The State of Leadership Theory and Training Today

Daniel E. Maltby, Ph.D.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are leaders born or made? This question continues to dominate the study of leadership
today. Volumes of research have been written. But there is little to no conclusive evidence
either way. The topic of leadership remains elusive.

However some of the contributing factors or origins of leadership have become clearer
with 50 years or more of study. While no predictive model exists, we know something
about "what leads to leadership."

One difficulty in discussing the topic is definition. Burt Nanus and Warren Bennis report
some three hundred and fifty definitions of "leadership" that leadership researchers have
generated over the last thirty years.1 Jay Conger follows John Kotter's lead by defining
leadership with three dimensions:

Leaders are individuals who establish direction for a working group of individuals, who
gain commitment (Kotter: "aligning") from these group members to this direction, and
who then motivate these members to achieve the direction's outcomes.2

This definition is broad enough to allow for a wide variety of leader behavior. For
example, setting direction can range from establishing strategic direction for the
corporation to setting daily production goals for a team or individuals. Secondly, a leader
need not exercise all three elements to be a leader in the eyes of others. Leaders can be
found all over organizations fulfilling one or all of these roles.

Developing some clarity about the "born-or-made?" debate is essential to a discussion of

leadership training. The current consensus is that it is both. In a majority of cases,
genetics and early family experiences play the significant role in developing the
personality and character needs that motivate the individual to lead. They also contribute
to the development of the intellectual and interpersonal skills necessary to lead.

But the majority of researchers today believe that the origins of leadership go beyond
genes and family to other sources. Work experiences, hardship, opportunity, education,
role models and mentors all go together to craft a leader. An important assumption in this
theory is that the raw material essential in people in order to lead is not scarce. Rather, the
lack of needed leaders is a reflection of neglected development rather than a dearth of
abilities.

Current research suggests that experiences on the job play an important catalytic role in
unlocking leader behavior.3 There seems to be no substitute for learning through doing,
making mistakes and improving with time. Kotter surveyed two hundred executives at
highly successful companies and interviewed twelve individuals in depth. He concluded
that early in their careers his leaders had opportunities to lead, to take risks and to learn
from their successes and failures. He specifically identified the following as important
developmental opportunities: (1) challenging assignments early in a career, (2) visible
leadership role models who were either very good or very bad, (3) assignments that
broadened knowledge and experience, (4) task force assignments, (5) mentoring or
coaching from senior executives, (6) attendance at meetings outside a person's core
responsibility, (7) special development jobs (executive assistant jobs, (8) special projects,
and (9) formal training programs.4

From these studies certain types of work experiences emerge as the primary
developmental forces behind leadership. For example, challenging and multi-functional
work assignments taught self-confidence, toughness, persistence, knowledge of the
business, skill in managing relationships, a sense of independence, and leadership.
Hardship taught personal limits and strengths, while success bred confidence and an
understanding of one's distinct skills. Diversity in experiences developed breadth and
different bosses modeled values and taught key lessons. This mix set the stage for
leadership ability to take hold.

Opportunity cannot be overlooked. Frequently circumstances beyond all of the players'

control led to opportunity for leadership to emerge.

Thus, leadership must still be understood as a complex equation of birth and early
childhood factors, shaped by later life experiences and opportunity.

Conger and others in the "leadership is learned" (to some degree) school see opportunity
in two lights. There is the opportunity of unforseeable circumstances mentioned above
and there is the opportunity that can be designed and managed by those responsible for
leader development. But he cautions that the best designed programs of leadership
development - whatever their structure or intensity - are contingent on the motivational
desire of the candidates. It appears that many gifted leaders choose not to lead when
given the opportunity. The price is too great, the timing not right, the rewards too small
and they settle for something else.5

Elements of leadership can be taught. But to be successful, training must be designed to

(1) develop and refine certain of the teachable skills, (2) improve the conceptual abilities
of managers, (3) tap individuals' personal needs, interests, and self-esteem, and (4) help
managers see and move beyond their interpersonal blocks.

The leadership training programs now available throughout the U.S. (and the world) can
be broken down into a similar four emphases. Each of the leading companies providing
leadership development seems to emphasize one of the following four factors over the
others (though all tend to include some aspects of the other three as well): (1) leadership
skills development, (2) conceptual thinking, (3) personal growth experiences, or (4)
feedback.