Are leaders born or made? Should we even be asking the question?

We often talk about natural or “born leaders.” And there are persons with innate leadership traits to be sure. But no leader worth his or her salt exists without training and conditioning. And no leader will ever grow without experience and, yes, refining in the furnace of challenge and crisis.

So let’s get to the question, or – if you will – the debate. Perhaps there are variables that suggest some leaders are born to lead. But according to at least one expert, the born-vs.-made debate is fraught with problems for both those who will be led and the organization as a whole; and we’ll address those problems in a bit.

THE SO-CALLED BORN LEADER

We first begin to recognize leaders among our contemporaries as children in the schoolyard. Always there are one or two kids who immediately “assume command.” For them, leadership seems so effortless. That’s because children who lead are indeed born-leaders for lack of a better term. At the schoolyard level, that’s all they really can be. But the child-leader is born-to-lead only in a primal and frequently very temporary sense.

The child-leader is almost always the one imbued with the greatest spirit of adventure and daring. He is often the best-looking, the most-athletic, and the quickest-thinking (though not necessarily the most intellectually gifted) kid on the playground. The child-leader is usually, though not always, a boy (for reasons that will be more evident momentarily). And the child-leader seems to demonstrate a form of leadership that is innate and natural. But that naturalness has little to do with the child’s leadership skills. It is more a product of the fact that the child-leader is blessed with certain charismatic gifts beyond those of his peers.

Moreover, most of the other children – unsure of themselves in environs beyond their own backyards and neighborhoods – have a far greater desire to conform than to lead. They have not yet learned to tap into their own gifts. And it is much easier to follow than it is to accept responsibility in any form.

But as I’ve said, the child-as-leader is only a temporary phenomenon.

The child-leader retains his command only to the point of the first crisis; someone gets hurt or sick, or a rock or a baseball breaks a window. That’s when the absolute authority – the teacher, the yard mother, or any other nearby responsible adult – takes command.

As the child-leader moves into young adulthood, however, the debate-focus shifts to include the followers, a greater appreciation for some of the innate characteristics we might find in the child-follower, and a look-see at what happens in the leadership-development pipeline (and not just on the front-end).

THE RIGHT STUFF 

Leadership expert Dr. Ronald E. Riggio says the born vs. made debate is actually a little “dangerous.”

Writing for Psychology Today, Riggio – who has written a number of books and scholarly pieces on the subject – says, “The answer is that executives who believe that leaders are born, give less attention to leader development, both their own personal development as well the development of those they lead. They are focused on selecting leaders with the ‘right stuff,’ and expecting that those leaders’ natural abilities will mean organizational success. But nothing could be further from the truth.”

Riggio adds, “Sure, selection is important, but good leader development efforts are more important.”

Yet in a struggling economy, leadership-development programs are usually among the first to get the axe.

“It’s usually more cost-effective to grow your company’s leaders in-house rather than focusing on hiring the proven (and born) leaders from outside,” he says. “So greater, not fewer, resources should go into leader development.”

ADDITIONAL DANGERS 

Another reason the born vs. made question is “dangerous,” says Riggio lies in the fact that innate – or so-called born – leadership qualities may only surface through a period of conditioning.

Riggio points to a study conducted wherein his research team examined “the relationship between extraversion and leader emergence in a longitudinal sample of ordinary people.” What the study determined was that extraverts demonstrated greater leadership “potential” than introverts, especially on the front end of the leadership pipeline. But when the study looked at social skills – which most of us rightly assume are skills mastered through grooming and conditioning – only those extraverts who had mastered the social skills emerged as leaders. Therefore, extraversion – though it may be an in-born leadership advantage – is no real advantage unless the extravert also develops the ability to communicate effectively.

In other words, a person may be an extraverted, outgoing, life-of-the-party type – and that personality trait may have served them well as a child-leader in the schoolyard – but that same trait will do nothing for the individual as a leader on the battlefield or in the boardroom unless the person also has been taught to speak and otherwise communicate with great effect and authority. And that’s just one piece of it.

WHAT ABOUT INTROVERTS? 

None of this is to suggest that introverts have no chance of becoming leaders? They do. In fact, introverts – though they may not attract as much attention on the front-end of the pipeline as their extraverted brethren – have their own quiet tools which extraverts would do well to acquire.

Just like extraverts are generally praised for their energy, assertiveness, risk-taking, and surges of emotion, adrenaline, and explosive creativity (and yes, these traits count just as much on the back-end of the pipeline as they do on the front-end); there also are lots of traits generally associated with introverts that are critical characteristics for any good leader.

