It is a widely held belief that leaders are born. On the other hand, people believe that leadership can be learned. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

It is generally agreed upon that a capable leader is responsible for the overall development of society. The question of whether leadership ability is innate or learned via training is controversial. In the forthcoming paragraphs, both sides would be covered. To begin with, those who support inborn authority have their own reasons for believing this. First and foremost, people with the ability to lead others are said to be born leaders. To further explain, they have the wisdom to guide society in the right route despite any threats. In addition, these people would have been in charge of others since they were young. For instance, APJ Abdul Kalam, a well-known leader, shown leadership qualities even as a young child. In his memoirs, he described it. On the other hand, there is a school of thinking that claims that becoming a leader is a skill and trait that can only be learned via experience. As a result, in democratically formed nations, the job of head of the constitution requires years of arduous effort and experience. Furthermore, it is also true that a chief can perform admirably with this crucial understanding. According to a study conducted and published by Chronicle-journal in 2011, 70% of respondents wished to support the idea that a taught leader performs far better than a natural leader. To conclude, I stress that organizations with born leaders may be succeeding. However, someone who works hard for years to become a leader may also prove to be more skilled. I wholeheartedly agree with proponents of the idea that leadership can be taught.