dNATE.com

Leadership is Innate

Scientists have recently discovered yet another gene variant (the so-called rs4950 variant of the CHRNB3 gene) linked to leadership ability. They outline a number of possibilities for the gene’s function. It could affect “traits of impulsivity and patience”. Or it may be linked to personality traits like sociability, gregariousness, exhibitionism or extraversion. Or it “may influence the tendency of people to select environments more favorable for a leadership role”, like ability to stay in school.

The authors say the environment still plays a role in attaining a leadership role, but I disagree.  If the design of a trait anticipates environmental signals, differences in those signals are inherent in the design itself.

This finding (and the fact that we humans differ genetically by only 0.1 percent) supports my theory that we each carry the entire set of human traits (leader and follower), with just a few master switches to differentiate us.

The question is this: is CHRNB3 a development gene? For example, a development gene like the SRY gene is active only for a few hours in utero (SRY is responsible for selecting our gender, and after that it is switched off and its effects cannot be undone.)  Or is CHRNB3 a signaling gene, responsible for variations in “runtime” hormones or receptors, in which case there is the possibility that its effect can be later altered, intercepted, or modulated.

If CHRNB3 is a development gene, leadership is truly innate. If it's a signaling gene, leadership could be potentially influenced by runtime signals, either neurohormone receptors or environmental “situation recognizers” in the brain.

In any case, I think we should be moving away from a "gene variant for trait X" and toward the notion of gene signatures, or complexes of genes, that cause behaviours.  I doubt a single gene variant explains everything.

The Cone of My Incompetence

Here's an excerpt from my new book, The Cone of My Incompetence: How My Genes Keep Me Down:

From an early age, I realized I was different.

Some people have natural gifts like energy, drive, charisma, motivation, calm under pressure, willpower, self-discipline and resilience. They’re lucky to be born with such rare and highly valued traits.

But I’m not so lucky. I lack natural potential and talent. And no amount of practice can change that.

I call it The Cone of My Incompetence.

My Cone determines my needs, wants, interests, fears, obsessions and desires. It resides deep in my subconscious brain, constructed by my DNA.

My Cone keeps me down. Managing people just makes me nervous. Power hierarchies leave me cold. Unless rallied by a natural leader, I’m a lazy sloth. I’m a natural born follower. A promotion is not in my DNA.

Those born with natural gifts are rewarded with lavish salaries, bonuses, perks, and promotions. But I’m not.

I never chose this Cone. It’s not something I have. It’s who I am.

And it’s not fair.

Here's another description from Amazon.com:

Frustrated by his own lack of talent and natural gifts, the author questions whether elite meritocrats--corporate executives, doctors, lawyers, lobbyists, bankers--who are lucky to be born with rare character traits like self-confidence, energy, resilience, and drive, truly deserve their enormous pay packages, bonuses and perks

You can order it here.

Introverts - a Quiet critique

Susan Cain, the author of a recent book on introverts, argues that human society is similar to a beehive. Each of us has a specialized role to play. It takes all types. The introvert does the deep analysis, and the extrovert does all the talking and leading.

However, corporations discriminate. Introverts are paid less than extroverts because they’re not considered promotable. As Jack Welch writes, "introverts stagnate in large organizations. They can work hard and deliver to expectations or beyond, but they rarely get their due… Extroverts tend to outshine introverts [because] their outsize personalities earn them chances to make presentations to higher-ups, always a good way to accelerate the career-changing process of getting out of the pile."

In other words, you can always hire an introvert if you need an analyst, or someone to check your ego. Then, when they're no longer needed, you can drive them away by switching to an "open office" plan.

Schools like Harvard Business School are filled with extroverts, with nary an introvert in sight. Extroverts are the future leaders of business, the top 10% who will make 50% of the money, and grab the lion’s share of society’s resources.

