By Aare Afe Babalola

MEANING of leadership: The Oxford Advanced Learners’ Dictionary, 7th Edition, defines leadership as the “state or position of being a leader;… the ability to be a leader, or the qualities a good leader should have; a group of leaders of a particular organisation.”

Leadership can also be defined as a process by which a person influences others to accomplish an objective and directs the organisation in a way that makes it more cohesive and coherent. Leaders carry out this process by applying their leadership attributes, such as beliefs, values, ethics, character, knowledge, and skills.

A person’s position as a manager or supervisor might give him the authority to accomplish certain tasks or objectives in the organisation. This, however, does not make him a leader. It simply makes him a boss. Leadership differs in that it makes the followers want to achieve high goals, whereas followers merely obey the directives of the bosses.

The making of a leader: A question that has attracted much debate is whether leaders are made or born. Do great leaders inherit the traits that propel them to leadership and prominence over their peers, or do they acquire such traits as a result of carefully orchestrated and implemented academic curricula? Can the qualities or the essentials of leadership be reduced into a textbook to be studied by those desirous of attaining leadership heights? 

Theories of leadership: In this regard, sociologists have developed various theories regarding the question of whether leaders are born or made. These are: Trait theory, Situational or great event theory; Transformational leadership theory. 

Trait theory: Trait theory tries to describe the types of behaviour and personality tendencies associated with effective leadership. This is probably the first academic theory of leadership. Thomas Carlyle (1841) is regarded as a forefather of trait theory, having used such an approach to identify the talents, skills, and physical characteristics of men who rose to power.

Ronald Heifetz (1994) traces the trait theory approach back to the 19th-century tradition of associating the history of society with the history of great men. Proponents of the trait approach usually list leadership qualities, with the assumption that certain traits or characteristics will tend to lead to effective leadership.

 Shelley Kirkpatrick and Edwin A. Locke (1991) exemplify the trait theory. They argue that: “Key leader traits include: drive (a broad term that includes achievement, motivation, ambition, energy, tenacity, and initiative), leadership motivation (the desire to lead but not to seek power as an end in itself), honesty, integrity, self-confidence (which is associated with emotional stability), cognitive ability, and knowledge of the business.” According to their research, “there is less clear evidence for traits such as charisma, creativity, and flexibility.”

Situational or great event theory: Situational theory also appeared as a reaction to the trait theory of leadership. Social scientists argued that history was more than the result of the intervention of great men, as Carlyle suggested. According to Herbert Spencer (1884), the times create the person, not the other way around.

This theory assumes that different situations call for different characteristics; according to this group of theories, no single optimal psychographic profile of a leader exists. According to the theory, “what an individual actually does when acting as a leader is in large part dependent upon the characteristics of the situation in which he functions”. 

Transformational leadership theory: Under the transformational leadership theory, it is stated that people can choose to become leaders. People can acquire leadership traits through the accumulation of knowledge available in several textbooks and manuals. This theory, although very popular, has attracted severe criticism. Archibald Wavell was reported to have stated in the London Times of February 17, 1941, that “no amount of study or learning would make a man a leader unless he has the natural qualities of one”.

Styles of leadership: There are several leadership styles. In a study conducted by Kurt Lewin, Ronal Lipitt, and Ralph White in 1939, groups of 11-year-old boys were evaluated on their performance of certain tasks conducted under different work conditions. 

These climates were authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire. 

Leaders in authoritarian environments made decisions alone, demanded strict obedience to their orders, and dictated each step taken; future steps were largely uncertain. The leader is not necessarily hostile but is aloof from participation in work and commonly offers personal praise and criticism for the work done. Democratic climates were characterised by collective decision-making processes, assisted by the leader.

Before accomplishing tasks, perspectives are gained from group discussion and technical advice from a leader. Members are given choices and collectively decide the division of labour. Praise and criticism are objective, fact-based, and given by a group member who has not necessarily participated extensively in the actual work.

Environments of laissez-faire allowed the group to make policy decisions without the leader’s involvement. The leader remains uninvolved in work decisions unless asked, does not participate in the division of labour, and very rarely gives praise. The results confirmed that the democratic climate was preferable. The impact of this on our political experience will be addressed in the course of this article. 

The making of a leader: Each of the above stated theories has its strengths and weaknesses. Without a doubt, genetics influence whether or not a person will make a good leader. History is replete with instances of great families that have been known to produce leaders who played important roles in the development of their countries.

The Ghandhi family of India, the Bhutto family of Pakistan, the Kennedy clan of the United States of America, and, of late, the Bush family all readily come to mind. It can be argued that the leaders produced by these families must have inherited some traits that easily marked them out for leadership positions.

Thus, the trait theory would seem to be correct. An intriguing aspect is that some of the traits may have been picked up by the children of the families through years of close contact with their elder relatives, who were then in positions of leadership. Surely, George W. Bush, Jr., must have learned one or two things about leadership from George W. Bush, Sr. This is a classic example of where the two theories of nature and nurture, or traits and transformational theories, can be said to have met. 

The situational theory is one that is easily verifiable. The environment in which a person lives plays an important part in the acquisition of leadership skills. The highly revered Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Ghandhi, and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. were all products of the environment and times in which they lived. Would the world have heard about Nelson Mandela without apartheid?

Would Martin Luther King Jr. have had a place in history without the unequal treatment meted out to African-Americans and the resultant civil rights movement? Will memories of the peaceful marches led by Mahatma Ghandi linger on in the memories of millions without the British colonial rule that brought them about? Coming back home, we have all heard of Chief Obafemi Awolowo, Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, Sardauna, Sir Tafawa Balewa, General Yakubu Gowon, and Chief Olusegun Obasanjo.

While the first four fathers of Nigeria can be said to be products of their times, when agitation for Nigerian independence was paramount, the contributions of General Yakubu Gowon and Chief Olusegun Obasanjo are firmly rooted in the circumstances of their own times, when leadership of this country was thrust upon them on those trying occasions.

Perhaps it is not within my competence to make conjectures on the lives these great men would have lived without the occurrences with which they were faced and against which they triumphed. But one thing is certain: they rose to gigantic heights above the obstacles that were placed in their paths by the times in which they lived. It is said that a man does not make the time, the times make the man. 

*Please send your comments and suggestions to my email: president@abuad.edu.ng.