Are leaders born or made?

It’s one of the most enduring questions in business, shaping how organizations hire and promote talent.

Some believe great leaders are born with innate charisma, confidence, or intelligence. Others argue that leadership is learned through experience and mentorship. 

Most experts now agree it’s both, but mostly made: 

• Psychologists estimate it’s about one-third nature, two-thirds nurture.
• The Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) found that 52% of executives believe leaders are developed, not discovered.
• Gallup adds that only 1 in 10 people have high natural leadership talent. 

Is leadership innate or learned in your organization? Your response can determine whether you focus on finding “natural” leaders or building leadership capacity across the organization. To help you gain some perspective, let’s delve deeper into this debate and debunk the leadership myth. 

Historical Leadership Theories

Over the last two centuries, leadership theories have swung between two poles: one emphasizing that leaders are born with innate qualities, the other emphasizing that leadership develops through practice and environment. 

Tracing this evolution helps us understand how today’s thinking blends both mindsets. 

Great Man Theory (1840s)

The Great Man Theory was one of the earliest and most influential ideas about leadership. Its premise was simple but limiting: leaders are born, not made. 

Historian Thomas Carlyle argued that exceptional individuals, usually in moments of crisis, would emerge because of their inborn qualities: courage, vision, and dominance. These traits, he believed, couldn’t be taught. You either had them, or you didn’t.

It’s a theory that resonated in its time but left little room for developing leadership in everyday people.

Trait Theories (Early 20th Century)

Building on the Great Man concept, trait theories searched for the defining characteristics of effective leaders. Researchers attempted to catalog qualities like intelligence, confidence, and charisma as indicators of leadership potential. Many of these traits were believed to be hereditary. 

The problem is that, while certain traits did appear more often in leaders, no magic checklist existed. You could find charismatic leaders who failed and quiet, reserved leaders who thrived. 

Later studies gave way to the “leaders are made, not born” theory: the idea that traits alone aren’t enough, and that leadership can be strengthened through other means.

With this, trait theories laid the groundwork for modern personality assessments and helped organizations begin considering how natural tendencies affect leadership.

Behavioral Theories (1940s-1950s)

Then came a significant shift. Instead of asking what a leader is, researchers began asking what a leader does.

Behavioral theories emerged from studies at Ohio State University and the University of Michigan, identifying two primary styles: 

• Task-focused leaders who clarified roles and set the direction of their team
• People-focused leaders who motivated and supported their team to excel

This is where experts began to explain that leaders are made, not born, in practical terms: leadership behaviors aren’t fixed at birth. Skills like clear communication and coaching can be learned and improved over time.

Situational and Contingency Theories

By the 1960s, researchers acknowledged another truth: context matters. Situational and contingency theories emphasized that no single style works everywhere. Leaders like Fred Fiedler, Paul Hersey, and Ken Blanchard showed that success depends on matching your approach to the team’s readiness and the situation.

A turnaround project might call for a highly directive leader, while a skilled, self-managing team might thrive under someone collaborative and hands-off. 

This adaptability isn’t a gift you’re born with. Instead, it’s developed by working in different environments and learning what works where.

Takeaway: Leadership theory has evolved from the rigid “you either have it or you don’t” mindset to a more nuanced reality. 

Yes, some traits give people a head start. However, factors that sustain leadership over time, like behavioral skills, adaptability, and self-awareness, are learned. That’s the premise behind leadership coaching and development programs: Outstanding leadership isn’t reserved for the few. Instead, it can be built and enhanced by many.

Is Leadership Innate or Learned?

Now that we’ve explored how leadership theories evolved, it’s time to examine what research shows. 

As most evidence points to a mix of both, the question now is less about choosing sides and more about understanding the balance. Is leadership innate or learned, and how much of each shapes the leaders we see today? 

The “Born Leader” Perspective

Historically, Great Man and trait theorists argued that extraordinary leaders are born with qualities most people don’t possess. Thomas Carlyle insisted that to deny innate leadership gifts was to suggest everyone enters the world with equal abilities — something he rejected. Early research suggested certain traits, such as high intelligence, assertiveness, or charisma, often run in families and may have genetic roots.