“Extroversion is in our DNA,” writes Cain. But not in everyone’s DNA. Half of us (or more) are introverts. Corporations fight over the rare group of extroverts with additional desired traits (intelligence, lack of shyness), by offering exorbitant compensation and stock option packages. (See the book: Leadership is Innate). Sure, there are a few introvert leaders around, but they are the exception.

That's OK, according to Cain, because introverts are not usually money-motivated. But if you replace the words “introvert” and “extrovert” with “women” and “men,” would it still be OK? Is it OK for society to direct resources to one genetic class over another?

Does an introvert choose to be that way of his own free will? It certainly feels like free will to follow your innate interests, desires, and comforts… However, the question should be: can we choose our interests themselves? And the answer is, of course not. Our interests, desires, motivations, passions are what's genetic, part of our design, who we are. (Like an elevator that "chooses" to go up and down of its own free will because that’s the way it’s designed.) An introvert (freely) chooses introverted behavior because that’s the way his brain is wired. If you don’t want something different, it’s the same as not being able to choose it.

Cain says people do what they're "expected to". But feeling pressure to live up to social expectations is simply another innate trait. Most people do, but others do not. For example, if you’re born gay and your parents put pressure on you to conform, you will rather endure great difficulty than live up to their expectations. People only do what society expects if it resonates with their inborn nature.

Genes are recipes for the development of the brain. But just because the brain is a complex and dynamic system doesn't mean traits are not innate. Yes, the brain has an internal state (memory) and the ability to vary its outputs based on inputs (context sensitivity) and its internal state (model). There is no contradiction to say that traits may be both situational and innate. We're wired for many eventualities and situations: being in a group, being alone, etc. Yet, given the same situation (e.g. being in a group setting) without an overriding trait or passion (e.g. Bill Gates overcoming his introversion at a software conference), the trait tends to be more fixed.

Evolutionary experience shows that having a distribution of traits, or specialized actors, makes society more robust. A gene is merely a special form of matter that transports past evolutionary experience to the present. But that doesn't make it fair.

Introverts are "born that way". Given this, assuming we don't know ahead of time whether we'd be born an introvert or extrovert, how should we design society to be fair to all genetic parties? Most likely, with a system of redistribution, from the genetic-haves to genetic-have-nots, until such time everyone can choose extrovert genes for their children. However, some elites, like Harvard's Michael Sandel, are fighting to limit that option.

What does it mean for a trait to be genetic?

I often say 'leadership is innate' or 'leadership traits are genetic'.  But what does it really mean for a trait to be genetic?

It clearly doesn't mean you're a leader from the moment you're born.  Nobody takes orders from a baby.  Leadership takes time to develop.  So 'leadership is genetic' is shorthand for saying 'the development of leadership traits over time is genetic'.

Yet not everyone is a leader.  Some people crave power, attention (status), and resources.  But others simply want to be followers.  So 'leadership is genetic' is also a shorthand way to say 'some people have the natural motivation to lead' and others have an interest in following, due to genetic differences.  Social skills are also genetic and vary across the population.

Richard Arvey and Stephen Colarelli posted a nice paper about the biology of leadership that I'll refer to next.

Leaders (monkeys and college fraternity presidents) have higher levels of the chemical serotonin in their brains than do followers.  So 'leadership is genetic' also means that our genes direct the manufacture of certain chemicals in the brain that correlate with leadership.  The more of a leader you are, the more serotonin is manufactured in your brain. Having high levels of serotonin is correlated with 'social ease' and 'calmer behavior in problem solving situations' and conflict management.  Brain chemicals can have a profound effect on behavior, because the brain is designed (by the genes) to be affected by these chemicals.

OK, so serotonin is correlated with leadership.  But does it actually cause leadership?  In some cases, yes.  Again, quoting from the paper:  Scientists conducted 'experiments where serotonin levels were altered with Prozac ... In leaderless all-male groups, monkeys that received Prozac emerged as alpha males'.

