What is a "Natural Born Leader"

[CalicoPenn]

In the thread this is spun off from, the discussion is what happens to boys that aren't "Natural Born Leaders".

 

I'd be interested to know what makes someone a "natural born leader" in your eyes. How do you define it and know it when you see it? What is a "Natural Born Leader"

 

Or is there really such a thing as a "Natural Born Leader"? I have my own opinion on that (and you can probably guess what that is based on my liberal use of quotation marks) but I'd like to hear other's opinions first.

[JMHawkins]

Well, "natural born" sort of implies that if you ain't got it, you'll never have it. I'm not sure if that's true or not, so how about if I instead drop the "born" part and just describe a "natural leader."

 

A natural leader has these characteristics (perhaps in varying degrees):

 

-self confidence

-good communication skills

-decision making ability

-courage

-evident desire to make progress towards a goal

-a fair degree of empathy (though not necessarily sympathy) with other people

 

 

 

[KC9DDI]

JM - Then what distinguishes a "natural leader" from a plain old "leader"? (Or an "unnatural" leader)?

[JMHawkins]

Then what distinguishes a "natural leader" from a plain old "leader"?

 

A leader who doesn't earn the "natural" adjective is basically a guy with a title (or in BSA terms, a patch on his sleeve). One way or another he's been declared the leader, but does a terrible job actually providing any leadership. He's a de jure leader, not a de facto one (Beavah, did I spell them lawyerin' words right?). He's been granted some sort of official authority, but to the extent people follow him it's out of obligation rather than desire.

 

With a natural leader, people want to follow him because his desire to achieve a goal is causing him to use his decision making ability to craft a plan of action that his empathy and communication skills allow him to explain to his "followers" in terms that resonate with them.

 

I think the "natural" is a confusing thing, because with a good leader, it really does seem to "come naturally" to him, though it may be that it took a lot of work on his part to hone the skills he's using. And the decisions certainly aren't always easy. That's why I listed courage in there.

[DeanRx]

I don't know about the 'born' part of a natural leader, other than it might infer that leadership traits tend to come easily for this person, hence they were "born" with it.

 

For most people (youth included), I feel the label of 'natural born leader' or just 'natural leader' is a little misleading (pun intended). No one is born knowing how to provide leadership. Some might have figured it out faster than others, so they appear to be natural leaders. Some have charisma, attitude, influence be it due to age, physical stature, or self-confidence, or subject matter knowledge. But most of these things can be learned or grown into over time.

 

I tend to fall back on my military training for things such as leadership. First look at the definition... best one I've ever found comes from the Cadet Manual ROTC, U.S. Army, "Leadership is the process of influencing others to accomplish a mission by providing purpose, direction and motivation."

 

The mission = build a campsite

Leader states purpose = so we have a place to cook and sleep, if we don't do it now, we loose daylight and we'll either be doing it in the dark, or we'll be out in the cold.

Direction = Divides sub-tasks and assigns personel based upon ability and need, redirects as situation dictates.

Motivation = can range from 'come on let's work together, so we won't be cold' to 'I don' want to be cold, so get the tent up, or I'll kick your butt!'

 

What most 'natural leaders' posess is initiative, which I would argue is beter defined as self imposed motivation. You can't motivate others, if you yourself are not motivated and believe in the stated goal.

 

I agree that most 'natural leaders' likely don't fit the ADULT mold of what we envision for a youth leader, because what we want to see in a leader is very different than what a youth wants to see in a leader.

 

Most 'natural leaders' understand they can influence a group of their peers, but they probably don't understand HOW they are doing it, nor what direction is the best to be pursuing. That's why many may look like the outcast, the one with a chip on their shoulder, one likely to get in trouble for talking back or testing rules / boundries. Many "natural" leaders (both youth and adult) have a clear distain for being held back, told they can't or shouldn't do something, and are quick to dismiss rules and regulations they see as not being useful or beneficial to the goal they have in mind. Many 'natural leaders' are in fact very self-centered and quickly loose sight of the goal, instead concentrating on their own glory.

 

Thats why I believe the goal of adults in BSA (particularly the upper years of Boy Scouts) should really concentrate on development of MATURE LEADERS. This is NOT managers, but leaders that have the foresight to figure all the angles before making a decision. One that can weigh risk vs. benefit in a situation and then act. One that can formulate the long term payoff vs. the short term gain. One that understands cutting a corner today may save time or money, but might cause one to loose face or worse endanger lives at a later time.

