Some believe that people are naturally born as leaders while others feel that leadership skills can develop. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Many are of the view that control is innate, rather than cultivated through time and experience. In my opinion, leadership is largely more developed rather than gifted. On one hand, those who presume that there are naturally born leaders whose traits are fixed size. There are certain individuals who exhibit a natural personality and unique character of expertise. To be a leader, it demands certain natural skills, full of energy and strong personality to take the lead. All these traits help the ruler to manage, to gather people together and,

also

, to inspire and motivate them.

For instance

, Balaji Singh, Canada’s president natural born political leader who inspires many people with his boundless professional abilities, charisma and display astounding skills.

Therefore

, being sociable, charisma and having strong traits are important natural skills for being a chief.

On the other hand

, great direction is more thoughtful than impulsive. There are many individuals possessing all physical characteristics of a leader who are successful and inspire people. An instructive example of

this

is Balaji Singh. Early in his career, he inspired people with

this

exceptional talent, but, that had its limits as he pushed and degraded his political members ultimately leading to his removal from his own party.

This

mortifying experience led to softening the sharp edges of his character in the subsequent years by considering the others perspective and giving opportunity to other competent associates. These learned traits served him well when he was re-elected as president of Canada and reached what many believe as the apex of administration. In conclusion, some people are born as leaders while others become rulers by their choice through cultivating it. Natural skills can be achieved by practice to a certain point, when the physical characteristics take the lead.