Since serotonin is a simple molecule, there's obviously no inherent 'leadership' in the chemical itself.  So artificially raising serotonin levels must trigger a capability that already lies dormant in the brain. Any gene variant that regulates production of more serotonin is essentially a leadership 'master' gene that exploits this pre-existing (genetically constructed) brain circuitry.

Let's step back for a moment.  Clearly the brain has the ability to recognize when you've attained a leadership role, otherwise the physical production of serotonin wouldn't have an 'on switch'.  In other words 'leadership is genetic' is another way of saying that genes develop a region of the brain that recognizes (via your senses) that you're dominant, and upon that recognition, manufactures and distributes serotonin in your bloodstream.  A different set of genes constructs another brain region that detects serotonin in the bloodstream, and triggers the interest, motivation and calm demeanor.

This brings us back to the question, can anyone become a leader?  Do your unique gene variants cause you to become a leader?  Or do you become a leader first (by having the right mix of qualities) and then innately realize your status, which causes physiological changes (like elevated serotonin levels).

My guess is that correlation and causation are both at work.  Some people are innately interested in acquiring status, navigating power hierarchies, and grabbing resources.  Such interests emanate from the more primitive amygdala region of the brain when you are younger, and the specific skills you acquire from practicing those interests (in these modern times) are stored in the cortex, which is a more general purpose learning engine.  Again, 'leadership is genetic' because your innate interests - which derive from genetically constructed regions of the brain - motivate you to practice and acquire the culturally proscribed skills and expertise to wield leadership. Leaders are thus selected (not trained) for their innate traits and interests, even as their skills have a modern flavor.

But 'born leaders' don't always succeed, and once they recognize their loss of stature, their serotonin level decreases by the natural process.  On the other hand, some people are appointed (or anointed) as leaders through little effort of their own (like hereditary kings and emperors), and once their innate brain circuitry detects this status increase, their serotonin level goes up.

A challenge for all you computational neuroscientists out there!  How are interests and motivations manifest in the brain?  How can our genes guide the development of brain circuitry that detects we are in a leadership position, and, upon detection, reduces (or encapsulates) that experience into a simple signal - the serotonin molecule?

Harvard creates genetic test to identify entrepreneurs

Harvard researchers recently announced a psychometric test that identifies individuals with the traits that make for successful entrepreneurs in developing economies.

Yet, as we have seen, such traits are genetically linked and can't be trained.  You develop certain traits because of the genes you inherit.

Knowing the specific genes behind such traits is not necessary to establish a genetic basis.  For example, it's illegal (in America) to ask someone's family history of heart disease in a job interview, because family history is a proxy for genes passed on from one generation to the next.

Psychometric tests are also genetic proxies.  In other words, they're genetic tests.

Performance vs. Potential

Many companies are trying to assess and differentiate their employees using two dimensions – Performance and Potential. On a graph, performance is measured on the vertical (Y) axis, and potential is measured on the horizontal (X) axis.

Each X,Y combination is assigned a value judgement, or score, from 1 to 9.  Having high performance but poor potential gives you a score of 4.  High potential but low performance is 6, a much better score.  So potential is valued more highly than performance.

What is potential?  It's really a measure of "promotability" or leadership skills, including such innate qualities as charisma, energy-level, and self-confidence.

Performance, on the other hand, is the skill you exhibit at your current job level, including such innate qualities as intelligence, diligence and analytical skill.

Both dimensions are inborn – since how would you train charisma or genius? – so "high potential" genes are more valued than "high performance" genes.  Companies willingly pay large bonuses to charismatic leaders (6), and heap even greater rewards on the rare charismatic leader who's also smart (9), but a high performer with little potential (4) has his job outsourced to India, since those innate qualites are not valued as highly.

Choosing leaders this way is really a proxy for genetic screening. It's not like you can change yourself.  Even Donald Trump says "I don’t think anybody changes, actually. They come out a certain way, and for the most part that’s what you get."

Is there a gene for leadership?