 

Those are the types of leaders we should be trying to build in BSA. Its not easy to do. Trust me, they are in VERY short supply in today's world. Don't look to business or government to provide examples, you will find very few! Dare I say the world NEEDS leaders like this more than ever. If we had more LEADERS like this, our country (and most of the world) wouldn't be in the mess its in right now.

 

Mold MATURE LEADERS out of the "natural born" ones.

[moosetracker]

The traits of a leader I think are well defined in the above post.. This is my take on what make a person be considered a Natural born Leader or not.

 

To me, they already walk into the mission either with the traits or pick up the traits needed for leadership quickly and easily.. The person though may have learn the traits needed from something else in their life, or just by being raised in a family that naturally encouraged these traits, or you may find no where in his background where the abilities were already honed, but the boy has the traits anyway.

 

That does not mean that someone who is not a natural born leader can not become a great leader under the guidence of others.. In scouting, that just means that the older boys, SM & ASM have a little work to do to polish up the diamond in the rough.

 

After which this boy may go off to college or work or extra curricular activities and others will define him as a natural born leader, because it took little effort for them to bring him up to speed, and he shows the personality, that has others respect and follow him..

 

I think a few can show the traits although nothing in their background points to where they learned if from. These are true NBL's.. But most NBL's have learned the skills from somewhere or something, and are labeled NBL's by the people who know them now, but didn't know them then.

[Kudu]

Given CalicoPenn's definition of a "Five Mile Hike" as navigation from the back seat of an automobile, it is more important to define "Leader."

 

Baden-Powell and Green Bar Bill's primary use of the term was for a Scout with a literal mastery over Physical Distance.

 

A "Patrol Leader" is a Scout who can, on a regular basis, safely "lead" a Patrol over significant Physical Distance without adult supervision.

 

The great tragedy of Scouting is that Baden-Powell used the word "Leader," a literal term that would later become a metaphor for adults who sit around an office and fancy themselves to be "leaders."

 

Had B-P used the term "Patrolguard" (as in Lifeguard) then Wood Badge might not have castrated Physical Distance from the Patrol Method, given that so far they have kept their knives away from our Boy Scout waterfronts.

 

If none of your Patrols meet Baden-Powell's definition of a Patrol (a group of around eight Scouts that hikes significant distances without adult supervision, and camps at least 150-300 feet away from other Patrols on Troop campouts), then you are not qualified to speak about "Natural Leaders" because you have no skin in the game.

 

You have replaced the managed risk of Patrol Adventure with Webelos III "Controlled Failure."

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

http://kudu.net

 

(This message has been edited by kudu)

[Stosh]

I work for a multi-billion dollar, international corporation. We are in the process of a major cultural change in how we do business. The Management Model that has become popular over the past 40 years isn't working, never really did and the company struggled. Instead the announcement to every entity in the corporation was recently stated as: "The person on the production line does not work for this company, the company works for them." The #1 question the "management" is expected to ask in every communication to their "subordinates" is: "What can I do to help?"

 

This concept is very foreign to the management training that our "leaders" have come to expect. Does that mean the guy making the product is running the show? Answer: Yes, he knows the most about how to do it right.

 

Too often we overlook "natural" leadership talent because it is assumed that there isn't any on the levels lower than where we stand. We believe these kids come into scouting with no leadership talent and we have to train them. However, instead of promoting and developing leadership talent, we instruct them in management skills and then label them leaders once they master them. However, they may be good managers, but not necessarily good leaders.

 

Simple test, look over your shoulder, if no one's following, you're not a leader. If you are SPL, have great organizational skills, can multi-task 50 things at one time and if you take the test and no one's following, then you're a good manager, but a lousy leader.

 

If no one is following, ask yourself, why aren't they?

 

Managers focus on tasks, leaders focus on people.

 

A bully will always ask the question: "What's in it for me?"

 

A manager will always ask the question: "What's in it for us?"

 

A leader will always ask the question: "What's in it for you?"

 

Stosh

 

[Engineer61]

IMO ... there's no such thing.

 

Leaders are made out of circumstance, be it social status (The Kennedy's), socio-political or economic upheaval (FDR, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Ho Chi Minh), greed (Napoleon, Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan) or war (Nikita Kruschev, Teddy Roosevelt)

 

 

[emb021]

"A leader who doesn't earn the "natural" adjective is basically a guy with a title (or in BSA terms, a patch on his sleeve). One way or another he's been declared the leader, but does a terrible job actually providing any leadership. He's a de jure leader, not a de facto one (Beavah, did I spell them lawyerin' words right?). He's been granted some sort of official authority, but to the extent people follow him it's out of obligation rather than desire."

