-->
“Leaders are born, not made; Genes say so”
A genotype has been found to be associated with inherited leadership
characteristics. “The new research
suggests the possibility that some of the historic figures like Adolf Hitler,
Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Martin Luther King, M K Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and
Sir Winston Churchill were blessed with the leadership gene.”
The article ventures to even mention the idea of companies running
genetic tests on its job applicants.
Would you consider this (genetic) discrimination if a company
hypothetically ran these tests and hired an applicant with the leadership gene
vs. an applicant without it? How
far is too far – what are your thoughts on employers hiring or denying
applicants based on their genetic characteristics? How do you think this would affect work ethic within a
company?
http://english.samaylive.com/lifestyle/676522177/leaders-are-born-not-made-genes-say-so.html
The impression I got from the article is that more research is needed to determine the influence of the rs4950 gene on the leadership skill. The article mentioned that although, people with the rs4950 gene are 25% more likely to become leaders, leadership should still be thought of as a skill to be developed. But, if this gene really did have a significant influence on who will become a leader and who will not, I think that it would be genetic discrimination if a company hired applicants based on their genetic profiles. It would be discrimination because companies would unjustly pick one person over another just because they have a certain gene. I think that employers shouldn’t have any access to genetic profiles because that would create too many issues. For instance, they may not hire someone because genetically they don’t have the qualities they want or because their genes indicate that they will be a huge cost to insurance companies. If employers start having access to genetic profiles, they will be able to pick and choose employers based on whatever “good genes” they have and reject those with “bad genes.” This would defeat the purpose of working hard to try to get a job based on your own merits, which in turn affects work ethic. Work ethic can also be affected because if people believe the idea that some people are just predisposed to be leaders due to their genes and others are not, then perhaps, they may avoid taking active roles in their position. Some people may assume that they do not have the gene and not take on a leadership role, when in reality they may be very capable of getting the job done. Also, some people may feel better than others solely because they carry a certain gene. People might start getting hired because they have certain genes that can help them eventually become an ideal employee instead of hiring someone who can already be a great employee. I also think an employer being able to see their employees’ genetic profiles is a huge violation of privacy. A person’s job or career should be just that- their job/career. There is no need for an employer to be able to intrude in their privacy and find out about such personal and intimate things.
ReplyDeleteWhen hiring for jobs, the most important factors should be experience and education. How well a person performs at work is likely related to the training they have received and how experienced they are in the field. While having the rs4950 gene may indicate whether a person can be an effective leader, it will not overall be indicative as to whether he/she is an efficient candidate for a job.
ReplyDeleteIn the article, it states that scientists have discovered that people with this gene are 25% more likely to be leaders. While 25% is a decent number, it is still not enough to be completely accurate. A person should not be denied a job just because he/she does not have a particular gene for leadership---especially a gene that says it is only 25% more likely. If a company ran genetic tests, I think it would be discrimination against an applicant, especially if the applicant has all of the other credentials for the job. With determination, education, and proper guidance anyone can become a leader or supervisor and it has nothing to do with if they have a certain gene or not. This test is definitely a violation of privacy and should not be included when picking candidates for jobs.
This is yet another nature vs. nurture debate, which has both sides contributing to a person's leadership qualities, but does one outweigh the other is the question at hand. In the nature corner, I believe that some people do have innate leadership qualities, but more research has to be done in this area to make it a valid statement. In my opinion nurture/environmental factors win this debate hands down because you can't have or develop the characteristic such as leadership without an environment to change and influence. So this just leaves us with the question of how much do genes play a role in leadership. I do not think that this one gene expressed in people has a 25% chance for them to be leaders is the only factor contributing to their leadership role. So I think it would be valuable to broaden the scope of research and analyze other genes that contribute to well known leadership qualities, such as charisma, courage, and decision making skills.
