1. Axel Anderson, Historical Patterns, Simpleton Press, Dundee, 1975. p. 40 One of the great debates in the natural sciences is that of "nature" and "nurture"; in other words, are animals and plants the way they are because they are genetically made that way, or are they shaped by their environments? This debate is carried on in the social sciences, such as politics, and it is especially applied to the subject of leadership. The question is asked, when we look at the lives of the great leaders throughout history, were they born to be great, or was it their experiences that made them so? To be honest, I cannot see any reason to hold such a debate: it seems obvious to me that it is a combination of the two. Paragraph 1

2. Main ideas One of the great debates in the natural sciences is that of "nature" and "nurture"; in other words, are animals and plants the way they are because they are genetically made that way, or are they shaped by their environments? This debate is carried on in the social sciences, such as politics, and it is especially applied to the subject of leadership. The question is asked, when we look at the lives of the great leaders throughout history, were they born to be great, or was it their experiences that made them so? To be honest, I cannot see any reason to hold such a debate: it seems obvious to me that it is a combination of the two. Anderson (1975) takes a purely historical perspective and sums up the argument over nature and nurture by stating that “it is a combination of the two” (p. 40). Summary

3. At this stage in our discussion, it becomes necessary to address the whole nature/nurture question. On this matter, I find myself attracted to the nature side of the matter. When we look at most of the major political and military leaders of the last 3000 years or so, we find that they come from long lines of leaders-Alexander the Great was the descendent of great kings, and the strength of Rome was founded on the strength of the Imperial Family; the strong genes of the leaders were the main factor in their greatness. Eric Churchill, Heredity, Eagle Publishing, London, 1984. p. 20 Paragraph 2

4. Main ideas At this stage in our discussion, it becomes necessary to address the whole nature/nurture question. On this matter, I find myself attracted to the nature side of the matter. When we look at most of the major political and military leaders of the last 3000 years or so, we find that they come from long lines of leaders - Alexander the Great was the descendent of great kings, and the strength of Rome was founded on the strength of the Imperial Family; the strong genes of the leaders were the main factor in their greatness. As Churchill (1984) in his book on genes points out head political and military figures of the last three millennia tended to come from a family of leaders. Thus, he concludes that their genes were the key to their success Summary

5. Paragraph 3 I refuse to believe that great leaders are born rather than made. In ancient societies, of course the leaders came from the same family, since that is how society was structured; but if we look at the great leaders of modern times, such as Napoleon or Hitler, we see that they came from ordinary backgrounds and that it was the events of their lives that made them into great men. Hitler, for example, was a vegetarian and a painter, a sensitive man, but the pattern of life in early twentieth century Germany led him to become a politician and later a dictator. His genes had little or nothing to do with it. James Elton, The Making of Men, Leitz Publications, Brighton, 1999. p. 35

6. Main ideas I refuse to believe that great leaders are born rather than made. In ancient societies, of course the leaders came from the same family, since that is how society was structured; but if we look at the great leaders of modern times, such as Napoleon or Hitler, we see that they came from ordinary backgrounds and that it was the events of their lives that made them into great men. Hitler, for example, was a vegetarian and a painter, a sensitive man, but the pattern of life in early twentieth century Germany led him to become a politician and later a dictator. His genes had little or nothing to do with it. Elton (1999), looks at things from a purely nurture standpoint and states that in ancient societies the reason for leaders coming from the same family was simply social hierarchy. He advances his argument with reference to modern successful leaders who came from ordinary families. He claims that it was not their genes that made them great, but the “pattern of life” (p. 20). Summary

7. Synthesizing ideas together When considering whether leaders are born or made, certain factors emerge. As Churchill (1984) in his book on genes points out head political and military figures of the last three millennia tended to come from a family of leaders. Thus, he concludes that their genes were the key to their success. Elton (1999), on the other hand, looks at things from a purely nurture standpoint and refutes the influence of genes by stating that in ancient societies the reason for leaders coming from the same family was simply social hierarchy. He advances his argument with reference to modern successful leaders who came from ordinary families. He claims that it was not their genes that made them great, but the “pattern of life” (p. 20). Although both of the above arguments are valid, they may not be the most impartial as both have their own reasons for their claims. Anderson (1975) is perhaps more objective in his ideas as he takes a purely historical perspective and seems to sum up the argument by stating that “it is a combination of the two” (p. 40).