 

Some people are leaders because they hold a position (or title or patch).

 

Some people are leaders because of how they conduct themselves. These people MAY have an official position, but they lead thru their skills of leadership and NOT thru the position.

 

Most people use the term "natural leader" for people who just somehow have the right attitude and skills naturally to be a leader. In my experience, these people are rare, but sometimes they emerge.

 

Many people have the capacity to be a leader, but may need training and experience to bring out their abilities to be a leader. If you only focus on those who somehow already have these skills (ie, the so-called "natural leader"), you are short-changing the people who can (and should) be developed as a leader.

 

And, yeah, there are some people who, regardless of how much training and experience you spend on them, they are poor leaders. But just because these people exist is no reason to pass over the none "natural leaders" who CAN be developed into leaders.

 

 

[Venividi]

Take a group of scouts into the woods (or mountains, or COPE course, etc.). The natural leader is the one that most of the group looks to for guidance.

[Stosh]

Venividi: BINGO! They look to this guy because they all believe he is the one that can get them to where they need to be. He can guide them, encourage them and help them. He has the skills and reliability that is necessary for the group place their trust in. Even if the older boy does it wrong, they will follow because they believe their best chances of success still lie with him.

 

Stosh

 

 

 

[KC9DDI]

What Venividi described is a good leader, not necessarily a natural leader. Is that person that people look to for guidance a good leader because he or she was born with some natural aptitude for leadership? Or because he or she spent several years practicing leadership, making mistakes, learning about leadership, or *gasp* developing leadership skills? Within or outside of Scouting?

[moosetracker]

emb021 - "A leader who doesn't earn the "natural" adjective is basically a guy with a title (or in BSA terms, a patch on his sleeve). One way or another he's been declared the leader, but does a terrible job actually providing any leadership.

 

I disagree with this statement, because you are stating if they are not natural, then they can never ever become good leaders.. If your not a natural born leader you CAN become a great leader.. (although not a Natural born leader)..

 

Take two boys from my troop..:

 

Boy A : first time as Patrol leader was awful.. Yelling, demanding.. No one wanted to be in his patrol.. When he got his Eagle, it was a great story to laugh over, because over time he became one of our best leaders, and boys did follow him once he learned the RIGHT way to be a leader.

 

Boy B : I do not know if he ever was considered a great leader in our Troop, always very shy and quiet.. Sort of the odd kid.. If working with scouts we usually gave him no more the two at a time, so he wasn't overwhelmed.. He was SPL once, but it was when no one wanted the job, and he was reluctantly talked into it. He did the job, but wasn't great at it. Then off he went to college for something with learning forestry and being an outdoor guide for those mega-buck trips (there is a college for that).. Anyway, from what I hear, every year they elect a captain for their skill training. He has consistantly been elected time & time again.. Although this could be a case where all the other students are lazy, I don't think it is, as it looks great on a resume.. Also I am shocked that for summer jobs, he never comes home he goes off to different states, different countries whatever, anything doing a job that parrallels his planned vocation.. I think he just found the perfect nitch for himself and found his self confidence through it. Though why it wasn't shining while he was in our troop when the outdoor activities were close to his vocation, I will never know.

[Venividi]

 

 

> Is that person that people look to for guidance a good leader because he or she was born with some natural aptitude for leadership? Or because he or she spent several years practicing leadership, making mistakes, learning about leadership, or *gasp* developing leadership skills?

 

My opinion only: individuals in the group are looking for someone to make decisions for them because they don't know enough about the situation to know how to proceed, or they do know enough, but are afraid to make a decision because they don't want to risk being razzed by their group members in the event that they make a mistake.

 

I don't think the group gives a whip about whether the person that they look to has learned about leadership, or practiced leadership, or developed leadership. I think that individiuals are more concerned with 1) do they think that this person knows what he is doing in this situation, and/or 2) does the person that they look to have self confidence.

 

An aside related to reason #2: On a troop ski trip, two 1'st year scouts headed directly for the slopes rather than to the lesson that had been set up for them. Before the trip the mother of one had specifically told me that this was his first time skiing, and to be sure he took a lesson. I asked the scout why he wasnt headed to the lesson. He said that scout B was going to teach him. I asked scout B about how much experience he had. His response was that this was his first time skiing too. Scout B had exuded the "natural leadership" that others would follow, (even if he didnt know what he was doing).

 

Notice that I use the term "natural" rather than "natural born". In my view, a natural leader emerges as the result of charisma, which as far as I know, has a large genetic component, added with experience.