Prompt: some people are born to be leaders, others believe leadership can be learnt. discuss both view and give your opinion.

There is still a debate as to whether the leaders are born or being trained to becoming one; notwithstanding, this disquisition delves into both vantage points, and subsequently, will explore my own perspective, in turn. Ċ On the one hand, the idea that supports the context of that leader is born, be absolutely right? Certainly, if we take into account a few aspects such as the bloodline or heir. Moreover, unlike recent times, around a few centuries before, we chose the son or daughter of the king as the rightful heir to the throne for thousands of years. For instance, still in most gulf Arab nations, such practice of accepting a ruler's son as their future chief is still common. Because the local people believe that their chief will be loyal to their country and protect them at instances; prevent exploiting the country from foreign companies. Thus, until now, most individual supporting this idea of born leaders. Ċ On the other hand, the school of thought that skill and trait to become a leader can be only acquired through experience. Accordingly, in democratic formulate countries, in order to become head of the constitution, they need to reach that position through years of hard work and experience. In addition, it is also true that with this vital knowledge one can do really well as chief. This exemplifies, a survey has been conducted and released by Chronicle-journal in 2011, 70% of people desired to support this theory that a trained leader does very well compared to a born leader. Hence, the quality of being head can be acquired through expertise and learning. Ċ In conclusion, I reiterate that born leaders might be doing well at an organizational level. But, at the same time, an individual who becomes a leader through years of hard work can prove to be more proficient. Personally, I consent to the hilt with exponents of the view that leadership can be learnt.