Napoleon Bonaparte once said, "Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever." But what is it about human nature that destines some people, like Napoleon, for glory? Is the ability to lead, achieve, and even change the world something that people are born with? Or, is becoming a successful leader something that is acquired over time?
New research
published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology sheds new light
on this age-old question. Researchers at the University of Houston, the
University of Illinois, and the University of Tübingen in Germany compared
personality test results of 1,795 individuals who first completed a personality
test in 1960 (at age 16), and then again in 2010 (at age 66).
The
scientists examined 10 facets of personality, one of which was leadership. The
thought was this: if leaders are, in fact, born, participants' personality test
results at age 16 and 66 should be relatively consistent. However, if leaders
are made, participants should, theoretically, exhibit a sizable increase in
self-reported leadership over the 50-year time horizon.
To assess
the personality dimension of leadership, participants were asked to indicate
their level of agreement with the following statements: (1) "I am the
leader in my group," (2) "I am influential," (3) "I have
held a lot of elected offices," (4) "People naturally follow my
lead," and (5) "I like to make decisions."
Here's what
they found. A large majority of participants, 79% to be exact, showed no
difference in self-reported leadership across the 50-year time horizon. In
other words, almost 80% of people held the same opinion of themselves as a
leader at age 16 that they did at age 66. 17% of individuals reported an
increase in leadership while 4% reported a decrease.
These
numbers may not mean much by themselves, but they speak volumes about the
nature of leadership when compared to the other nine personality dimensions
tested. It turns out that, of the 10 personality dimensions tested, the
leadership dimension was most likely to remain consistent across the lifespan.
For instance, the personality traits of social sensitivity, tidiness,
self-confidence, and calmness all show less than 55% similitude when comparing
participants' 1960 and 2010 results (and an average increase of 42%). In
relation to other personality traits, leadership, it appears, is strikingly
resilient to change across the lifespan.
Returning to
the question of whether leaders are born or made, this study suggests that the
"nativist" argument — that leaders are born, not made — is more
likely to be the case. Of course, that's not to say that there aren't multiple
paths to becoming a great leader. Perhaps Shakespeare came closest to the truth
when he said, "Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have
greatness thrust upon them."
For the
Turkish translation of the article:
Yorumlar
Yorum Gönder