ReplyDeleteFor employers to run DNA tests and determine hiring or not hiring an individual based on the rs4950 gene would be completely ludicrous. This would most definitely be considered genetic discrimination, not to mention an invasion of privacy. I think allowing DNA testing for the job interviewing process would be a major infringement on our rights as humans and faulty identifier of positive candidates for jobs, since the gene only has a 25% more likely chance of the individual being a leader. Job interviews should be restricted to the person's educational knowledge and practical experience within the area he or she is applying for.
I concur with the sentiments of my fellow classmates. Not only is it genetic discrimination, it is an unwise strategic practice! Employers should not be granted access to their applicant’s genetic profiles and therefore should be treated as irrelevant. Other factors such as education, experience, personality and temperament are ultimately more significant and influential when looking to hire.
ReplyDeleteSelecting employees based on their genes would be a detriment. Creating a work environment of only leaders would result in the popular group-based problem of “too many cooks in the kitchen”. Meaning, it could foster the possibility of power struggles and butting heads on a daily basis. If a company were to discriminate based on genes, in trying to conjure greatness, they would do their employees a disservice. Conversely, if the company hired blindly, it would allow a fair opportunity for all employees to prove themselves on a level playing field. It is likely that the fair competition would promote increased productivity.
In reality, collaboration bores success. In a work environment it is not necessary for everyone to be a leader. Allowing for the various strengths and weaknesses of individuals will result in a cohesive force. Possession of the leadership gene will not and should not determine your value since every employee operates ultimately as part of a team.
Although the rs4950 gene may indicate whether or not someone is likely to become a leader, I do not think that this should be used as part of the job application process. Although leadership is a good quality to possess in the workplace and in most parts of life, I strongly believe that an individual can be just as successful without being a leader. Those who are not leaders might possess other important qualities that could lead to success in the workplace that leaders might not possess. Someone should not be selected for a job based on whether or not they have a leadership gene, but rather on the experience, education, and vast array of qualities they possess.
ReplyDeleteJust because someone has a gene for leadership does not mean that they will necessarily be a successful leader so I think it would be unreasonable to base a decision solely on the basis of this gene. Additionally, someone who does not have the leadership gene still has the potential to become a leader and could even become a better leader than the person that does have the gene. There are many external factors that come into play with leadership and all of these factors should be considered when someone applies for a job. I definitely think that it would be going too far if a workplace requested that a prospective employee undergo the genetic test to determine if they have this gene.
Would you consider this (genetic) discrimination if a company hypothetically ran these tests and hired an applicant with the leadership gene vs. an applicant without it? How far is too far – what are your thoughts on employers hiring or denying applicants based on their genetic characteristics? How do you think this would affect work ethic within a company?
ReplyDeleteI believe that selecting someone based on their genetic profile would be genetic discrimination, which is something I hope will be prevented through legislation and regulation in the not too distant future. But to screen someone for this specific gene is not practical, for a few reasons. Just because someone has the leadership gene would not necessarily make them a better leader than someone else. Also, not everyone should be a leader anyways. If everyone is a leader, then who will follow them? And there are more important factors than just having a leadership gene such as experience or environment.
I do not believe that there should be any genetic testing for job applicants, because it is a slippery slope when we say we can genetically test someone for something such as anger for example. Most people would say that having an anger gene is bad, but just because you have the gene does not necessarily mean you are an angry person. By allowing this kind of testing, this opens the door for other things to be discriminated against so where would we draw the line?
As mentioned by previous students, this article again raises the topic of nature v nurture. I believe that nature is a major component in the way someone acts. Some people do possess te qualities to be a leader, while others are more likely to be ruled. However, in this instance I do think that nurture plays a more influential role. One’s environment can mold a person into becoming a leader, even if they do not possess this leader gene. Even the article states that “with half the population possessing the gene, experience and environment still played a greater role in gaining a high-flying job.” Having experience and a well molded personality/ work ethic should be the main component of hiring someone.
