Leaders are born not Made
 

Dear mates !!

lets reach to some conclusion wheter a leader is borne or mAde ????

[B]Many argue that leadership is an inborne quality gifted to few
while the others are of view that a proper course of training makes zero a hero[/B].

what you guys think of it ?????

please give your comments

Leadership is an innate quality but buffed by circumstances and environment!

leadership
 

leadership is blessing but the circumstance round its feature.

Leaders are defintely always borne not made. Leadership is an inborne quality and can only be polished through training or courses and not produced. History is witness of this saying.

Leader are developed
 

Great Man Theory
Trait Theory
Participative Leadership
Situational Leadership
Transactional Leadership
Transformational Leadership

There are various leadership theories. Do these theories still hold good? Do we need to redefine some of the theories with reference to globalization? How will a future leader be identified? What are the basic triats and qualities that would be required to become a leader in the current world?
I think the balance tips over to "leader are made". But there are two manners to get there, that can coexist.

1) The "leader" himself takes action to become leader.
In my opinion, you are born with certain traits which you can develop during life (which is learning) and can then use in leading. Also, you simply learn new methods to lead by.

2) Submissive surroundings more or less force a person with a more dominant apppearance to become a leader.
What I do think, is that several characteristics can make others believe someone to be leader, eventhough this person isn't (Charisma, intelligence, etc).

The question if someone remains a leader for a longer period of time, is determined by the long term acceptance of his leadership by the "submissive party".
In short, that will probably be determined by 1) a more general satisfaction principle (not solely based on the leading) and 2) the chance on potential improvement of that satisfaction by swithching leaders.
Herbert Simon wrote a nice piece on this some time ago in which he proposes a basic model that makes a statistical calculation on salary and management acceptance, if I remember correctly)

On that subject and in addition to Octavia Ballesta's answer: I think GOOD leaders should have a descent amount of empaphy. There's no use in having learned all the "formal" traits needed for leading, if you can't sense the way people want to be managed.
The simple fact is, that all people need to be lead in a specific manner, the key is to be able to sense (per person) what makes him/her "go". One just wants cash, the other needs to be inspired and a third does it all through internal motivation. They all want to be lead differently.

true leader
 

If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.

[B][B]“The most dangerous leadership myth is that leaders are born -- that there is a genetic factor to leadership. This myth asserts that people simply either have certain charismatic qualities or not. That's nonsense; in fact, the opposite is true. Leaders are made rather than born.”[/B][/B]
Warren G. Bennis

A simple question hammers the head,

[B][I][SIZE="3"]If leaders are made by any specific process of education imparted to them,why in the ages centuries back were the remarkable persons featured with leadership qualities who even managed to change the course of history.Their pestoral and tribal mode of life was desperately devoid of the modern training based on scientific theories.Then what made them stand as legendary leaders in their respective erras and history still quotes them for their leadership qualities?[/SIZE][/I][/B]