Here's a quick review of the new book "Leadership is Innate":

Top CEOs will tell you that leadership traits come as "part of the package" and "can't really be taught". Scientists have recently begun to discover how genetic differences contribute to key leadership skills.

The basic thesis of the book is that leadership training has no effect, unless you first possess the innate (genetic) qualities of desire/motivation, charisma, energy-level, and ambition. In other words, leaders are selected for their innate potential to benefit from further leadership training and grooming, but you can't train just anyone to be a leader.

This stands in proud opposition to the feel-good-but-false assertions made by "experts" such as Warren Bennis (Leaders, 1986), who wrote:

[M]ajor capacities and competencies of leadership can be learned, and we are all educable, at least if the basic desire to learn is there and we do not suffer from learning disorders. Furthermore, whatever natural endowments we bring to the role of leadership, they can be enhanced; nurture is far more important than nature in determining who becomes a successful leader.

The key word here is "desire". If you don't desire leadership, if you don't want it and crave it, if it doesn't motivate you, if it doesn't resonate with your feelings, then you can't be a leader. Desire and motivation are what's genetic!

Can I choose to be an Extrovert?

I'm always interested in what a successful leader like Jack Welch has to say about innate human qualities.  He's not an expert on genetics, but he's certainly an expert on human nature.

According to Welch:

• Many introverts stagnate in large organizations. They can work hard and deliver to expectations or beyond, but they rarely get their due
• Big companies are constantly looking for people to move across divisions or around the world, and extroverts, by rights or not, appear more prepared for such opportunities
• With their charisma and superior verbal skills, [extroverts are] thought to be more "out front," able to communicate powerfully and motivate their people, especially during tough times
• Extroverts also tend to forge relationships with more ease, another boon in complex hierarchies
• Extroverts tend to outshine introverts because early on, their outsize personalities earn them chances to make presentations to higher-ups, always a good way to accelerate the career-changing process of getting out of the pile.

Welch says there are exceptions where a "reserved, shy, or awkward individual who has risen through the ranks to run something big".  But that's a rare exception.

An introvert recently wrote Welch asking for advice on how to be more extroverted.  

Welch replied:

• How do you feel about the prospect of putting on a perky face and a big voice and trying to chit-chat and "ho-ho-ho" your way into your team's heart? Panicked? Depressed? A bit of both?
• Do you simply feel worried, knowing how much people generally dislike phonies?
• You have no choice ... Get out there, mix, speak more often, and connect with both your team and others, deploying all the energy and personality you can muster.
• You may find that being more outgoing is a reward in itself.

This is a variant of the "if you want to be confident, first be confident" adage, as if confidence is simply a choice, a mask you can simply wear at will.

The reason Welch rose to become CEO is his ability to wear masks, or choose his attitude at will.  (That's one of the rare genetic traits for which he's so highly paid.)  He knows how to motivate people, and push their buttons.  Some people are motivated by being yelled at.  Some are motivated by guilt.  Some are motivated by money or power.  A good leader knows that, and can choose his own mask for the situation.

What leaders seem to ignore is that others simply can't choose to be this way.  Our brains are not wired to allow us to smile at will.  My favorite example is selective mutism, whereby someone cannot choose to speak in public, no matter how hard they try.  Because leaders don't have this gene, they don't see how others differ from themselves.  They figure everyone else can chose their mask, just like they do.

Presidential Genetics

The New York Times wrote recently about "that gene that makes presidents want to be president". 

The article includes a quote from Ted Sorensen, the former counselor to President John F. Kennedy: “You have to not only have a sense of confidence but a pretty big ego — you have to almost be a fanatic.”  Other qualities mentioned include "ambition and drive" and "believing you have special gifts” and being attracted to the "elixir of adulation" and the "opportunity for immortality". 

Furthermore, “the nature of the relationship between leaders and the people around them is very important." 

