Is Leadership Inborn?
I was chatting with someone recently and the issue of leadership was mentioned. This person belong to the group of people who believe or think leadership is inborn. Literally, it means some people were born to be leaders!
I have in the past written about purposeful existence, not because i do not believe in a purposeful life but because that assumption is 'wrong'. It begged the question regarding the BEING of God. It raises question of partiality, segregation and inequality which negates the BEING of the Supreme Being.
The idea that anything is inborn suggest innatism which has many flaws. I do not believe anything in us is innate because if it is, we should know them ordinarily without going to school to learn them or be reminded of them as Plato and Socrates claimed.
Leadership come with many responsibilities. These responsibilities shaped the thinking and behavior of the leader in question. Just as Karl Marx had right argued that the material condition of every society determines everything and how things are done, it suffice to say that the material condition make these people attain the statuses of leaders.
Most of the popular leaders that did 'great' things become leaders by virtue of their material conditions. It is either their people were exploited, enslaved or treated unequally. This literally make some people to lead. In the course of leading, some became more aggressive than the other, some are calmer and some simply use reason to execute judgement. This is seen as things unfold. In the process, one member takes front line role and gradually people put responsibilities on his shoulders. These responsibilities become his guide. He becomes the figure of the people or group. He watches what he does or say because a wrong step would mean their doom.
If he ignores these responsibilities and his action brings negative consequences, he stopped being a leader to the general public. This is because they expect him to be responsible.
It is also possible to translate 'leadership is inborn' to mean some people are born into royal homes. So by virtue of that, the person is born a leader. Do not forget that many of these people do not exhibit the quality of a true leader which is 'responsibility'. Most cases, they act to defend the kingdom by sacrificing many 'innocent' people. Not all born of a royal blood are truly royal!
On the part of God, it suggests He created certain people specifically to be leaders and by virtue of that He has made some people to serve that. This suggests that their footsteps, decisions and everything they do is being guided by the Supreme Being.
This begged the question of ‘all man were created equal’. It also begged the idea of human freedom! That certain people were born leaders from birth suggest they have a determined destiny which i find very difficult to agree with. In fact the whole idea of a predetermined existence negate freewill!
Different questions could be raised even more than the ones I raised above and their answers would beg the question. Do not forget that as a philosopher, my interest is about raising fundamental questions on the subject matter rather than answering the questions raised!
Leaders are made by what they see, experienced, read and the material condition of their existence. It is possible that their consciousness is woken by the material condition of the people around them but that they have this innate gift to be a leader sound absurd!
In reality, nobody is born a leader but a leader can be born from an individual!
Thanks for reading. Your boy @smyle the philosopher
Posts like this makes it difficult for me to dislike your works @smyle...always thought provoking! But bro is philosophy this confusing? More confusing for me is what you called your actual role and limitation as a philosopher: "to raise fundamental questions rather than answering them"? So who will I turn to?
I had questions... I need answers!
A very great work bro... Keep it up!
lols! Philosophers raise fundamental questions and open the readers to more possibilities. What 'we' wont do is to tell you this is an answer to anything! In philosophy, every issue is an 'open ending' one. Meaning there is another flaws in it that another observer will see. This is why thesis gets anti-thesis and anti-thesis gets synthesis. In the end, this synthesis also becomes another thesis because someone somewhere will open it to possibilities. This will in turn give birth to another anti-thesis and possibly in ad-infinitum.
The point is, we do not appreciate dogmatism. So we always want people to explore and reflect on things. So i am not saying i am right with my writeup above. The writeup is nothing but a possibility - it has flaws which readers need to point out.
Thanks for your time brother!
I totally agree with you. Whether or not a person becomes a leader or not depend totally on the upbringing. Which is the first agent responsible for knowledge then the society then teach. Although experience, which is the best teacher may remould a person view about life.
Thank you! Experience as the best teacher? I disagree dear!
i have upvote your post. greeting
by @said-nuruzzaman..
I disagree with you on this one smyle. People are born with and without certain character traits. Leaders have specific traits that people respect. People can change their habits and develop personality traits over time, but in the same way people are funny, shy, deceitful, etc., as children, people can be born with the character of a leader.
Saying people can be born with the character of a leader means you have already summed up in totality what the characters of a leaders are and once anybody exhibits these characters, then the person is a leader! It is funny you know?
There is no holistic characters of leaders such that these characters define them. These leaders are first human before what they show to the people. Just like we do not have single human nature, we cannot have specific traits of leaders! What we call trait are similarities and differences we have seen these 'leaders' exhibited in the past. Behaviour changes has you rightly noted so nothing says these people will have 1 thing that defines them.
They are not born! I still stand by my point that they are made based on experiences, material condition which affects their people, people around them or the helpless. This is borne out of consciousness.
Thanks!
I think when people say that leadership is inborn, they mean that there are some set of people who leads better than others even when all of them received the same type of training event at the same place and time.
Your view looks better! Some have superior intuition more than the other then. It becomes a matter of intuition rather than 'inborn'!
Of a point you made mention here. It was at the olden era that Leadership is inborn e.g. A king. But for nowadays era.. Leadership can be made. Neither through who you maybe to the society, or through Democracy exercise or through corruption,e.g. taking it by force. It all depends. Good post bro
Thank you for your contribution.
not really, way to many people are just MUCH too afraid to think for themselves and want others to do the thinking for them. That is why the world has a top 1% owning all the so-called wealth.
With freedom comes responsibility. Most people do not understand that when giving away one's consent for the sake of security, bad things are going to happen. Leadership has always been a deception. The world has never been as much corrupt as it is today.
Power is just evil and requires order followers. That is why we have standing armies. Killing by government must be abolished because people are used as pawns on a big chess game.