The Center for Creative Leadership echoes this in part, noting that people can be “born with potential.” Some individuals may naturally exude confidence or inspire trust without formal training. In CCL’s executive survey, 19% believed leadership is more born than made.

The “Made Leader” Perspective

The leaders are made not born theory emphasizes that leadership is a skill set, not a fixed trait. CCL states plainly: leadership can be practiced and learned. Their 70-20-10 model shows that 70% of development comes from challenging experiences, 20% from relationships like mentoring and coaching, and 10% from coursework or formal training.

Evidence supports this. In the same CCL survey, 52% of executives believed leaders are largely made. Psychologists from the Chartered Banker Institute concluded that leadership is about one-third nature and two-thirds learned. Other research finds even those with strong natural tendencies plateau without deliberate development.

The perspectives reveal a blended reality: while some people start with an advantage, most leadership ability grows through challenge, feedback, and intentional practice.

Research Evidence and Expert Insights

Beyond leadership theories, decades of scientific research offer a more detailed look at what shapes leaders. Studies in genetics, behavioral science, and organizational psychology show that leadership emerges from the interplay of innate tendencies and learned skills — but the weight of influence isn’t equal.

Twin Studies

Twin studies are one of the most trusted methods for estimating the influence of nature and nurture. By comparing identical twins (who share nearly all their DNA) to fraternal twins (who share about half), researchers can separate the effects of genetics from environment.

One landmark study found that about 24% of the likelihood of holding a leadership role could be traced to genetic factors, with only 10% linked to shared upbringing. The remaining influence came from unique life experiences such as career challenges, education, and personal choices.

These findings help explain why leadership styles vary widely even among siblings raised in the same household. While certain tendencies may be inherited, most leadership growth happens when individuals are exposed to situations that demand influence and resilience.

A “Leadership Gene”

In 2013, DeNeve and colleagues conducted a genome-wide analysis and identified a genetic marker associated with occupying leadership positions. The variant is linked to neural receptors that may influence traits such as social behavior or decision-making.

While fascinating, the discovery also sparked debate. Many researchers caution that no single gene can determine leadership destiny. Personality, context, cultural background, and opportunity all interact with biology.

Even with a predisposition, leadership potential remains dormant unless developed through intentional practice.

Genetics Is Not Destiny

The existence of a genetic component doesn’t mean leadership ability is fixed. Even the most cited studies show that environmental factors account for around 70% of leadership outcomes. This includes career challenges, mentoring relationships, feedback, and opportunities to practice leadership behaviors.

In other words, genetics may open the door, but experience determines whether someone walks through it — and how far they go. Without development, even the most naturally talented leader will plateau.

Experience: The 70-20-10 Rule

The CCL’s 70-20-10 model remains one of the most widely used frameworks in leadership development. To recap how it breaks down leadership growth:

• 70% of learning comes from challenging assignments and on-the-job experiences.
• 20% comes from developmental relationships such as mentoring and coaching.
• 10% comes from formal training and education.

Real-world projects that stretch capacity, force problem-solving under pressure, and demand influence without authority deliver the deepest growth. Formal training remains valuable, but its impact increases dramatically when paired with immediate application and targeted feedback. 

For example, a leader who attends a coaching workshop and then leads a high-stakes project with guidance from a mentor will retain and refine skills far faster than one who learns in isolation.

What Does This Mean for Your Organization?

For business and HR leaders, these insights underscore the need to look beyond hiring for “natural leaders.” The greater opportunity lies in identifying people with baseline potential and giving them the experiences and learning experiences that accelerate their growth.

Embedding strategies like structured mentoring programs, cross-functional assignments, and coaching into the culture ensures leadership development is continuous, not episodic. These are the same approaches used by high-performing organizations.

How Leaders Are Made: Development Strategies

The research shows a consistent truth: while some people may start with traits that make leadership feel natural, the real differentiator is development. 

