Nature vs Nurture:The Question We'll NEVER Have an Answer To

In 1998, Andrew Johnson and his colleagues trumpeted to the world in their study of 247 twin pairs: 48% of leadership abilities are genetically determined. And transformational leadership style is 59% inherited.

Almost thirty years later, we still don't know which leadership skills CAN actually be taught. So we teach them all, just to be safe.

And instead of focusing on how to determine WHO will ever be suitable to lead people, we spend billions on trainings where people learn "You're green," "You're conflict-avoidant," "You're not empathetic, but that's okay, we've accepted it."

Btw, you know what the biggest problem with these tests is? The problem is that people use them as blankets.

"Well, you know, I'm blue, this doesn't work for me." "I'm introverted, so I can't give feedback." "I'm this type of leader, this is how I function."

No. You might function this way, but the test doesn't. The test isn't there for you to hide under it, but to see what you need to develop. But this somehow never reached the corporate world.

Thirty years, same question, thirty years, same answers. We don't know exactly how much is genetics, and if we did, we wouldn't tell Joe that he's definitely unsuitable since we already promoted him. So he goes to development too.

Then we wonder why absolutely nothing happens.

We still have bad leaders. We still flee from meetings. We still don't dare speak our minds. Speak-up culture, hm? Sure. Luckily now we just DON'T have to press the unmute button, don't even have to practice the poker face.

But what the hell is wrong with the leadership development industry that after all this money and energy, we're still in the same place?

The reality is that both are true.

Yes, there are people who lead naturally. Who led the team in school as kids, who almost instinctively know what to do. There are genetic foundations to leadership.

But we also know that every leadership skill can be developed. From one point to another point. Just don't ask where these points are. Problem organizing, communication, conflict management - these aren't magic tricks. They can be learned.

So why don't most programs work? Why does every new client conversation start with "we tried this the year before last too, BUT..."

Because what many companies do isn't leadership development. It's leadership theater.

We send people to three-day trainings where they learn what colors they are, then they come back and behave the same way as before. Except now they have an excuse.

"I know I yell, but I'm this temperamental type." "I know I never give feedback, but I'm introverted."

Well, congratulations.

Now you're scientifically validated as a bad leader.

What if we finally stopped this nature vs. nurture circus and did leadership development that actually works?

What if we didn't talk about what type someone is, but about how to be a better leader?

What if we didn't use our personality as an excuse, but saw it as an area for development?

What if leadership development wasn't a three-day school trip to a hotel, but a months-long, intensive process that produces measurable behavioral change?

Because it can work, we've seen that.

But not like "let's have a DISC day and a review in six months."

It's like saying "let's have one running session and weigh myself in six months" - and expecting to lose weight.

Leadership development isn't an event. It's a process. One that goes on for months, regularly, consistently. Where we don't talk about what type you are, but what you're doing differently Monday morning. Then Tuesday you look at what you did. Then Monday you try again, and Tuesday you look again.

Where we don't look at what color you are, but how you give feedback so people don't cry from it. Where we don't teach "accept yourself," but how to change so it's better to work around you.

This is it. It can be done. But not with once-a-year weekend workshops, but with hard, persistent work.

The truth is that most companies think leadership development is like a vitamin pill. You take it, and you're better. But leadership isn't a vitamin deficiency. Leadership is practice. Daily work. Feedback. Failure. Trying again.

Meanwhile, for thirty years we've been waiting for someone to tell us: do you have to be born a leader, or is it learnable? But maybe we're asking the wrong question.

The situation is that in 2025 we're still struggling with the same leadership problems as in 1995. Same bad meetings, same bad decisions, same toxic organizational culture.

But at least we know what colors we are on the DISC. (I've really picked on the poor thing, I've hated it for a long time, but nothing personal :) )

Awesome.

Maybe we've been asking the wrong question for sixty years.

The right question isn't whether leaders are born or made.

The right question is how do we help those who have the potential to become better leaders.

And how do we prevent those who don't from causing harm.