The book says that some perspectives of leadership revolve around the idea that some people just have "the right stuff." Said differently, people are naturally born as leaders.Do you agree? Do you think leaders can be made? Why or why not?

can anybody be a leader

In the second sense, leadership has been defined, among others as “the art of inducing subordinates to accomplish their assignments with zeal and confidence. (Koontz & O’Donnell, 1981).*TrueFalse

Leaders are born, not made.OptionsAll of the AboveIs always trueLeaders are not special people. They’re people who learned special skills, skills available to everyone else.Is always false

State the assumption of the Trait Theory of Leadership

The passage below is accompanied by four questions. Based on the passage, choose the best answer for each question.Gary Yukl begins his text Leadership in Organizations by stating, “Leadership is a subject that has long excited interest among scholars and laypeople alike.” Yet despite the rise of “scientific interest” in the topic over the past 100 years, renowned leadership scholar Warren Bennis contends that “the concept of leadership eludes us or turns up in another form to taunt us again with its slipperiness and complexity. So we have invented an endless proliferation of terms to deal with it…and still the concept is not sufficiently defined.” Ralph Stogdill, another influential leadership theorist before his death in 1978, wrote, “There are almost as many definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the concept.”These three quotes from acknowledged experts reveal some important insights into the state of “leadership studies”. First, questions about leadership, including what characteristics make a good leader, how ethical leaders behave, and how one can transform into a leader, pique the curiosity of many within various fields, including politics, business, education, as well as sports. Second, as both Bennis and Stogdill note, answering questions posed about leadership with reductive conclusions evades consensus. . . .Finally, it seems apparent that theorists working within a business management paradigm dominate inquiry into and the facilitation of leadership studies. In addition to Yukl, Bennis, and Stogdill—all of whom engaged in research within American Schools of Business—other prominent and acknowledged leadership gurus studied in sports contexts typically emerge from business or related industrial psychology worlds. Interestingly, however, successful coaches from highly visible sports stand as one group of non-business professionals acknowledged as “leadership experts”—in other words, publish books on the topic of “leadership.” Yet upon closer inspection, the publisher notes on leadership books such as those written by famous American basketball coaches, including Mike Krzyzewski, Pat Riley, and Dean Smith, all emphasize the applicability of their ideas to business as much as they do sport. The significance of this quick analysis is captured by the following summation: leaders play an incredibly lauded role in our cultures, including sports, yet we seem unable to pinpoint a detailed concept of leadership despite over a hundred years of dedicated, scientifically based inquiry. . . .What leadership is and how it is done continually resists cause-effect simplification. A significant reason for the inability to better understand leadership arises from a failure to consider the topic more philosophically —in other words, to view it widely from the standpoint of “generating ideas”. Analysis becomes stuck at a mechanical level, thus reducing leadership to a purely psychological concept rather than a more broadly conceived ‘lived’ notion. We erroneously limit perceptions of leadership to simplistic, linear cause-effect mechanisms, falling prey to what John Dewey termed the “business mind”—the prevalence of value standards resulting from economic success and prosperity. This value-laden commitment to efficiency and accumulation through specialization, labelled by Canadian philosopher John Ralston Saul as “corporatism”, seeps into all facets of our culture, including politics, education, and, of course, sports. The consequence of this corporatist mentality of leadership is an inability to consistently act in ways that make a difference. . . . In other words, we have generally, and within sport particularly, a leadership void.Question No 13.The passage alludes that the prevalent leadership studies lack each of the following EXCEPT:1)  philosophical construct.2)  commitment to specialization.3)  qualifiable perspectives.4)  non-business domination.