One school of thought holds that leadership skills are innate, while some are adamant that they can be trained. This essay attempts to delve deeper into both stances before concluding that I agree with the latter.
Admittedly, it is understandable why some assert that some people are naturally born leaders. The key rationale is that leadership skills necessitate related abilities that are believed to be inherited. For instance, persuasive skills of leaders require a lot of effort and time, if not impractical, to instill. This exerts the impact of their speeches and the reactions of listeners, evaluating the influence of them. As many can effortlessly change others’ perspectives by providing convincing talks, such as in debates, they are intrinsically commanders.
Notwithstanding the aforementioned point, it is my firm conviction that individuals would have equal opportunities to be leaders. This is predominantly ascribed to hands-on experiences that leaders undergo, subsequently sharpening their abilities. This is because by practicing and training, they can acquire instrumental knowledge and develop the requisite skills, which would ultimately bring about self-confidence. If innate leaders do not proactively enhance their skills, they can easily be surpassed by those who are not genetically leaders but determined to be. A prominent example is Donald Trump, who was originally majoring in economics. However, he became the president of the US with his dedication and a mindset of learning new things everyday and continuing to improve himself.
In conclusion, while there are justification for the belief that leadership skills are innate, I am of the opinion that the power of practices can not be disregarded.