Without it, even the most naturally gifted leaders plateau. With it, those without obvious early signs can thrive in complex, high-responsibility roles.

So how are leaders made? The answer is deliberate, sustained development that blends challenge with support:

On-the-Job Experience (70%) 

The most powerful leadership lessons come from doing the work. Assign high-stakes projects, cross-functional responsibilities, and roles that require influence without direct authority. These stretch assignments force leaders to problem-solve and adapt.

When leaders navigate ambiguity and pressure, they build resilience and decision-making skills that no classroom can replicate.

Mentoring and Coaching (20%) 

Leadership grows faster with guidance from those who’ve been there before. Mentoring transfers hard-won knowledge and builds perspective. Coaching adds structure, challenging leaders to experiment with new approaches and track progress.

As the Chartered Banker Institute notes, effective mentoring and coaching also expand networks, provide role models, and build confidence in decision-making.

Formal Training (10%) 

High-quality programs provide the frameworks and shared language leaders need to operate consistently across an organization. At HPWP, our High Performance Leadership Workshop uses experiential methods so participants practice skills in real time, ensuring they return to work ready to apply them.

Training becomes even more powerful when aligned with company strategy and followed by opportunities to apply new skills immediately.

Feedback and Self-Reflection 

Feedback is the mirror leaders need but often avoid. It sharpens self-awareness and highlights both strengths to leverage and habits to change. Pairing feedback with intentional reflection turns it into action, creating lasting behavioral change.

Soft Skills Development

Emotional intelligence and resilience don’t just make leaders more likable; they improve performance outcomes. Leaders who can connect with their teams and respond constructively in pressured situations are more effective in retention and results.

Organizational Implications 

Beliefs about the born vs. made debate shape talent strategies — often in ways leaders don’t consciously recognize.

Research from the Center for Creative Leadership shows that executives who believe leaders are born tend to invest heavily in identifying “high potentials” and offering them select opportunities.

While this can produce results, it risks overlooking capable employees who simply haven’t been tested yet.

Organizations that believe leaders can be made take a different approach. They design broad-based development programs and create a culture where leadership is expected, not reserved for a select few. This expands the talent pool and strengthens engagement, as employees are more committed when they see a path for growth.

It’s also worth noting that the cost of getting this wrong is significant. U.S. companies spend roughly $14 billion annually on leadership development, yet many fail to see a lasting impact because training is disconnected from daily work. The highest return comes when training is paired with stretch assignments and systems that reinforce desired behaviors.

A balanced belief is the most practical. It acknowledges that some traits provide a head start but treats leadership as a capability that can be cultivated across the organization. In practice, this means:

• Identifying potential early, not just in the most visible or vocal employees
• Creating pathways for emerging leaders to take on responsibility incrementally
• Embedding coaching and feedback into the culture so growth is constant, not occasional

Partnering with HPWP Group ensures leadership growth is intentional, measurable, and directly linked to business performance. By embracing a made-focused strategy, you can future-proof their leadership pipeline and build a culture where people love to work.

Are Leaders Born or Made? Key Takeaways

NFL coach Vince Lombardi once said, “Leaders aren’t born, they are made. And they are made just like anything else, through hard work.”

While certain traits can give someone a head start, leadership is mostly made. Academic research and studies from the Center for Creative Leadership and Gallup all show that most leadership capacity comes from intentional development, not birthright.

For business and organizational leaders, the message is clear: treat leadership as a capability to be cultivated at all levels. Without investment, even the most naturally gifted leaders will plateau. With the right opportunities, coaching, and feedback, almost anyone can grow into a leader who drives performance and inspires others.

At HPWP Group, we partner with forward-thinking leaders to do exactly that: build environments where people rise to their best, lead with purpose, and create workplaces others aspire to join.

If you’re ready to shape a leadership culture that outlasts any one person or position, explore our leadership development programs and upcoming events. Let’s talk about how we can transform leadership in your organization today.