Traits normally associated with introverts include the myriad intellectual gifts, as well as social intelligence, emotional stability, temperance, responsibility, empathy, and the seemingly innate ability to always put others ahead of oneself. Aha! We’re getting back to the great military leadership maxim I’m constantly referring to – The mission first. Then the men (or the men always). Lastly, me.

To boil it all down, most experts will tell you that real leaders are made not born, and the proof of this lies within the world’s greatest leaders, most of whom became leaders through some measure of conditioning and experience.

Sure, there are guys and gals genetically gifted with more charisma and greater daring than their peers. But far too often these guys and gals never build on what God has given them. They have too much for their egos to handle on the front end, and are spoiled by it. They put themselves ahead of others because they wrongly see themselves as being superior to others. And because they don’t make the effort to develop within themselves that which they don’t yet have – because they think they already have it all – they are destined for a life of mediocrity and unfulfilled dreams.

Stay with us. There’s so much more, including a great deal more on leadership development and the born vs. made debate. Previous Leadership 101 pieces are available here. If you have questions or suggestions, I’m at marine1@uswriter.com.

– W. Thomas Smith Jr. is a former U.S. Marine rifle-squad leader and counterterrorism instructor who writes about military/defense issues and has covered conflict in the Balkans, on the West Bank, in Iraq and Lebanon. He directs the U.S. Counterterrorism Advisory Team. He is the author of six books, and his articles appear in a variety of publications. Smith’s website is uswriter.com.

At this moment, for example, in 1984 (if it was 1984), Oceania was at war with Eurasia and in alliance with Eastasia. In no public or private utterance was it ever admitted that the three powers had at any time been grouped along different lines. Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge, which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore, Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia.

Just as Oceania did in the book, the U.S. has fought prolonged conflicts with unclear objectives.

Now, the U.S. draws another parallel from Orwell’s classic: a sudden, unexplained shift in the status of the conflict and our enemy. Last week, a State Department member had this to say to The National Journal:

“The War on Terror is over. Now that we have killed most of al Qaeda, now that people have come to see legitimate means of expression, people who once might have gone into al Qaeda see an opportunity for legitimate Islamism.”

It seems that our politicians have decided that the war is no longer politically expedient and that some of our enemies (enemies by their own declaration) can legitimately pursue their objectives.

The State Department official must feel our memories are sufficiently “under control.” It unfortunately appears as if they are partially correct, at least with a large enough portion of the population to make the case stick.

But how is the War on Terror over? We didn’t officially declare the war and we can’t decide when the actual struggle will end. So how do we, by a simple declaration, make it go away? We tried this once before in 1973 with Vietnam. That war did eventually halt – two years later. The communists won.

Our military has significantly weakened al Qaeda, but wars aren’t won on simple majorities. And declaring war solely on al Qaeda makes just as much sense as declaring war on Japan’s 1st Air Fleet after the attack on Pearl Harbor, then saying it was over when we sank most of that fleet’s carriers during the Battle of Midway in June, 1942. We had a lot of war left at that point. And we still do – whether our president wants to fight it or not.

Wars don’t just end in the real world; they have winners and losers. How is our government defining victory, defeat, and a number of other important principal concepts? What exactly do they mean by “legitimate Islamism”? Shouldn’t our supposed watchdogs in the media be asking these questions? Where is our mass media in all this and to whom is their allegiance given? Questions with questionable answers loom everywhere in this public arena debate.

Oceania’s government eliminated critical thinking – even going to the extent of rewriting the language to exert total control over the population. Since becoming president, Barack Obama has gradually attempted to shift our understanding of our enemy to fit his political agenda – from sanitizing government lexicon and counterterrorism training programs of anything critical of Islam to diverting attention from obvious jihad-inspired domestic terrorist attacks. Our government must think that (to paraphrase Mark Steyn) Allahu Akbar is Arabic for nothing to see here.

Whoever controls the language controls the debate. In Oceania, undesirable thoughts became “thought crime,” Undesirable individuals became “nonpersons.” In reality, we have hate crimes and Islamophobia. The 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference is attempting to make anything unpalatable to Islam a global crime. Surely this must be one of the legitimate Islamist groups the Obama official was referring to.

Exactly where does our government draw the line between a legitimate Islamist and an Islamist targeted by a Predator missile? The Muslim Brotherhood – likely one of the so-called legitimate Islamist movements – was banned in Egypt, a nation of 90 percent Muslims. Their own people wouldn’t engage them, why should we?

