ARE LEADERS BORN OR MADE? By Omar Khan
There are many people who are clearly to a large extent "born" to be what we call leaders...
Heroes are among them. We can think of a George Washington, a Winston Churchill, a Nelson Mandela, who were all heroes to their people. Their larger-than-life achievements, personas and capabilities may indeed be partially 'gifts' that then had to be honed through practice and made manifest in the crucible of crucial experiences -- either those experiences they sought out or else those that came their way. These heroes often lead by the inspiration of their abilities and talents.
Exemplars is another appellation. While the heroes above were certainly exemplary in many ways, Mandela was more specifically a moral exemplar in transcending hatred and forgiving his captors; Gandhi was an exemplar in standing for peaceful resistance; Albert Schweitzer as a missionary, physician and humanitarian was an exemplar: an example of humanity we can all rally to. Such exemplars are usually morally courageous people, who take a stand in pragmatic ways that have a practical impact on others. They lead by example.
Charismatics are often considered leaders in that people like being around them, and they have a magnetic personality that draws people to them. They 'lead' in the sense that others will follow, and you will find such so-called 'natural born' leaders everywhere, from the school playground to a social gathering. When they speak, others listen. Often, such people become political leaders or stand out in the spheres of entertainment and communication. They lead by force of personality.
Being heroic or gifted in some way, exemplifying values and convictions and having the charisma to get attention and have people desire to follow you are all important attributes, and they can certainly be parlayed into leadership.
However, you can also be a great hero and a poor leader, a wonderful exemplar and yet ineffective in getting your agenda through, powerfully charismatic but unable to build leaders and teams underneath you -- only acolytes and followers.
So, leadership in the sense that it can be "made" or "taught" or "developed" – all the above potentials can certainly be improved and can require great sacrifice and dedication to fulfil, but to some extent are more talent-based – is about the following skills, convictions and capabilities:
Leadership is essentially the value added
You know a leader is present – finally – by impact. A leader is ultimately someone who delivers a result through others that would be unlikely to be achieved otherwise. A leader is measured by the value they add to the assets they have in their stewardship, delivered through the people in their charge, who have to optimise those assets and convert them into organisational capabilities and business performance.
Leadership, then, is essentially the value added. It is known by its impact, not solely by its attributes. So leaders are "made" insofar as they have to build the skills of:

"To make it easy to deliver value" and to "increase the value that can be added" are the high water marks of leadership contribution.
Thomas Edison once said, "If we could only do what we are capable of, we would literally astonish ourselves."
After all, what more could be asked? And certainly nothing more would really be needed.
Buckminster Fuller said that he looked for what needs to be done, pointing out that, after all, that is how the universe continues to design itself.
Imagine if leaders ensured that their teams first defined and then did what most needs to be done and delivered what they are capable of, while actively removing the interference and barriers that could keep that capability from evolving and growing. Surely that has to be the litmus test of real leadership.
Yes, this may be a life-time's education and development. And indeed, not all leaders need to be equally skilled in all of these aptitudes. Wise ones will assemble a team accordingly, to build on their own talents and to reinforce or bolster areas which are not their own greatest strengths.
Leaders also need to develop a "teachable point of view" or TPOV as it was called in GE. In other words, they need to find out what they are best at modelling, teaching and representing and to empower other leaders with other TPOVs to fill the gaps and ensure a richer overall leadership continuum.
However, leaders seriously deficient in any of the above need deliberate practice. All of these are 'necessary' if not 'sufficient' to the exciting, extraordinary and exhilarating challenge of growing leaders rather than followers, building teams and not just groups, producing customer success and not just customer responsiveness, and co-creating with others a culture that can anchor both today's success and tomorrow's vision.