Why are some people born leaders while others made leaders?
- Thread starter SamE
- Start date
As much as people hold distaste for the MBTI, this is the perfect answer for that question.
Some people are made into leaders by their parents, as many types are very susceptible to change when they are younger. So even if they are not a leading type of MBTI, if their parents forced them to lead, they would do so with excellence.
Some people are made into leaders by their parents, as many types are very susceptible to change when they are younger. So even if they are not a leading type of MBTI, if their parents forced them to lead, they would do so with excellence.
Going off of what Urtehnoes said, it goes back to the nature/nurture complex.
By fifth grade/early middle school, I could immediately tell who was a natural leader, and who was made a leader. For example, a girl I've known since kindergarten, has always been a leader in some way, shape or form. She was SCA president in fifth grade, and president of 6th and 7th grade, and served on the executive council in the eight grade. She was president of all four grades of high school, Vice President of the NHS, President of the Spanish Honor society. She currently goes to Uni with me, and is a chairperson on the Honor Council and RA of the Virginia House...She literally is the epitome of ENFJ. Very charismatic and persuasive, always encouraging others to reach their potential and beyond, persistent, intelligent, encouraging cooperation, and I never met anyone who harbored ill feelings against her. I believe a good leader exhibits all of these traits, along with a good balance of commanding and negotiating.
A "made" leader could go either way. My junior year of high school, our elected president was not a good leader at all. WAY too passive, and honestly the only reason he was elected was because he was popular. The vice president (Who was president of our graduating class) did almost all of the work. He didn't know anything about leading at all, and couldn't get us to cooperate and accomplish things.
By fifth grade/early middle school, I could immediately tell who was a natural leader, and who was made a leader. For example, a girl I've known since kindergarten, has always been a leader in some way, shape or form. She was SCA president in fifth grade, and president of 6th and 7th grade, and served on the executive council in the eight grade. She was president of all four grades of high school, Vice President of the NHS, President of the Spanish Honor society. She currently goes to Uni with me, and is a chairperson on the Honor Council and RA of the Virginia House...She literally is the epitome of ENFJ. Very charismatic and persuasive, always encouraging others to reach their potential and beyond, persistent, intelligent, encouraging cooperation, and I never met anyone who harbored ill feelings against her. I believe a good leader exhibits all of these traits, along with a good balance of commanding and negotiating.
A "made" leader could go either way. My junior year of high school, our elected president was not a good leader at all. WAY too passive, and honestly the only reason he was elected was because he was popular. The vice president (Who was president of our graduating class) did almost all of the work. He didn't know anything about leading at all, and couldn't get us to cooperate and accomplish things.
Yes, nature/nurture
Yeah, ENFJs are great at this.
But i don't believe it's always so easily determined. There are many natural leaders whose leadership skills or abilities are not acknowledged or recognized because their leadership style would not fall into the more commonly known forms of leadership. We are often more aware of and give more attention to the more assertive, commanding, or directly charismatic or persuasive leadership styles, while ignoring those leadership approaches which are more subtle but just as effective. This is why research has discovered and classified a wide range of leadership styles.
We can't also forget that many natural leaders may not immediately or overtly show or demonstrate their ability because they fear it's impact, or lack confidence, or really don't want to feature their talent, so they may appear not be leaders much less natural leaders because they're not obvious in their demonstration of their leadership abilities.
Also, What's the difference? Describe good and bad leadership?
- It depends on the situation, relationship between leaders and followers, or circumstances. What's bad in one circumstance is effective in another? What's appropriate in one is not in another.
- It especially depends on those being lead. Too many people apply a one leadership fits all approach to leadership. They often think that leaders should behave in one way and think a leader is effective if they don't meet those expectations, when the style being used is better and more effective. For example, people often think that being assertive or commanding is necessary to effective leadership, but that approach sometimes it really the least effective depending on those being lead. Sometimes, followers are more receptive to a leaders who uses quieter, softer approach but again, depends on the leader, followers, tasks, situation, etc.
Why are some types seen as authority figures while others aren't?
- Because we have cultural beliefs which say that someone with a particular demeanor or presence will often get more people to pay attention.
What's the difference between commanding and negotiating?
- Negotiating involves willingness to compromise in order to complete a goal, task, or project. Commanding is effective in situations when a decision needs to be made quickly and directly, and there is not as much time for discussion and debate. But of course these styles are more complicated than that. I have great respect for the commanding leadership but it is sometimes used too often without consideration for who, when, where, and why.
Yeah, ENFJs are great at this.
But i don't believe it's always so easily determined. There are many natural leaders whose leadership skills or abilities are not acknowledged or recognized because their leadership style would not fall into the more commonly known forms of leadership. We are often more aware of and give more attention to the more assertive, commanding, or directly charismatic or persuasive leadership styles, while ignoring those leadership approaches which are more subtle but just as effective. This is why research has discovered and classified a wide range of leadership styles.
We can't also forget that many natural leaders may not immediately or overtly show or demonstrate their ability because they fear it's impact, or lack confidence, or really don't want to feature their talent, so they may appear not be leaders much less natural leaders because they're not obvious in their demonstration of their leadership abilities.
Also, What's the difference? Describe good and bad leadership?
- It depends on the situation, relationship between leaders and followers, or circumstances. What's bad in one circumstance is effective in another? What's appropriate in one is not in another.
- It especially depends on those being lead. Too many people apply a one leadership fits all approach to leadership. They often think that leaders should behave in one way and think a leader is effective if they don't meet those expectations, when the style being used is better and more effective. For example, people often think that being assertive or commanding is necessary to effective leadership, but that approach sometimes it really the least effective depending on those being lead. Sometimes, followers are more receptive to a leaders who uses quieter, softer approach but again, depends on the leader, followers, tasks, situation, etc.
Why are some types seen as authority figures while others aren't?
- Because we have cultural beliefs which say that someone with a particular demeanor or presence will often get more people to pay attention.
What's the difference between commanding and negotiating?
- Negotiating involves willingness to compromise in order to complete a goal, task, or project. Commanding is effective in situations when a decision needs to be made quickly and directly, and there is not as much time for discussion and debate. But of course these styles are more complicated than that. I have great respect for the commanding leadership but it is sometimes used too often without consideration for who, when, where, and why.