The means the Muslim Brotherhood employs to accomplish an agenda may vary from that of al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and the Taliban, but the end result is the same. It’s as if the State Department bargained with the Islamists, coming to an agreement that they can subjugate the U.S. – provided they do it in a more politically correct fashion.

In Nineteen Eighty-Four, perpetual war served the state’s interests. In an increasingly Orwellian United States, appeasement serves our state’s interests. So much so that our leaders must rewrite reality in order to fit the narrative they have created. Our enemies have not compromised. They have not conceded any ground. They are still on the offensive. Al Qaeda may have been weakened, but the jihadist ideology that spawned that terror group – and many others – has not been weakened.

It seems that today, the enemy is only an enemy until it is no longer advantageous to political re-election campaigns to be an enemy. Declaring a non-declared war “over” after killing “most” of one particular branch of our enemy and then carving out a portion of the enemy as “legitimate” only furthers President Obama’s political agenda. We deserve better.

British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill, arguably one of the greatest leaders in recorded history, valued time more than any other resource available to him. Churchill embraced time, never wasting an hour – often to the detriment of his health – and he refused to tolerate procrastination in any form, at any level, from any of his subordinates. He knew full-well procrastination meant failure and death; particularly in the time in history in which he was operating.

At some point in 1941, during the second year of Britain’s direct-involvement in World War II, Churchill began forwarding documents, dispatches, and memoranda affixed with a red sticker (similar to our modern day sticky notes) on which he had written three simple words, “ACTION THIS DAY.” This he did for the remainder of the war.

Time in war – just as time is in all high-stakes endeavors – is frequently that which decides the fate of nations. Sounds a bit dramatic, but it’s true. All truly great commanders and other leaders factor in the variable of time with the related variables of space, terrain, economy, chance, opportunity, risk, surprise, destiny and others. And time is always the most important variable.

When we look at the principles of war (which we will examine in greater detail in a forthcoming lesson) – depending on what nation’s principles – we see that time is either a principle, a sub-principle, or it is an unwritten absolute always factoring into a principle.

TIME IS the phantom cost 

Napoleon, at the height of a battle in 1803, purportedly said to a courier (just before sending that courier off with a message for one of his subordinate commanders), “Go, sir, gallop, and don’t forget the world was made in six days. You may ask me for anything you like except time.”

Napoleon knew – just as Churchill knew 138-142 years later – that a minute lost is a precious minute of living, of breathing, of thinking, of activity, and of direct action against the enemy that can never be regained.

“Time is the phantom cost,” says S.C. Comptroller General Richard Eckstrom; commander of the S.C. State Guard, a former state treasurer, and retired Naval Intelligence officer.

Eckstrom is right. Though followers – and those destined for either loss or a life of always-following – have the luxury of ignoring time; we leaders must never deny the so-called “phantom cost.” We have to acknowledge the criticality of time. We have to place the highest premium on time’s infinite value.

PROCRASTINATION

Procrastination, defined simply as “putting off intentionally the doing of something that should be done,” is the great and irresponsible violation of time.

Procrastination for a leader is nothing less than the disregarding of opportunity, the irresponsible mismanagement of assets and the negligence of people. It is no less ruinous to a leader as are cowardice, abandonment, and theft.

As leaders we don’t need a military academy or business school background to teach us how to embrace time and avoid procrastination. We may however need a reminder and a renewed vow to ourselves – and those for whom we are responsible – that we will never violate the adage we learned as children – “Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today.”

An appreciation of time is both simple and essential.

PRESENCE

Just as time is simple and essential, so is the presence of the leader.

Presence is simply we – as leaders – being there always, out in front and at our best.

As I mentioned in our discussion of Crisis Leadership [see http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/16/leadership-101-crisis-leadership/], U.S. Marine Maj. Gen. James E. Livingston, a Medal of Honor recipient, tells us that in a crisis the combat commander must be seen by his men.

“The physical presence of the commander is important, particularly when it gets tough,” says Livingston.

But the men cannot simply see their leader; they have to see IN their leader, strength of character – courage, ability, and cheeriness – and, yes, physical strength and good looks.

This doesn’t mean all leaders are – or must be – Olympic-class athletes or Hollywood handsome. But it does mean followers do not want to be led by Sad Sack or Gen. Halftrack.

