United States Army: Are Leaders Born Or Made?

Are Leaders Born or Made?
SSI, NCOA
SFC Luis A. Gutierrez
79S ALC
004-13
SFC Eric L. Crist

In our history as the United States Army, we have overcome tremendous and various obstacles that have led to defining moments as well as benchmarking what true leadership is and what unity can achieve. In defining unity in the Army history we generally tend to think of cohesion as a mutual alliances among several of Americans serving for a common purpose and as so, all due credit is due. Yet when defining leadership in history we tend to take a more individualized point of reference, focusing on key leaders and achievers of great feats. This generalized train of thought feeds into a widely misguided myth, with its underlining respectable
truth of course, that great leadership derives primarily innately. The U.S. Army has second that note and proven that by embracing and captivating in its ranks the ideals, foundations, characteristics, attributes and competencies necessary to develop a full spectrum multifaceted military leaders (Odierno, 2012), innate capabilities to lead among its ranks only assist in enhancing its overall leadership developmental efforts. So while the debate whether leaders are born or made could continue there is no question that Army’s leadership developmental structure has proven effective and true time after time. So now the question arises, what key elements of the Army Leadership structure sets it apart when developing its leaders? As you continue to read this paper, the finals outcome is to educate the reader on why building leaders of character makes the Army Leadership structure such an effective developmental tool and how it assist in enhances innate and inhibited natural abilities to lead in each of its Soldiers.

To begin, there is no question that some people are born leaders by nature, just as some individuals are born to be natural runners or born with capabilities to entertain. While this may be true for the gifted few it does not reflect the abilities of the masses in most organizations, especially when talking about such a diverse institution like the U.S. Army. One of the primarily challenges in exceling in the Profession of Arms is mastering the inherited reliance of having a strong progressive and substitutional leadership pool available in the absence of orders. In developing its leaders to overcome this challenge the Department of the Army brings focus in continuously building Soldiers of character that independently embrace the moral and ethical qualities of American Soldier. By building a foundation encompassed within an Army culture, leaders either born or developed continuously learn to embrace some of the most essential core competencies required of not just of any leaders but a great American leader. Starting from the induction phase as a new Soldier the Army recognizes that its entry level personal join with a life-long developed value-based mentality built from personal experience and beliefs. The Army Values are introduced to firmly bind all Army members into a fellowship dedicated to serve the Nation and the Army (Odierno, 2012). The Army Values consist of the principles, standards, and qualities considered essential for successful Army leaders. They are fundamental to helping Soldiers make the right decision in any situation (Odierno, 2012). The Army recognizes seven values that must be developed in all of its members: Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity and Personal Courage. Developing and enforcing a values based environment within the Army culture nurtures Soldier from the start to embody the ethical standard of behavior demanded from any great leader both born or made. These common values build on common motivators needed to relate a team, to its leadership and mission. As some may lean to believe that having natural abilities to lead suffices as a whole, without embracing a core value structure even the most talented are bound to fail against their own efforts. Core values sustain a moral standing and build a structure of beliefs to live by that drive inner motivation. This is why the U.S. Army has continuously been successful in developing the full potential of any capable and willing Soldier in its ranks for over 230 years. While core values have served as a key foundation in building leaders of character, it only serves as one part of the developmental process needed to build the foundation of a great leader. For those that led its critical to be able to balance on one hand the demanding circumstance of an event or a challenge while remaining empathetic, this begins to define our next measure of what a leader of character should be. The natural leader is born with an innate skills and abilities to direct and motivate its followers to a common purpose.
Leaders that are defined by these characteristics alone represent a disturbed view of what a leader should be, know and do. Take for instance Fidel Castro the standing president of Cuba, viewed as a great leader and praised as a champion of anti-imperialism, humanitarianism, socialism and environmentalism by his followers. His ability to provide economic growth to his stagnant country built him a popularity base among his followers as a great leader. While positive correlations to his efforts do reflect elements of a good leadership a full spectrum view of his character clearly shows how far he falls short from being a great leader. Great leaders are not just those that provide actions with results but those that can empathize and humble themselves for a greater good. Fidel’s long run dictatorship-like system and abuse of multiple human rights have labeled him as a leader by title only. The structured growth of an empathetic leader is rooted from one’s personal values. The Army Values directly influence in building empathetic leaders in its ranks. When defining competent and empathetic leaders the Army defines the actions of taking care of Soldiers by giving them the training, equipment, and all the support they need to keep them alive in combat and accomplish the mission. During wartime and difficult operations, empathetic Army leaders share the hardships with their Soldiers to gauge if their plans and decisions are realistic. Competent and empathetic leaders also recognize the need to provide their Soldiers with reasonable comforts and rest periods to maintain good morale and mission effectiveness (Odierno, 2012). Developing empathy requires that leaders demonstrate some level of vulnerability, heart and genuine care for his or her subordinates. Self-awareness, experience and patience serve vital in developing this trait as a habit. By
being empathetic those that are led will develop a sense of loyalty beyond the cause. This characteristic along with embracing a life of positive core values, are what sets apart a natural born leader from a great leader, both born or made that have embodied these learned characteristics. In closing, it’s been covered that great leadership emerges when building leaders of character not necessarily deriving from birth. These characteristic consisting of core values and empathy that can be taught as well as developed in any competent and willing individual. The U.S. Army has firmly embraced the challenge to continue its long tradition of building the greatest fighting force on earth through its most precious resource, its Soldiers.
I hope you have enjoyed this paper and apply its concepts to your daily lives as developing leaders. I will close with one of my favorite quotes:
“Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them.” -William Shakespeare
Further reading and training on this topic can be referenced in ADRP 6-22 and ADP 6-22.

Reference
Odierno, T. Headquarters, Department of the Army, (2012). Army Leadership (ADP 6-22)
Odierno, T. Headquarters, Department of the Army, (2012). Army Leadership (ADRP 6-22)
Anderson, E. (2012, November 11). Are leaders born or made? Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikaandersen/2012/11/21/are-leaders-born-or-made/