So where do all these qualities come from?  What is it that makes a leader differ from a follower?  Why doesn't everyone have a pretty big ego and self-confidence and ambition and drive?  Why are those traits so rare?  Can we all exhibit those traits, and simply choose not to?  Why do most people feel comfortable as a follower?

Clearly, the brain is built by our genes.  We have an innate brain module that senses crowds.  Variations in our genes (from our neighbor's genes) cause us to react differently when this situation is detected.  Some feel stress, and some feel excitement.  You can't choose to have a big ego or not.  It's part of who you are.  You can't train someone to be motivated by power.

Depending on the gene variants (or flavors) you were born with, you choose (of seemingly free will!) to be one way or the other.  From conception, your gene variants act as blueprints for unique proteins that construct your brain in various configurations. (After the development and configuration of your brain, those genes are then switched off).  So once you're a few years old, your basic personality is established. 

It may take many years until you experience a crowd for the first time, and realize how it excites you (or not).  That's when leaders have their "aha!" moment. But most people are simply not born with "that gene [variant] that makes presidents want to be president".  That is why leaders are so rare.

Why it's so hard to change yourself

Oprah and Dr. Phil are innately self-confident and charismatic celebrities, who became rich by trafficking their brand of self-help advice to people who (like most of us) are innately insecure.  Their highly addictive product (presented on TV shows, expensive self-help books and magazines) is ingested like a drug by gullible people who desperately want to fix their own personality.

Oprah and Dr. Phil tell their followers that by changing their habits they can change themselves.  Sounds easy.  Of course, the advice has no lasting effect.  People are temporarily happy, of course, to do what their leaders tell them, but are unwilling to change their habits for more than a few days or weeks on their own, without additional moral support from their leaders.  Time to buy a new self-help book, or watch a new commercial-filled episode of Oprah.

Unfortunately, most people are unwilling to believe that their motivations are innate.  They believe that following the right leader will make them change (does anyone see the irony of requiring a leader to tell you how to be more of a leader?), and therefore leaders can endlessly exploit this mistake, and make themselves rich at the folly of others.

What would it take for people to finally understand that motivations and personality are innate?  Paradoxically, it would a charismatic figure, whom people could trust and follow, to preach this new gospel, to make people believe.  But why would a leader do something so self-defeating?  Why would a person with leadership genes want to destroy the myth, and lose their grand position in society?  It's not going to happen.

Followership

This year's Kravis Institute Leadership Conference will focus on "followers" -- those people who seek out leaders with whom they can identify emotionally, and receive approbation and approval from (without whom there would be no need for followers).

As I have repeatedly shown, leaders differ from followers in their genetic traits, which implies that followers have their own distinct genetic variations.  Those variations are responsible for shyness and how high they are able to rise in the social pecking order, before feeling stress, fear and anxiety.

Followers don't seem to mind that leaders like Steve Jobs become billionaries at their expense -- being given a disproportionate share of society's resources due to their genetic differences -- because followers are too busy seeking their approval to notice.

Steve Jobs and slot machines

I just finished reading a biography of Steve Jobs, the charismatic co-founder of Apple Computers.  He is able to attract top talent to any company he starts, and those computer engineers willingly work 90 hour weeks on his behalf.  Yet, after he charms and attracts them with his vision of the future (often referred to as his "reality distortion field"), he is often abusive to those same employees, paying them poorly, taking credit for their work, and shunning them (even after many years of service) if they are critical or disloyal in any way.

So why do people continue working for Steve Jobs?  I'm reminded of the psychological concept of "partial reinforcement", often used to explain compulsive gambling. It goes like this: Slot machines reward their players at random intervals.  You never know when you will be rewarded, so you keep playing.  Random reinforcement turns out to be one of the most powerful human motivations.  Some people forget to eat or sleep, regardless of their finances, in pursuit of possible reward.

Followers want to identify with their leader's emotions.  They want to please him, and receive approbation and approval in return.  They are happy when he is happy, and sad when he is sad.  That is the nature of being a follower.  If the leader is abusive toward them, they feel stress and dismay, but also more motivated to please him in the future.

