Replying to:
Leadership and Technology LO21504
Fostering Cooperation LO21505
Interesting how we are converging. You gave me a nice out, but I can't
take it. You see, I think virtually all competencies can be learned and
developed to some degree--it's just that some are harder than others.
Motives and cognitive ability are hard (not as hard as IQ partisans would
say, but hard), self-image is easier, knowledge is very easy by
comparison. Most people do consider personality traits to be something
you are born with (and some will say that 80% of your personality is in
fact inherited), but that does not mean they are fixed, nor that they
manifest the same way.
For example: Power motive, usually found as critical to leadership in
large organizations, is fundamentally finding satisfaction from having an
impact or influence on others in some form. Immature people with this
trait push people around and bully them. Mature people with this trait
empower people and coach them. The degree of power motive may be no
different, but the use of it--in terms of behavior--is. Can you develop
power motive, a trait found to correlate with neurochemistry, a trait
found to remain stable over decades? Yes, and I have seen it--but it
takes a long time for a significant result. There is reason to believe
there might well be a genetic component to the three social motives (God
knows my children showed their profiles early--within their first few
months of life), but motive development doesn't end with your birth.
Early childrearing patterns, for example, have a profound effect on adult
motive patterns. It is probably fairer to say that you inherit a
predilection or strong foundation in certain personality traits, but that
you can continue to build on them within limits. With all due respect to
Bennis and Drucker, they weren't looking at the right level.
In that sense, there are traits that leaders have in common, many of which
they are born with, but they require development for effective
performance. I am always speaking of good leadership, of course.
So I suppose I agree with Drucker by default--but he had a faulty
definition of a personality trait. The nature vs. nurture argument, like
most such paradoxes, is simply a false structure. You can alter even
brain structure--and indeed you do every day you learn something. There
are very few psychological structures that cannot be modified in some
manner.
Also:
John Gunkler said:
> Some pretty good empirical evidence exists (from McClelland's work) that a
> more effective definition would be:
> Ambitious: Everybody believes that there's only about a 50% chance of
> achieving it.
As a student of McClelland, I want to second that, within limits.
Primarily Power motivated people perceive risk differently than primarily
Achievement motivated people. Power-motivated people tend to be more
optimistic and take higher risks (hence the association between the motive
and gambling). But overall he's right.
Steve Kelner
Director, Educational and Advising Services
Center for Quality of Management
http://www.cqm.org
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>