ReplyDeleteI think if companies were to hire people based on the gene it would in fact be discrimination. You cannot rely solely on genetics. Though some may have the gene, they may not have a strong work ethic and might be lazy and ultimately hurt a company. It is more important to interview applicants and get to know them better on a personal level, rather than a scientific level. If companies were to begin to hire based on the gene, I think everyone’s work ethic would decrease. People will begin to solely rely on their genetics and not try to gain more professional experience, and may slack in the office. Though science is an important factor in the makeup of a person, I believe environment plays a larger role. Thus companies should not begin to test for this gene / hire based on this gene. Discrimination laws should be set into place to avoid any future problems, especially since this gene only has a 25% probability of contributing to a born leader.
I think that this test is entirely going too far. This is the reason that laws like GINA and the ADA are in place - we should be given opportunities based on our talents and successes, not on what our DNA says. I think this would be completely discriminatory in the workplace - against both people who test positive for the gene and also those who test negative. If someone were hired because they tested positive for the leadership gene, their bosses would have very high expectations for them. As most people need time to adjust to a new event in life such as a new job, they may not come off as a strong leader at first. Since the boss made their decision to hire that person because they were a genetic "leader," this may lead to disappointment while the new employee is getting adjusted. I don't think it's fair to base a decision to hire someone off of this gene, because it takes away their right to be who they want to be in the workplace. Maybe they have the gene, but like to keep to themselves at work because they are very driven to get work done. This could very quickly create problems in the workplace due to the expectations set on leadership.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, if someone tested negative for the gene, it would also not be right to base a decision to hire them off of this. Although they may not be genetically wired to be a leader, humans are capable of change and adaptation. Someone who is typically quiet and a "follower" may get the motivation and initiative to change their ways. There are many other factors that need to be considered in hiring someone besides just what their genes say.
I agree, laws like GINA and ADA are meant to bring our country forward and allowing companies to access our genetic information to discriminate against certain individuals who may or may not have the "leadership" gene is only going to bring our country as a whole backwards.
DeleteThis article is a great example of genetic discrimination. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) was put in place to protect individuals’ genetic profiles from controlling their employability and health insurance and to encourage them to take part in genetic testing so that improvements may be made in quality and efficacy of care. If people knew that the results of genetic testing could possibly prevent them from receiving health insurance or landing a job, they would not want to get the testing. This would in turn affect the efficacy of care they could be receiving because of the availability of their genetic testing. So if a company hires someone with the leadership gene as opposed to someone without the gene, they would be breaking the law according to GINA. It would be detrimental for everyone if genetic testing became a part of the employment process. Not only would it be detrimental for the people applying for jobs, but also the people higher up in the chain. For example, what if you were to test the CEO of Genzyme for the leadership gene. For arguments sake, lets say the test is negative. Do you then fire the CEO? Who is it okay to make exceptions for? To use genetic testing for employment and health insurance purposes is wrong and I do not believe it is ever something we will see in our lifetime.
ReplyDeleteReading this article was just frustrating for me. I would definitely consider this discrimination if a company ran genetic tests to only hire applicants with the leadership gene. In 1990, the US finally passed the ADA and in 2008, GINA was passed. While these are steps in the right direction, there is still some discrimination in the workplace that needs to be worked on. For example, until recently many companies discriminated against women because they feared the women would become pregnant and they’d have to hire someone else. In many other countries, new mothers are given paid time off for as long as 6 months while the US still has very minimal, if any, paid time off for new mothers. My point is our goal is to keep moving forward, to completely prevent discrimination in the workplace. We are trying to stop genetic discrimination in health care, why would we allow it at work?
ReplyDeleteI think employers hiring and denying applicants based on genetics would be taking it way too far and opening a downward spiral of issues with ethics and rights. Allowing employers access to our genetics would be a violation of privacy which would cause a social riot. That with the ethical dilemma of exposing a patient’s DNA to a potential employer would lead to many more problems that we as a country cannot afford to have right now. Overall, this would decrease work ethic within a company because those without the leadership gene would feel that they would never be at the level of those with the gene no matter how much they tried. There would be no purpose in working hard or meeting deadlines because people could blame it on their genes and think that they will never be promoted or acknowledged because they don’t have this specific gene.
