Few individuals contend that
is an inborn talent and
quality cannot be taught.
On the other hand
, others argue that
can become excellent
by proper coaching. I will shed light on both viewpoints in the
few paragraphs but I believe that natural
in a better way than trained
with, there are multiple arguments in the favour of natural
skills are determined by the genetic makeup of a person like
Correct article usage
It seems that article use may be incorrect here.
appearance, behaviour and attitude. So, ruling qualities transfer from parents to children
as in the past, thrones ran in families because other
did not have the genes of
wherever they live, they lead
, if one has the talent for
, even one displaced by some reasons, he/she will lead the nearby
in all types of circumstances.
On the contrary
, opponents advocate that
quality can be produced in all individuals with appropriate training. Each good leader has a mentor who teaches him/her how to cope with a difficult situation, how to grab the attention of
, and how to make proper decisions at the time.
, it is evident in history that all famous
spent some time under the auspice of other
who help them to combat their shortcomings and highlight the positive facets of their personalities.
In conclusion, I think that there is no substitute for natural
qualities whatever the level of training is. Even though
learn many things from others, no one can teach
who don't have
characteristic in their blood.