportunities, and barriers never before encountered. Adherents to this theory cite President Harry Truman after the death of FDR, Rudy Giuliani after 9-11 and the first responders to the 2004 Indonesian tsunami.
    The last theory mentioned here is one that claims leader can be trained. People with intelligence, high energy, and a good teacher can learn to be a competent leader. Taught leaders generally learn leadership in a cookie cutter, one size fits all way. These leaders need qualified assistants and very tolerant people around them as they learn their surroundings and their cohort. Proponents of this explanation for leadership cite Edwin Land, inventor of the Polaroid Land Camera; Pope Benedict XVI, who was groomed by his predecessor to be Pope; and Emperor PuYi, the last Emperor of China who took the throne at age 8 and learned his duties from those around him as examples.
    No one theory completely explains all leaders. Leadership is too diverse to accommodate rigid theoretical frameworks. Theories do aid in understanding various leaders’ approaches and how different leadership styles emerge. Managers within an organization with multi-style leadership needs need to understand how mixing leadership styles works.
    One frequent, major fallacy occurs germane to leadership competence. That fallacy is to assume that an individual who is competent in one area or in one location will therefore be competent in another area or place is often a serious error of judgment. Exigency circumstances, personnel, timing, and personalities can clash to cause short-term or long-term problems for new leaders. Internal and external leaders also have variant problems to face. No leaders have a cake walk.