People are characterized by many things personality type being one, this could be influenced a great deal by genes, but is this really a reason to deny someone a job if they are experienced and educated to take such a job? That is exactly what the article is suggesting when mentioning testing applicants. Giving an employer access to an applicant's genetic information could open up the door for different types of discrimination, when hiring and also when providing health insurance coverage to employees. By hiring someone based upon them having a gene or not having a gene does not seem like an ethical policy. Spending the time to work towards the goal of obtaining a leadership role is much more important than if you are genetically more prone to such a role. If policies such as this went into effect then people would not spend the time or exert the effort to become great leaders because they think that genetics will cause them to be great leaders. People who possess this gene are 25% more likely to become leaders but this percent is not very high. Handing these jobs to people who did not do anything except be given the right gene from there parents goes too far. Leadership in companies who took on this policy would lag behind that of companies who did not use this policy. Work ethic is a very important part of any workforce and employing based on genetic testing would undermine the integrity of the companies work force and how outsiders see their work ethic as they just took the position they were "genetically destined" to take.
ReplyDeleteThe discovery of the rs4950 gene is very interesting. Again, like other genes subject to DTC, such as the sports gene from last week’s post, this idea raises questions about how accurate it is to say that this rs4950 gene significantly contributes to the likelihood that a person will be a successful leader. The article mentions some very famous leaders from history, such as Adolf Hitler, Martin Luther King, and M K Gandhi, but has any genetic testing even been done on these historical figures to see if they did in fact possess the rs4950 gene? It is good that the article mentioned that further research still needs to be done to see how this rs4950 gene interacts with other more important factors such as a child learning environment.
ReplyDeleteThe article suggests that in the future employers could test applicants for this specific gene. I would consider this genetic discrimination if a company performed this genetic test on potential employees and then used the information from the test to select which were the best applicants to hire. Just because a person has the rs4950 gene, it does not mean that the person absolutely possesses the qualities to be a good leader. It is not an end-all-be-all. Environmental factors play a large part in how a person develops during life. Employers would be foolish to rely on this one genetic test as a means for selecting the best candidate for a specific position.
If this were to take place in the future, I do not think it would affect work ethic within a company in a positive way. A successful leader needs people who will trust in him or her and follow the leader’s vision. If a company is filled with only people who possess the rs4950 gene, then there will be no people to follow the leader. Rather the company will be filled with all leaders who will be fighting to be the alpha on top. I think this would hinder work ethic and it would affect the company negatively.
It does not surprise me that researchers have found an association between the rs4950 gene and leadership character. But, I disagree with the discussion in the research which compares ordinary supervisory “leadership” roles to unrivaled charismatic leadership roles to the likes of historical figures including Adolf Hitler, Gandhi, and Nelson Mandela. If that were the case, then we should expect to see more charismatic leadership figures not just in supervisory roles. In other words, I believe that the type of leadership required of historical and political leaders greatly differs from that required of supervisors and managers.
ReplyDeleteAside from the technicality of the research, I completely agree with Liz Mathew’s reasonings regarding genetic discrimination if companies ran these tests to screen out those without the rs4950 gene. ADA and GINA have already been passed in order to prevent employers from using genetics as a basis for hiring. Thus, it is not a matter of ethics because it is illegal to do so. Society should be opening up opportunities for people, rather than shutting them down.
I think that using this test as a basis for employment would be a huge leap backwards given the struggle and evolution of Civil Rights. The researchers point out that “leadership should still be thought of predominantly as a skill to be developed”. If these tests were actually carried out, there would be no incentive for those with the genotype to work hard because they would still be more likely to be hired. And when hired, these genetically born “leaders” who have no experience or work-ethic would be running industries. At the same time, there would be no incentive for those without the genotype to work hard because they would feel that no amount of work will get them hired. This would lead to the collapse of merit as a basis for hiring.
