Some time ago, I wrote,

"When it comes to filling roles at your company, rather than dwelling on who is right and who is wrong,  business leaders should dwell on 2 things:

1. Character Differences…particularly, the interplay between individual’s egos
2. Individual’s Talents…particularly, the extent individual’s talents deliver value to the business"  [for more thoughts in that area, see Getting The Right People on Your Bus]

A little later, I wrote,

"In a 2011 Canadian Corporate Culture study, 85% of respondents indicated that cultural fit is more important than necessary skills when hiring. 

When you are hiring a person to join your business you must work to understand whether or not they will 'fit in' your business Culture.

That means at least 3 things:

1. You must understand your business Culture and the details of its embedded Values and your rules [our Master Rules],
2. You must understand the employee-candidate's personal Values, and 
3. You must determine whether or not the employee-candidate is compatible with our business Culture."    [for more thoughts in that area, see Having Values, Delivering Value, & Recruiting Great People]

Why did I write those points?

I wrote them because I have witnessed many people recruiting at the 50% level. I mean, when they are recruiting they do half the work they need to do:

• they cover the tangible-technical aspects of the role, making sure credentials are in place, spending time figuring out the candidate's ability to perform the key of the role, etc. and Tasks
• they fail to cover the intangible aspects of the role such as culture fit, values fit, etc.

1. Uncertainty is always the scenario: none of us can foresee the future. The best we can do is make predictions and make adjustments as less-desirable-than-forecast situations arise. 
2. Waiting for perfection is a luxury few can afford. Working for perfection is a strategy for disappointment. 
3. Have a thorough hiring process…but do not aim for perfection. Communicate openly…about tangible/technical facts and the intangible aspects of your business culture/environment. Involve many people…so your company and the candidate have the ability to observe one another…over a period of time. Be thorough. And take action.

I am with the folks who choose ‘team’ over ‘idea’.

There are many reasons, I will focus on one – the ‘importance’ of ideas.

When people work, in relative terms, few of them are really interested in ideas. Perhaps, 10% of business people are keenly interested in ideas. For example, consider the StrengthsFinder Talent Themes – Ideation and Intellection…assuming Gallup’s assessments are reliable, people who register these talent themes have something in them that makes ideas and thinking about ideas fascinating. Coming up with ideas and thinking about ideas is part of the fabric of these people’s lives. Based on the results we have seen, perhaps 10% of people register these ‘idea’ talent themes. So, the remaining 90% of people ideas are just not that interesting or important.

On the other hand – people, people-interactions, and people-relationships are important to the majority of people. And, ‘a great team’ is the epitome of people-relationships…this applies to personal relationships, to sports teams, and to business.

A small group of committed and capable team players can take mediocre ideas and make magic.

A great idea in the hands of a mediocre team of people goes nowhere.

If we want people to excel we must first make sure they and their team of co-workers are comfortable and capable of performing their roles…together. 

PS: Perhaps, we should re-phrase the question...If we wish to help Canadian businesses do better [or your business, if you prefer], what's a higher priority: improving ideas or improving leadership teams? On an international basis, Canada is slipping down the "Innovation Scale".

Both!

The flavour is similar to that of the question, "Is it heredity or environment?"

Based on my observations, obviously not scientific, it seems the right ratio is about 50-50. 50% of the qualities of a leader are there at birth; 50% of the qualities of a leader are created through life experiences. If a person has natural-born leadership qualities but is never given the opportunity to use leadership talents then we will never know that person as a leader. If a person possesses natural-born leadership qualities and those leadership qualities are recognized as talents, enhanced with knowledge, and honed with skills then that person, given opportunity or taking opportunity, becomes a leader.

Some folks are born with the right stuff for leadership, which [if boiled down enough] can be summed up in 3 words: intelligence, drive & self-control.

Some of those folks are able to put those qualities to use.

Some folks are not able to put those qualities to use.

Other folks who possess bare-minimum natural-born leadership qualities can learn to be successful leaders if they have ambition and good ‘guides’ & opportunities to learn from leaders [especially, in early life]. 

Maintaining leadership capability requires constant self-and-character development, otherwise it is lost.

Sometimes, dormant leadership capabilities are ignited into full force by exceptional circumstances and crises. This is rare, but it happens.

Born Leader?