Are leaders born or made?

Last week, in the "Carrière et Emplois" insert of La Presse, there was an article about Leadership. It was based around Michel Leclerc's book "Qu'est-ce que le Leadership". One of the first questions the article asks is whether leaders are born or made; the answer that people always give in the end: "It is a little bit of both".

Every leadership class that we did in university started with the professor asking the students that question. In the earlier classes, the answer would be simple: "What the hell would we be doing here, in a leadership development course, if we thought that leaders were simply born that way". But then we realized that it wasn't that simple. The very fact that we wanted to learn more about leadership set us apart. The question then became whether this interest came from the environment or was something genetic. Again, this is not simple, since our environment is set by our genes. Our parents are the ones who create the world we initially live in which in turns defines what we will like or hate in the future. This intermeshing of external and internal factors means that the easiest answer is "Both".

And indeed, looking at past and current leaders, they all had to go through ordeals in order to become who they are right now. They had to learn how to become effective speakers, perfect their craft whatever it is, learn to inspire others and attract followers. However, their reaction to failure was not like everyone else's. They managed to come out of it greater than before. This seems to be something genetic, since we've seen so many people completely destroyed in similar situations.

In my opinion, all of this seems to overlook the sheer number of humans on earth. Basically, for every situation, there is a small probability that someone will manage to gain something from it. If it happens often enough, it will strengthen their position as leaders. Basically, if you overcame one obstacle, you will know that you can jump over the next one. Each victory builds upon the previous ones and cancels any potential failure. In the end, those who encounter those situations in which they can fail more often have a greater chance of becoming leaders. What this also means is that those leaders probably failed more often than regular people. History doesn't always remember those since, well, losing a senate election when you become president a few years later is not very important.

So, are leaders born or made? In my opinion, in everything we do, there is a genetic component. But the environment is always the most important. This is also in line with my idea of leaders as change agents. Change is always dependant on the situation which is a part of the environment.

Marketing and Leadership

I met with a friend last week to help him work on his company's marketing plan. We first just set up our plan for the coming weeks and thinking about what the final product will contain. It still got me thinking that, in line with my "leadership is everywhere" post that really, this is kind of a logical and systematical way to create a leader.

Thinking about the establishment of a new product with the leader-follower-situation framework gets interesting. Technically, most people find out a product (leader) and then go on to try to find buyers (followers) for it. This approach works to a certain extent, at least here in Montreal, since there are so many potential buyers. But what one should look at is the situation.

Usually, leaders somehow organically arise based on a situation, nearly completely created by it and the followers who need help or guidance. It is possible to replicate this to some extents with products through a thorough and unbiased analysis of the market. So, before you think that you have the best product, you leave yourself open and allow heavy modifications to your product and look at your potential market. You understand what their needs are, what they really want. Basically, you want to understand the situation and find the best leader for it. Responding to the situation means you are also telling your followers that you understand them and want to change an area of their lives that they feel is inadequate.

Of course, most marketing plans, like what I'm trying to do with my friend, do not start out that broad. You do already have a product, sometimes even customers, and you are trying to better focus it to fit the situation. This is why, as I said earlier, keeping an open mind about your product and being willing to modify it is crucial.

Creating a new type of society

In 2006, Muhammad Yunus and the Grameen Bank won the Nobel Peace Prize. The idea of making microloans available to the poorest people had truly made a difference and was worthy of praise. This is not charity; it is a profitable endeavor that had the benefit of also helping people. It is a social business.

By itself, the Grameen Bank was able to do more than straight (and initially much bigger in amplitude) government aid could do. It really is old common sense: "give a man a fish and you'll feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you'll feed him for a lifetime". What the Grameen Bank did was simply give the people the knowledge and the ability to take themselves out of misery.

Our current society takes the easy way out in helping the poor by simply buying out their silence. It is convenient since it doesn't require much sacrifice and should we feel morally strapped, we can go back and buy more good conscience. Also, people seem to think that there is disconnect between making profits and creating a better environment (in the large sense) for everyone. To change this perception and introduce the idea of social business as a societal pillar, my friend Charles Sancy and I created the "Projet Credit Solidaire" here in Montreal. The Project itself is not a business but a social movement that hopes to create a wave of social businesses around it. Over the next few weeks, we will start the project's blog and website, outlining our plan in greater details. For now, feel free to join our facebook group (yes, no twitter page yet…)

Understanding your leadership

We can't all be leaders now can we? Well, the truth is that yes we can, and actually, we already are. Most people do take leadership roles, whether it is within their family, their workplace or with their friends. Most people, at one point in their lives do want to change something around them, whether it is the weekly Mac&Cheese or the company's vision.

An important in being an effective leader is really to understand what you are a leader of. Basically, as I said in earlier posts, a leader can be summed up as an agent of change. As those who have learned about change theory, one of the main parts of initiating lasting change is to set up a vision and steps to achieve this vision. People will follow you if they perceive that the change you propose is beneficial to them and that you are indeed capable of leading them through the change. This last part means that you might feel that some change is needed, convince people that they need the change, but still not initiate it because they feel you lack the skills needed to guide them through it. Understanding what exactly it is that you want to change, basically, what how you want to lead others, means that you will be able to position yourself as an authority on the subject. Of course, it is easier to do this when the risks associated with the change are lower (like what your family eats on Wednesdays) as opposed to "paradigm shifting" events.

Fundamental rights

Earlier this week, I was reading Lysiane Gagnon in La Presse. She was talking about the fact that the French three strikes law on piracy had been overturn by the Supreme Court since its harshest penalty (banishment from the Internet) was deemed too strong, denying a fundamental right.

Now whether or not Internet access is a fundamental right or not is an interesting discussion but is not the point of this post. One of Mrs. Gagnon's arguments was that because of internet penetration is far from 100% in France, it made no sense to have it as a fundamental right. Therefore, it couldn't be a right because everyone doesn't have it already?

A fundamental right is based on a society's morals, not on the practicality of it. If you say that health is a right, then you find a way to make everyone have access to health care. At one point in history, every single fundamental right that we have was not available to everyone and our societies worked hard to achieve their universality. The same can be done with the Internet.