I do feel that selecting job applicants based on the presence of the rs4950 genotype would absolutely be genetic discrimination. I do not think it would be even remotely fair to choose to higher an individual based on their genetic code, something that none of us have any control over. I don't see much of a difference when comparing this to hiring or not hiring an individual because of their ethnicity or gender, other characteristics that we do not choose. I also feel that this is an invasion of privacy. To require individuals to be tested for the presence of this genotype is a violation of rights that have been protected by laws such as GINA and ADA. Such laws are meant to protect us from these types of discrimination, by allowing this testing it to completely undermine these laws and everything that they stand for. Further, there would then be issues of who is covered and who is not covered by the new laws and regulations that would need to be put into place to protect individuals seeking employment from genetic discrimination. I feel that requiring these genetic tests and choosing to hire or not hire an individual based on the results is taking this too far. Just because an individual possesses this genotype does not guarantee that they will be a leader or do well in a leadership position. As was said in the article, becoming a leader is also largely influenced by an individual's experience and environment. Approximately half of the population has this gene, so these are still important factors. I could posses this gene, but I am a shy, quiet individual that is not always comfortable being in a leadership position because of how I have grown up. I think that if this type of hiring based on genetics was ever allowed, the dynamic of businesses would change. It would be a selective job field that would select only the genetically idea candidates. Additionally, anyone currently involved in a leadership position who does not possess the genotype may feel pressure to increase performance or may lose their job because of an uncontrollable factor rather than their work ethic and experience. Overall, I think that work ethic within a company would decrease. If you possess the gene and do not excel in a leadership position, then you could look bad and if you do not have the gene you are already perceived to be at a disadvantage. Having the presence of the rs4950 genotype is not a guarantee for excellence in leadership, just as having a certain muscle protein is not an indication of athletic ability and achievement as discussed in last week's blog post. Having these DTC genetic tests pose a great threat to the way society functions if the information is being given to a group of people who do not know how to properly interpret the information and use it accordingly.
ReplyDeleteIf a company hypothetically ran genetic tests on its job applicants and hired an applicant with the leadership gene versus an applicant without it, I would definitely consider that a (genetic) discrimination.
ReplyDeleteI think it's great that everyday people make so many discoveries about genes and how specific genes can cause specific traits in people. It's great knowing that there is science behind why some people make greater leaders and some don't. These are all wonderful knowledge to have. But when people abuse this knowledge, such as using genetic tests to test for better job applicants or applicants with a desirable gene, such as the leadership gene, that's very wrong. It's definitely discrimination. I agree that we should consider extending current protections against genetic discrimination from health care to employment. The GINA act is already been in place and that currently does protect people by prohibiting the use of genetic information in health insurance and employment. And this should always be in place in order to avoid genetic discrimination.
I think it's terrible if we allow companies to run genetic tests on job applicants. It's definitely not fair because not everyone chose to have these specific genes, and most importantly, gene's aren't a determinant factor, but a predictive factor. By not hiring someone because they have the possibility, based on an idea that is science is based, but is only predictive, of not being a better leader is not a sufficient reason for why they shouldn't be hired. Like the article said, "more research is needed to understand the ways in which rs4950 interacts with other factors, such as a child learning environment." Genes are good predictive factors, but there are so many other things, such as environmental factors that can influence these genes, either turning them on or off, or modifying them.
Companies can't just discriminate people based on on gene, that might not even be turned on or that might change. I think this would affect work ethic within a company by causing promotions being given to someone just because they have this one gene as opposed to giving the position to someone who's been working at the company for many years and have done an excellent job. This would definitely not be fair at all because the person with experience obviously knows what they are doing, where as the new person with the leadership gene may not. Depending on just one gene, that may or may not change, is too much.
Employers hiring or denying applicants based on their genetic characteristics is just wrong because it's something that people can't change about our genetic make up, but people can develop skills and make changes in how they work. A gene is something that is just there; that we are all born with. But skills are something we learn and develop over time. Employers shouldn't be able to overrule the skills people have developed over the genes that they were born with when they were born.