APPEARANCE IS IMPORTANT

The leader – no matter what age or gender (or profession or volunteer activity in which he or she is leading) – needs to be as fit as possible (as fit the individual leader can reasonably expect to be given his or her physical circumstances).

The leader needs to be clean and well-groomed, even when conditions are not conducive to cleanliness. It’s amazing how the presence and encouraging words of a smiling officer – just after shaving in cold water and changing into a fresh shirt, even in a remote jungle environment where malaria, enemy snipers and shelling were a constant threat – often changed the dynamics of a battle-weary infantry unit during World War II.

The leader needs to demonstrate mastery in his (or her) skillsets and confidence in his abilities (skills and abilities, like physical fitness, are accomplished by ongoing training and conditioning).

And the leader needs to be out-front with his shoulder to-the-wheel just like everyone else; never asking – much less demanding – that anyone do that which the leader himself would not do.

We all remember the story of Gen. George Washington who – when he rode along his lines and saw his exhausted men digging trenches – dismounted, removed his coat, rolled up his sleeves, grabbed a pick and began digging with the men. The pure inspiration this act engendered among the rank-and-file was immeasurable, which is why the anecdote has survived to this day.

Presence is vital, but, again, the present-and-visible leader has to be prepared to set the example. He or she must not delay in that all-important preparation. After all, time is of the essence – “Action this day!”

Stay with us. There’s so much more, including a great deal more on procrastination and presence. Previous Leadership 101 pieces are available here. If you have questions or suggestions, I’m at marine1@uswriter.com.

– W. Thomas Smith Jr. is a former U.S. Marine rifle-squad leader and counterterrorism instructor who writes about military/defense issues and has covered conflict in the Balkans, on the West Bank, in Iraq and Lebanon. He directs the U.S. Counterterrorism Advisory Team. He is the author of six books, and his articles appear in a variety of publications. Smith’s website is uswriter.com.

Fernando Tatis as a Cardinal

On Apr. 23, 1999, Cardinals third baseman Fernando Tatis hit two grand slams against the Dodgers… in the same inning! Tatis is the only baseball player in major league history to ever do that. Every time my dad and I went to a game, Tatis somehow always came through with an incredible performance.

And this from Twitter for all you Albert Pujols fans: the Angels have paid Pujols $1,377,049 for no homers & 4 RBIs. Although he’s no longer a Cardinal, he is still the best player in the game and a great guy. Glad he’s getting a new start with the Angels. I just hope he goes into the Hall of Fame as a Cardinal.

It used to be that everybody who was anybody enlisted in the military. Nowadays, everybody who’s nobody serves – a natural consequence of incentivizing service with signing bonuses, comped education, and plush pensions. Not to mention that for those in the U.S. illegally, the incentives are that much more attractive – a respectable way to root into jobs that wouldn’t otherwise be accessible.

So, what used to be a military made up of statesmen has devolved into a force comprised of men who have few alternatives but to enlist. Rather than the symbol of nobility it once was, military service has become almost a scarlet letter of sorts – signifying an individual of lesser resources, breeding, or ambition.

Wilkes’ platform: ” Individual liberty. Personal responsibility. Independence.” And labeling our troops a inferior mongrel breed of humans. I know the Islamists say we are descendants of apes and pigs, but it doesn’t have that same folksy charm coming from a Republican.

And plush pensions? Let’s break out the soldier effigies!

What Ms. Wilkes – and so many others who continue to dishonor our troops – miss is how rarely our troops commit atrocities. Well over 1 million Americans have served in Iraq and Afghanistan (many serving multiple tours) over the last 10-plus years, and how many actual events have there been? The fact that we have to define atrocity down to “things done in poor taste” – like posing with dead insurgents – shows how honorable the men and women of our Armed Forces actually are.

Take two 18-year-old high school graduates: One joins the military and becomes a crew chief for a tens-of-millions-of-dollars helicopter after a few weeks of “basic” training. The other goes to college for the better part of a decade, staying on mom’s health insurance until the age 26, before collecting unemployment because the $100,000 white-collar non-profit jobs are all spoken for. The only “occupying” he is likely to do involves drum circles and smearing feces on cop cars.

All military officers have college degrees. And most enlisted personnel obtain a degree while they are serving. Many more get a degree after leaving the service. Who has more “resources” or ambition”?

Plus, the Department of Justice’s own crime statistics show that a veteran is 82% less likely to commit a crime than a civilian.

Wilkes’ message of calling those who have sacrificed so much in this war a bunch of mongrel nobodies would be better suited for a cave complex in Waziristan. Or in Chicago’s Hyde Park, if Bill Ayers was hosting. But it is downright disturbing when a self-proclaimed “conservative” from South Carolina is bashing our troops.