Steve Jobs naturally taps into the motivational power of partial reinforcement.  He is just being himself, although he is more rare breed than the rest, the distribution of traits at work.

Introverts and Extroverts

According to a review of Marti Olsen Laney's new book, "The Hidden Gifts of the Introverted Child":

"Introverted children enjoy the internal world of thoughts, feelings and fantasies, and there's a physiological reason for this. Introverts have more brain activity in general, and specifically in the frontal lobes. When these areas are activated, introverts are energized by retrieving long-term memories, problem solving, introspection, complex thinking and planning."

"Extroverts enjoy the external world of things, people and activities. They have more activity in brain areas involved in processing the sensory information we're bombarded with daily. Because extroverts have less internally generated brain activity, they search for more external stimuli to energize them."

"It's the different pathways that are turned on that activate the behaviors and abilities we see in introverts and extroverts... It impacts all areas of their lives: how they process information, how they restore their energy, what they enjoy and how they communicate."

Introverted children need time alone more than do extroverted children... "Extroverts gain energy by being out and about," but "being with people takes energy from introverts, and they need to get away to restore that energy."

"Shyness is behavior that may diminish as children grow; introversion is a character trait that lasts. "

Predicting Genius

The New York Times recently reported on the current "neglect of exceptionally talented children", at least in some people's eyes.

By contrast, things were different back in the 1920's.  Stanford psychologist Lewis Terman's "Genetic Studies of Genius" investigated California schoolchildren to see whether "intellectual capacity was innate", and if there was a way -- such as the newly introduced IQ tests -- "to predict and improve their chances of future greatness".  Yet such investigations fell out of favor after WWII when anyone who spoke of genetics and ability was branded a "racist eugenicist", and Terman's followers were labelled "termites".

According to the Times article:

In postwar America, the terms "gifted" and "talented" crowded out "genius," which sounded suspiciously elitist, and a quest was under way for a wider, democratic conception of human excellence. Psychologists pushed toward a more multifaceted understanding of giftedness, turning their attention to "divergent thinking" and creative capacities - fluency, originality, flexibility - as well as to a wider range of less distinctively intellectual abilities, like "task commitment."...Youthful giftedness could not be fully appreciated, or cultivated, without viewing it as a social construct ... with ... a receptive cultural context.

Still, some researchers doggedly continued where Terman left off:

[Prof. Julian] Stanley inaugurated the Johns Hopkins talent search and began gathering subjects for the second-most-famous longitudinal gifted study: the continuing Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY), which includes a superselect cohort of students who scored 700 or above on the math or the verbal section before turning 13 (a feat performed by 1 in 10,000 children).

So it is again fashionable for "experts [to] sound the alarm about the brilliant minds that aren't being found or are being frustrated".  But this is silly.  True geniuses persevere despite the obstacles.  They don't care what society says, or whether they are popular.  They have exceptional resilience and single-mindedness, and are unwilling to accept defeat.  These qualities, which I believe to be innate, should be considered just as important as "raw mental ability".

Certainly, there are smart people in the world who would succeed with enough coddling.  But the coddlers (mentors, teachers, etc) will always represent the status quo -- the current paradigm.  A genius with a mentor would not be a genius, since he or she would be trapped in the same paradigms and ways of thinking as the teacher.  A genius must stand apart, and see things in new ways.

A truly novel idea is inherently alienating to the old order.  Joseph Schumpeter called this “creative destruction”. A genius is a person who destroys old ways of thinking, and invents new ways.  There is no such thing as "socially constructed genius".  A genius must act alone.

Choosing leaders as a form of Genetic Selection

Jack Welch, former CEO of GE, wrote a book recently about his experiences running a large corporation. He says he is often asked whether leadership can be learned, or whether it comes as “part of the package” (innate). His answer is: “a little of both”. He agrees that IQ and “energy level” are probably innate, but that self-confidence is learned “at your mother’s knee”.

