I'm sorry for the lengthy writing. I got carried away. Innate or acquired skill or nature versus nurture is a familiar trope in debates and conversations on human nature. In this capitalist, success-obsessed society, leadership is one of the most coveted skills. We can find a great example of innate leadership in history, if we look back to Genghis Khan, great warrior, founder and ruler of the Mongol Empire. Left to die when he was eight, along with his family, not only did he survive, but, against all odds, he managed to unite the Mongol tribes creating a military force able to challenge the all mighty China. In modern society, by and large, nature and nurture have to go hand in hand so that a person can have the opportunity to display his/her leadership skills in contexts like being the CEO in a big company, for example. However, being educated and trained to be a leader outweighs, in my opinion, any lack of innate leadership in the subject. There is the virtual world, the Internet, though, where nature can play a more significant role, as many entrepreneurs have achieved success starting from scratch by setting up a startup. Many of these entrepreneurs have been trained in the best private universities, of course. However, stories of the underdog pulling off a 'miracle' are there, and ignite the drive in many others who can barely afford any training. In conclusion, it can be argued that leadership is an innate skill, whether it yields success or failure it will depend on many other factors. Arguably, being trained or receive training will hone your skills up to a point where you can surpass people with natural talent but less driven. Feel free to leave your opinion without correcting anything! Thanks a lot folks!!