Once again...are leaders born or made?

A few weeks ago, I ended my post, "One more time on the elites..." with the statement, "I am still left to ponder if we will ever find a so-called leadership gene."  Perhaps I was a bit premature in making that statement, because a quick Google search using the phrase "leadership gene" took me to a study from 2013 published in the journal The Leadership Quarterly, "Born to lead? A twin design and genetic association study of leadership role occupancy".  More on that study in a moment.

As it turns out, the argument about whether leadership is nature versus nurture in origin has been going on since the time of the ancient Greeks.  The Greek philosopher Plato wrote in his masterpiece on political philosophy, The Republic, that, "we are not all alike; there are diversities of natures among us which are adapted to different occupations..."  In other words, at least according to Plato, some of us are born to be better at certain occupations than others.  He wrote further stating, "There will be discovered to be some natures who ought to...be leaders in the State; and others who are not born to be [leaders], and are meant to be followers rather than leaders."  Just as some of us are born to be better at certain occupations than others, some of us are natural (born) leaders.  If that were the case, there should be some kind of test that we could use to select our leaders.  However, even Plato recognized that this would be difficult when he wrote, "The selection [of leaders] will be no easy task."

One of the most commonly used research techniques to determine whether something (a personality trait or skill) is determined more by nature (i.e. genetic factors) or nurture (i.e. environmental factors) is the twin study.  Identical twins (monozygotic twins, MZ, i.e. twins developing from a single fertilized egg) share 100% of their genes and fraternal (dizygotic, DZ, i.e. twins developing from two separate eggs fertilized by two different sperm) twins only share about 50% of their genes.  By comparing the similarities between MZ and DZ twins in personality traits like intelligence or skills such as leadership, researchers can distinguish between genetic and environmental influences. So, if a trait is highly heritable, identical twins will be far more similar than fraternal twins. If environmental factors are the main driver, the similarity will be closer for both types of twins.

There have been a few twin studies on leadership, most of which suggest that genetic factors account for between 25% to 50% of what constitutes leadership.  Most of these studies have used either self-reported measures of leadership traits or something called leadership occupancy (whether someone is in a leadership role in an organization) as a surrogate for possessing traits that would make someone a good leader.  The journal The Leadership Quarterly dedicated an entire issue called "The Biology of Leadership" in 2012, which reviewed most of these studies.

Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler were part of a team of investigators that conducted the study I mentioned at the beginning of this post ("Born to lead? A twin design and genetic association study of leadership role occupancy").  I've talked about these two scientists in the past (see, for example, "Peer Pressure", "Happy is contagious", and most recently, "Blueprint").  What distinguishes this study from all of the previous ones was that the investigators also had access to a large repository of genetic markers from two separate longitudinal studies.  The first was the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), which started in 1994 and included demographic data, survey responses on a variety of different parameters, and genetic markers for just over 2,500 study participants.  The second was the famous Framingham Heart Study that began in 1948 and included data from just over 3,500 study participants.

The correlation coefficient for leadership occupancy was 0.357 for MZ twins and 0.033 for DZ twins (a statistically significant difference).  Controlling for demographic factors such as gender and age, genetic factors explained 24% of the difference between individuals in leadership occupancy.  Importantly, the rs490 single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) on the CHRNB3 gene (which encodes for a specific kind of brain receptor, called the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor) was associated with leadership occupancy.  Specifically, having one more rs4950 A allele (instead of a G allele) increased the odds of being in a leadership role by 50 percent!  Using data from the Framingham Heart Study, the investigators once again found that having one more rs4950 A allele (instead of a G allele) increased the odds of occupying a leadership role by approximately 25%, which was again statistically significant.

Unfortunately, these investigators were unable to explain how having one more rs4950 A allele resulted in a greater likelihood of occupying a leadership role.  They did discuss what is currently known about the neuroscience of the CHRNB3 gene and nicotinic acetylcholine receptors.  In other words, the results of this study are far from complete.  Given that these specific receptors have been shown in other studies to modulate both personality and psychological behavior, the findings of the present study are very interesting.

I've come across a concept known as the Diathesis-Stress Model in psychology.  The term "diathesis" comes from the Greek word for "disposition".  The Diathesis-Stress Model suggests that mental health disorders arise from the interaction of an underlying disposition (diathesis) and external stressors. An individual may have a predisposition to a disorder, but it’s the combination of this vulnerability and adverse life events that triggers its manifestation.  I think a similar model applies to leadership.  There are probably certain genetic factors that predispose individuals to become leaders, but it is the combination of those genetic factors and environmental factors, such as experience, training, and education that play an important role as well.  

I still strongly believe in the concept that "Leaders are made, not born."  I have to admit though, the studies mentioned above certainly lead to a number of additional questions.  So, I asked that exact question to the AI platform ChatGPT, which answered, "Leaders are both born and made...Natural traits may influence the path, but leadership is ultimately a skill set — and skills can be developed."