But in reality, it’s all innate. Successful leaders often make this mistake. They feel their confidence is learned from experience since it increases over time, as they achieve more success. When a successful leader is young, he often feels trepidation in front of more senior people, or when confronted with difficult situations, yet later he becomes more confident.  So it must be learned, right?

The confusion here is whether you can develop into a confident leader, not whether you're able to inspire confidence from the day you were born. (Did Napoleon command anyone the day he was born?)  The ability to develop into a leader over time is what’s innate.

If you are a born leader, you will seek out experiences that help you develop. You will feel energized when things go well in their development, as when your parents support you.  Born leaders often remember the energizing feeling when they were at their mother’s knee, assuming that their mother was the one who instilled it, when their mother simply reinforced something that was already there.

If you are born with raw leadership ability, your early experiences will serve to help you understand it, exercise it, come to terms with it, and “fine tune” it. But your early experiences don’t make you a leader - you are born that way. Recently, however, in the Oct 16, 2006 issue of Business Week magazine, Welch seems to contradict himself when he writes that "charisma ... seems to be inborn.  It can't really be trained."  How could charisma be innate, when self-confidence is learned, Jack?

According to Jack Welch, leaders must “exude energy” and “be able to inspire confidence” and “be optimistic” and “be comfortable in their own skin”. Yet some people feel stress (instead of energy) when given positions of leadership and they fall apart.  Some people have a hard time making eye contact, or smiling when others look at them, and this gets worse as they get older.  Some people have no motivation unless rallied by a leader.

Leaders fulfill the needs of their employees, who want to be appreciated, acknowledged, and given approval and dignity. Employees need to have their self-confidence built-up by the leader. Yet those traits in employees often limit their ability to be a leader themselves, since the higher you climb in an organization, the fewer people are around to stroke your ego. In order to become a leader, you need to be self-confident and “comfortable in your own skin”.

Another recent book by a former GE executive, in an honest moment, confesses that sometimes these traits are “just not in [your] DNA”.  Sifting through thousands of employees to find the ones with the right traits is really a crude process of finding those with leadership genes.

What is Charisma?

According to the book Charismatic Leadership, "charismatic leaders generally exhibit such attributes as extraordinary emotional expressiveness, self-confidence, self-determination, and freedom from internal conflict" and "a strong conviction in the righteousness of their own beliefs" (p.46).

Followers, on the other hand, feel "heightened performance and motivation" and "a sense of empowerment" (p.328) when they find a leader whom they can trust.  Followers identify with the leader, and feel a "willing obedience" toward them, and "make the leader their own conscience" (p.330).

Leaders cause followers to feel good about themselves.  Followers do the same for leaders by feeding their need for power and status.  Motivation works both ways.

Are Leaders Born or Made?

Here's a quick review of the new book, "Leadership is Innate":

Top CEOs will tell you that leadership traits come as "part of the package" and "can't really be taught". Scientists have recently begun to discover how genetic differences contribute to key leadership skills.

The basic thesis of the book is that leadership training has no effect, unless you first possess the innate (genetic) qualities of desire/motivation, charisma, energy-level, and ambition. In other words, leaders are selected for their innate potential to benefit from further leadership training and grooming, but you can't train just anyone to be a leader.

This stands in proud opposition to the feel-good-but-false assertions made by "experts" such as Warren Bennis (Leaders, 1986), who wrote:

[M]ajor capacities and competencies of leadership can be learned, and we are all educable, at least if the basic desire to learn is there and we do not suffer from learning disorders. Furthermore, whatever natural endowments we bring to the role of leadership, they can be enhanced; nurture is far more important than nature in determining who becomes a successful leader.

The key word here is "desire". If you don't desire leadership, if you don't want it and crave it, if it doesn't motivate you, if it doesn't resonate with your feelings, then you can't be a leader. Desire and motivation are what's genetic!