This is actually kind of funny, but I tend to not think this is so crazy. We can’t argue that our environment and our experiences affect our lives, but our traits do tend to indicate exactly how we interact with our environment.
ReplyDeleteIf a company needs to hire a manager with good leadership qualities and a person has a “so-called” leadership gene I don’t think it wrong to hire them, as long as in fact they have demonstrated positive leadership qualities. It is in a company’s best interest to hire the most qualified subject and if these genetic tests can help distinguish between candidates then I don’t actually think it wrong or discrimination. Not every person will choose to be a leader or want to be a leader. If genes do tell us how people will act, then it may not be wrong criteria to differentiate.
One issue I see in this type of genetic test is how it affects people who supposedly don’t possess the leadership gene, do they work hard? Will they set good examples? Will they become discouraged? Truth is I’m not sure, nor do I think that a person can be considered not a leader. I’m worried that certain people with the leadership gene may push the non-leaders around, and you could see a lot of conflict in your office. I think working with peoples gifts, caring about them as individuals no matter what their genes will make a healthy work environment.
However, talking with my ROTC buddy Harry, he suggests that leaders are made and he himself has witnessed it firsthand. He said that the environment can build leaders, whether it is in your genes or not. I agree with Harry and have seen similar things in athletics. I will say this though. It seems that a person has a choice to be a leader or not. A person can choose whether or not to lead. This choice may be based on past experiences, necessity, maturity, timing, or a number of other things. But I agree with Harry that certain environments build leaders, and we all have a choice to be leaders. The funny thing about leading is that it takes a strong leader also to be able to follow. Back to the question, I do think it not right to base hiring a person because of their genes, but if a person is willing to lead or have lead in the past and you, as a company, need a leader, then experience should be the main criteria not a gene.
The most interesting part of this article is what is defined to be a leader. If someone told me that Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King all shared a similar gene and asked me what I thought it could be for, it would be for public speaking, but than again I do not find Stalin and Hitler strong or good leaders. Again this article shows how science and opinion can morph and become something that people then take as research.
ReplyDeleteIf company's began to consider this gene when hiring an applicant, I would not be against it. In my mind, it would be something else that boosts your resume “..I have the Leadership Gene...”. It would just be something else that a person has to consider when hiring. I assume that having the gene alone without any experience of leadership would not make a person the ideal candidate. If employers did consider the gene, I would think it unnecessary however not going “too far.” Again the definition of leader seems to be relative to the situation because as a boss I would not want Hitler to be my coworker.
You raise an interesting point at the end. Most people, including myself, tend to see leadership as an attractive quality in others. However, some people can use their leadership skills to influence people in a negative way and even manipulate them. I wouldn't want someone like Hitler as a coworker either.
DeleteThe difference between including something like a gene and an experience/accomplishment is meaningful. A gene is innate, something you were endowed with, whereas other things featured tend to be accomplishments and experiences you have had to work for. It's that difference that can make it unfair and discriminatory to use the rs4950 in the context of work.
DeleteTo an extent, I can see why it can sort of make sense to believe that a person’s gene can decide if they will be a leader or not. For instance, your gene can affect your personality type, which can often hint at whether one possesses leadership qualities or not. As Sheba has noted, placing leaders like Hitler and Stalin in the same category as others like MLK and Gandhi seems a bit far-fetched. Therefore, I think further research on this topic can focus on not just information on what makes a leader but on what makes a good leader. I feel like anyone can be a leader to an extent, depending on the context and environment. As others have mentioned, this can lead to an issue of nature vs. nurture. Growing up in a certain environment can greatly influence whether one can possess leadership qualities. Such leadership qualities are also very subjective, where certain aspects of a leader differ greatly among different cultures.