And if anyone deserves the “scarlet letter,” it’s the politicians, not the troops.

1898: President William McKinley orders a naval blockade of Cuba.

1915: German forces introduce poison gas when they fire over 150 tons of chlorine gas, devastating the French line at Ypres, Belgium.

1944: American soldiers land in New Guinea for Operations RECKLESS and PERSECUTION, beginning a three month battle that would claim the lives of 12,811 of the original 15,000 Japanese troops, compared to only 527 Americans.

1945: Adolf Hitler confides to his aides in his underground bunker that the war is lost and suicide is his only option. He will kill himself in eight days.

1987: The U.S. Navy is ordered to provide assistance to neutral vessels under Iranian attack.

2004: Pat Tillman, who left a multi-million dollar career in professional football to join the Army Rangers, is killed while on patrol in eastern Afghanistan.

Adapted (and abridged) in part from “This Week in US Military History” by W. Thomas Smith Jr. at Human Events.

Capt. Truman, circa 1918 (Source: The Truman Library)

Did you know that President Harry S. Truman fought during World War I?

Truman joined the Missouri National Guard in 1905. When the U.S. entered World War I in 1917, Capt. Truman commanded Battery D, 129th Field Artillery, part of the 35th Infantry Division. From “The Soldier from Independence: Harry S. Truman and the Great War”:

Truman’s battery was frequently employed well forward. He was detailed to provide fire support for George S. Patton’s tank brigade during the Meuse-Argonne offensive, engaged German field guns and was credited with either wiping out or forcing the permanent abandonment of two complete batteries. When firing on these and other targets, he disobeyed orders and fired “out of sector” against threats to his division’s open flank. Truman’s 35th Division, a National Guard formation made up of units from Missouri and Kansas, suffered grievously in that battle, and the battery of the man who would later order the dropping of the atomic bombs was sited approximately 150 yards forward of where Patton was wounded in an area referred to by one artilleryman as “a cemetery of unburied dead.”

The more I find out about Harry Truman, the more I like him. Truman remained an officer in the Field Artillery Reserve until retiring as a colonel in 1953.

1836: Described as “one of the biggest military upsets in the [western] hemisphere,” Texas Army forces under the command of Gen. Sam Houston decisively defeat Mexican forces under Gen. Antonio López de Santa Anna in the bloody Battle of San Jacinto. The fighting is grim – much of it hand-to-hand – but it is over in less than 20 minutes. Houston is wounded. Santa Anna, hiding and dressed in a common soldier’s uniform, will be captured the following day.

The Mexican Army is finished. Texas independence is secured.

1898: America declares war on Spain. The following day, U.S. Navy warships begin blockading Cuba, and USS Nashville (one of five so-named American warships, including two Confederate vessels of the same name) fires the first official shots of the war.

1918: German flying ace Manfred von Richtofen, known as the “Red Baron,” is shot down and killed near Vaux-sur-Somme, France. Richtofen’s 80 kills were the most by any pilot during World War I.

1951: Marine pilots from the USS Bataan splash three Yak fighters and damage another in the first aerial clash with the North Korean Air Force.

Adapted (and abridged) in part from “This Week in US Military History” by W. Thomas Smith Jr. at Human Events.

But enough Cub-bashing – I came across an old panoramic photo of the Cubs’ last stadium, West Side Park, a wooden ballpark which stood just west of Little Italy. The photo’s caption reads “City Championship Series” – Oct. 10, 1909. Cap Anson was long gone and “Shoeless” Joe Jackson wasn’t playing yet, but it would have been something to watch Joe Tinker, Johnny Evers, and Frank Chance (of the famous Tinkers – to Evers – to Chance double play combination) in action.

Panoramic photo of Chicago's West Side Park in 1909. Click on the photo to see the high-resolution version. (Source: Library of Congress)

1861: Norfolk Navy Yard is abandoned and burned by Union forces.

1945: As Adolf Hitler celebrates his 56th birthday, the U.S. flag is raised over Nuremberg Stadium – site of the Nazi party rallies. Following five days of heavy fighting, 7th Army forces have captured Nuremberg.

1947: U.S. Navy Capt. L.O. Fox, supported by 80 Marines, accepts the surrender of Lt. Yamaguchi and 26 Japanese soldiers and sailors on the island of Peleliu, nearly 20 months after the end of World War II.