Your point about the implied concreteness of Ulrich’s statement is a good one. When I read the term 50/50 I didn’t take it literally. Rather, I interpreted that statement to mean this: there are a variety of factors that influence one’s leadership abilities. In my opinion, it’s a split between what can be taught and what (as you point out) the typical adult presents when becoming a leader for the first time.

Is the split actually 50/50? Who knows? It’s possible Ulrich supplied supporting during the interview that was edited out. So we’ve no way to know how closely the research he references lines up with that balance.

To me, rather than argue the finer points of what part is innate or what part is teachable, I prefer to focus on finding those areas in which people *can* improve and working with them to devise a plan to help them do so.

First, there is no research or collection of research that yields anything like that level of certainty on the importance of different factors in leadership performance. It may seem like using numbers is good, but, in fact, what it gives us is the Illusion of False Concreteness.

Second, there are no “innate” predispositions that have much to do with leadership. People may show up in the workplace with certain parts of their personality fixed, but that fixing doesn’t happen until twenty to twenty-five years or so.

We all emerge from young adulthood with our personalities essentially fixed for life. At that point there are some things that are easier for use to do and others that are hard. For leadership three things it’s good to have coming into full adulthood are

Getting enjoyment from helping others succeed.
Being willing to talk to other people about behavior or performance.
Being willing to make decisions.

If those things don’t come naturally, you can still become an effective leader, but you will have to work pretty hard at it.

So, are you saying the 50.50 split is inaccurate? What would you offer up?

We appear to share similar perspectives– let’s focus on making something positive happen by fostering learning approach. I agree there’s room for both and I really like your framing of the idea as “integrating” the two rather than pitting them against one another. Hmmm….

I would rather people try to define what they see as effective leadership that is leaving a positive impact on the area they’re leading. I also tend to hang with those folks who I sense truly are leading others. It’s invigorating and you can learn from them.

There is room for both leadership and management. We need more people to approach things from an “integrated” standpoint vs. a standpoint of what isn’t being done !!

Thanks for the great insight as usual !!

Thanks for stopping by The People Equation. As you point out, this is NOT a new topic. Far from it. For some reason, though, “Leadership or Management” continues to capture our attention; my hope was to shift the focus from either/or to both/and.