The debate about whether great leaders are born or made seems about as old as time itself, with those on both sides of the fence seldom seeming to make a truly compelling argument either way.
A recent study from Stirling University lends a little weight to the argument that leadership is something that emerges very early on in life. The authors found that the scores in cognitive tests at the age of 10 can provide a strong indicator of leadership potential later in life.
“The results suggest that early individual differences in childhood general cognitive ability may profoundly shape trajectories of leadership across working life,” the authors say.
Why leadership emerges early on in life
The study saw children of 10 and 11 take tests designed to measure their reasoning, verbal skills and cognitive abilities. From their 20s onwards, each participant was then tested again every 10 years to discover how their lives and careers were developing, and in particular whether they were managing large teams or not.
The results revealed that children with higher scores for cognitive ability were significantly more likely to go on to hold leadership positions as adults.
“It appears that the predisposition towards effective reasoning and problem solving in childhood continues into adulthood and acts to foster leadership potential including the ability to supervise and manage large numbers of subordinates,” the authors say.
The study revealed a degree of self-perpetuation at play. Higher cognitive ability at 10 years tended to result in higher educational attainment, which in turn raised the possibility of obtaining a managerial position as an adult.
“The greater attainment and skill development associated with high levels of education appeared to be recognized by employers and partially explained why such children went on to leadership roles,” they say.
The leadership gap
Interestingly however, this was not found to be anywhere near as prominent in women, who ‘graduated’ to leadership roles at a much lower rate regardless of how strong they were in the initial cognitive test.
It might seem a natural connection to make and intuitive that smart children would graduate towards advanced careers. Previous studies have found little to underpin such a heuristic however.
With this paper tracking participants over four decades it provides a unique insight into the situation, and the extended timeframe may go some way to explaining why the study found things that others have not.
It does suggest however that we may be able to detect potential leaders much earlier than previously thought.
I remember reading a while back that it's possible to determine leadership traits in children of a few years of age. You know, that they quickly emerge as leaders in their social groups even at a young age.
Yes, I've seen similar studies. Certainly interesting and gives a degree of credence to the 'leaders are born' theory, although it is of course a degree more complex than that.
All arguments are validate until you add the qualifier "great". Greatness requires a great challenge and many fine/good leaders never encounter one of those. Washington did. So did Lincoln and Churchill. Each was tested in a great conflict and each rose to the challenge. That's what made them great. Disney was a great leader. He also faced great challenges and rose to them. Thus, not all great challenges come in war. Conflict, great conflicts can be found elsewhere.