ReplyDeleteHiring people based on their genotype can also have negative effects on the work ethic within a company. It can be disrespectful to the employee because it seems that they were hired because of something they were born with and not because of their hard work and skills. It can also place unnecessary stress on the worker in that there is a level of expectation for them to display these leadership qualities because they were chosen due to their genotype. On the other hand, many of these employees might lose motivation to work hard as well. They may think that they won’t have to work as hard as people of other genotypes because they are hard-wired to be a leader. It seems discriminatory for a company to hire someone who has a certain genotype because it is not something a person can control, taking away opportunities from people because of what they were born with. By targeting certain employees with the genotype, companies are signaling them out as well, creating unnecessary feelings of superiority and inferiority in the workplace.
As someone who is not a natural-born leader, I'm a little weary of employers taking the leadership gene into account when hiring someone. It depends on how far companies take it. For instance, I think it's perfectly okay if employers see the gene as an added bonus to someone's credentials, but it's crossing the line when the gene is given the same weight as more important factors such as education and experience. I would hope that employers realize that leadership is not the only quality that makes a person successful. People like me who prefer taking orders rather than giving them have their own role to fill and can make an equal contribution to the overall success of a company.
ReplyDeleteAlthough leaders can be of vital importance in the workplace, would we really want almost all employees of one company to have strong leadership qualities? Leaders often have distinct personalities and philosophies of how things should be done. These types of people are likely to clash with one another if there are too many of them in one place, and it really only takes a few good leaders to maximize efficiency. People like Hitler and Stalin influenced thousands of people on their own for the most part (though not in a positive way).
Hiring or denying people based on their genetic characteristics is never a good idea because we can't assume that a person's genetic makeup is totally predictive of how they will perform at work. Under the right circumstances, people can work to overcome supposed limitations of their genes, and conversely, people with favorable genes might not pan out the way employers hoped they would. The role of the environment in shaping someone's abilities and behavior should never be ignored.
I am really getting sick of these "recreational" genes. Genetics needs to put it's time and funding into worth while things like gene therapy and working to find genetic links to diseases and ways that genetics could help people with these diseases. Stop putting money into genes that may or may not indicate whether someone is more likely or not to be a leader or whether your child has a gene that can sometimes be found in Olympic sprinters. Just because a child has a gene that may or may not help them become a leader doesn't guarantee anything. The child's upbringing, the experiences and environment all could completely negate this genes significance. Yes our genes do make up who we are but not necessarily what we have the potential to become. The media makes claims and gets consumers to believe in false truths due to their ignorance and unwillingness to ask questions about the legitimacy of the information that is put in front of them. Companies that sell these types of test make a killing on ignorance. Genetics needs to reign in companies like this and take a better stance on what is legitimate science and what is not.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I do believe that employing on a genetic basis is almost always discriminatory. The article points out that those with the rs4950 gene are up to 25% more likely to be leaders. Though the gene is a fair indicator of potentially developing leadership qualities, it is not certain. This does not mean that all individuals with the gene will be born leaders. It also does not mean that all individuals without the gene will not be leaders. The gene-environment interaction still has the potential to play a major role in the development of leader-like qualities.
ReplyDeleteI personally think that individuals should never be denied employment based on genetic makeup. This is particularly important in terms of genes that have the potential to produce a personality trait rather than a biological condition. Leadership is both broad and subjective. Great leadership can be produced without a genetic basis. Additionally, there may be genes other than rs4950 that may promote leadership.
I do believe that knowledge of the “leadership gene” in a company can change the work environment, particularly if other colleagues are aware. There would need to be a policy in place to keep this private information between employer and employee (similar to GINA). If the information was released to other colleagues, it might promote competition which could have both positive and negative long term consequences.
If a company hypothetically hired an applicant with the leadership gene vs. an applicant without it, I would consider that to be genetic discrimination. As my classmates above have repeated, there are laws like GINA and the ADA in place to protect peoples' privacy and protect them from discrimination. Therefore, even though the leadership gene may be an interesting find, I don't think employers should be able to a hire people based on having this gene or not.
