It’s an argument that may never be fully resolved, but scientific research has shown what most of us probably already suspected: there is some truth to both perspectives. One study focused on factors that influenced what it called “leadership role occupancy,” which simply means “holding a leadership position.” The study analyzed 238 sets of identical twins (who share 100 percent of their genetic background) and compared them to 188 sets of fraternal twins (who share only 50 percent of their genetic background).
The analysis revealed that 30 percent of an individual’s leadership role occupancy could be attributed to genetic factors, and the remainder to non-shared environmental factors. In other words, nearly one-third of their leadership role could be related to traits they were born with, while over two-thirds was not. In another study, researchers also found support for the “born leader” idea, and they even went so far as to identify a specific genotype, rs4950, that was associated with leadership role occupancy.
In this study, researchers found the genetic portion of leadership role occupancy to be 24 percent. They concluded that leadership role occupancy is “the complex product of genetic and environmental influences.”
