Born or Made?
This argument has been going on forever. Whether leaders are born that way or are made into greatness. There’s also the “Great Man Theory” that focuses of the differences (intelligence, physical height, personality) between leaders and non-leaders.
So, this new study (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) effected by a slew of folks from the National University of Singapore (Drs. Z Song, X. Jin, J. Ying, X. Zhang, Y. Song, H. Li, and Q. Fan) plus Dr. W.D. Li from the Chinese University of Hong Kong is interesting. For a bunch of reasons.
Let’s start with the fact that these Asian researchers decided to study those leaders of European descent. (Now, they plan to follow up this study using Asian populations.) And, what they did analyze were nine genetic markers that have significance for leadership. They also included concepts of physical and mental health in their study. They specifically sought out two leadership variables- positions of leadership and managing demands. There were 10 personal traits that correlated with leadership- intelligence, the Big-Five personality traits, risk tolerance, height, educational attainment, and income.
As I had reported earlier, studies of twinshad already indicated that genetics could account for at least 30% of the differences in folks in leadership. These researchers extended the analysis to the entire genome- and included wellbeing considerations.
Using data (genetic and occupational) from more than 280,000 folks, primarily from the UK Biobank [248,640] (as well as other cohorts from the USA). This was then coupled with data from the UK Standard Occupation Classification and the US Occupational Information Network.
Interestingly, leadership roles correlated very well with low levels of depression and anxiety. (Now, let’s not forget that leaders do generally make more money than the general population and have greater control over their work.) And, then, again, leadership correlated well with an increased level of bipolar disorder- as well as a higher body mass index (BMI) and diminished life spans (after controlling for the income levels of the subjects).
Most importantly, they found that it takes way more than a handful of genes to define leadership- and each set of genes has a small overall effect. Nurture and nature are both relevant facts for leadership development.
Interesting observations. I’m thinking of people I know who had leadership abilities. I’m just puzzled that low rates of depression are recorded as a possible marker for leadership potential, along with possible bipolar disorder, because I do know people with bipolar disorder and these particlar individuals suffer (or suffered). terribly from depression. (In fact, one of them ended his life by suicide.) So it might seem that suffering from depression may not necessarily rule out leadership abilities.
A means B does not always mean that B means A, Alana. Especially when it comes to human physches.