ReplyDeleteEven if employers did test their applicants, the work place would become very segregated. People would probably be biased towards others based on knowing if they have a leadership gene or not. This would lead to a social hierarchy and cliques. Therefore, I think employers should stick to hiring people based on their resume. Even if someone had a leadership gene, it doesn't mean that they "developed" it. In other words, someone who doesn't have the gene but has a lot of leadership-type experiences may be more of a leader than someone who simply has the leadership gene.
I do think that hiring or not hiring a potential employee based on the leadership gene, or any other gene, would be discrimination. I agree with my classmates who have brought up GINA, I would feel that this sort of discrimination should be prohibited under GINA. The article claims that the gene makes people 25% more likely to be leaders; it is not like having this gene guarantees a leader and not having it means you cannot be one. This reminds me a lot of the athletic gene, and many other genes we have talked about in this class. The test merely suggests an predisposition to a certain trait and nothing is guaranteed. I believe that a someone's past achievements and personality should dictate whether they are hired or not, because that is a more reliable marker of their future success, in my opinion, than this test would be. If a test like this one were used instead of the traditional reviews of someone's progress at a job and in a career, I think this would lower morale. You cannot change your genes once you learn whether you have this gene or not. If one does not have it, one may be less inclined to work hard because he or she may feel limited or stifled by this test. While those that do have the gene may work harder, I think that more employees will be negatively impacted by this test than will be positively impacted. There are plenty of ways to encourage employees and find employees that will later be successful leaders that does not include using genetics.
ReplyDeleteYes, hiring an individual based on genetic make-up would most certainly be discriminatory. Although hiring tactics have become very competitive, and the tiniest difference in a resumé can be the deal breaker, genetic testing for leadership genes should not become an aspect of it. Not only is it discriminatory (just like hiring based on race or gender, which are also genetic traits but is illegal), genetic testing may give you an answer but it won't ensure results. It cannot ensure that the employee with the gene will be the employee you need, or that he will move into supervisor roles, and in fact, the employee without the gene may have turned out to be the superior employee.
ReplyDeleteNot only does hiring on genetic traits cross the line in terms of discrimination, it will change the dynamic of hiring processes and office work ethic. If those with the genes are found to be treated better, or promoted more often, it will create attitudes of "because I don't have the gene, I shouldn't work that hard because I won't get promoted anyway"; this attitude can be detrimental to the work force, bring down efficiency and output, and create the opposite effect one was trying to get by hiring "born leaders".
50% of the population may hold the gene; 50% of the population are also women, and after decades of work, they are still not paid the same as men, even when holding equal jobs. So what does that mean for the rs4950 gene? Will their pay be higher because they have 25% more potential to be a leader? It doesn't seem like an appropriate measure, since as we know, the existence of a certain gene, does not necessarily mean results; and a lack of the gene, does not mean the desired results cannot be reached.
Most people who possess leadership qualities do so because of their environment and upbringing. As mentioned in the article, leadership should still be thought of predominately as a skill to be developed. Testing positive for the rs4950 gene does not guarantee a leadership personality; people with the gene are only 25% more likely to become leaders. That leaves a lot of room for environmental factors to play a role in developing personality. Using genetic testing for this gene in an application process for a job would be discrimination and would not be beneficial information to the employer for a number of reasons. As I mentioned earlier, people with the gene are only 25% more likely to become leaders; therefore, testing for this gene doesn't guarantee that the employer would be hiring someone with leadership qualities. Secondly, not all jobs require employees to be leaders. In many cases (and many employee positions) , it is often more useful to hire people who follow directions and do what they are assigned rather than try to take the lead on a project. One can be a perfectly good employee without being a leader. Therefore, because testing for this gene would be a form of genetic discrimination and would not benefit the employer in any significant way, everyone would be better off without it.
ReplyDeleteI would consider this discrimination only if not addressed in conjunction with other factors such as experience and education. Many companies perform additional tests to the application and interview, why would genetic testing basis be any different? