These are heady times for social scientists. Polygenic scores will soon change the entire conversation of what is now debatable in the social world. Geneticists are making incredible progress in identifying what parts of the DNA code are associated with stable traits, such as intelligence, mental illness, and susceptibility to disease, among many others. This is game changing stuff.
Polygenic scores are revolutionary for the study of human qualities because they are factually causal. They explain nature and nurture. Essentially, polygenic testing allows scientists to create an algorithm that adds up to the impact of multiple genes on a given trait. This allows them to discern what is inherited and what is largely influenced by social and environmental differences. To put this into a practical example, we will soon know precisely how much family and parenting differences contribute to intelligence quotients (IQ) and learning aptitude.
Polygenic scores don’t change because you forgot to eat breakfast, attended church, or grew up with affluent parents. Better yet, the scores are impervious to unconscious biases and self-interest. Very soon, social scientists will be able to tell us exactly how much influence culture and environmental factors exert on issues of intelligence, depression, criminality, sexuality and other human characteristics. Social policy debates will never be the same. Anyone who knows or reads about this work is justifiably excited about what lies ahead.
Whenever scientists make progress related to understanding how our DNA shapes us as humans, some pundit invariably suggests it is only a matter of time until we discover the leadership gene. They predict, with high conviction, that at some point scientists will discover exactly which gene cause some people to be leaders and others not so much.
We don’t find cheer in raining on this parade, but as exciting as the work of polygenic inheritance is and will become, its impact on understanding leadership will be relatively inconsequential. This is not because leadership will elude researchers, but because leadership has very little to do with inheritable traits. Anyone who believes otherwise has never seen leadership in action, where those without authority or sanctioned leadership roles engage others to change what they think and how they act. The idea that even multiple genes can predict leadership misses an important insight.
As much as we would like leadership to reside in people, the locus of leadership always takes the form of action. It is through actions (behaviors, decisions, choices, messages) that we come to understand who leads and when. Anyone can lead at any time, with or without a title. History abounds with everyday people making the choice to lead by engaging in choices that others follow. But don’t lean on history, just open your eyes to everyday life and you will see leadership, and the lack of it, everywhere you go. While it may give us comfort to think of leaders forged through DNA, leadership is never permanent. It takes new actions every day to sustain results and create followership.
Why do so many people miss this point? The need for dominance looks a lot like leadership in isolated situations—taking control, directing action, speaking first, making decisive choices—but usually impedes good leadership instead of fostering it. Leaders with a high need for dominance have a particularly hard time building teams, nurturing relationships, creating followership, gaining subscription to change, and so many other important functions of working with others to get things done.
Traits like dominance are undoubtedly passed down within families to future generations. But leadership is something you do, not something deep inside you. Leadership is messy, unpredictable, provocative, even loving, but it never simple. As one leader suggested recently, “Leadership is not rocket science. It’s much more complicated than that.”
– RS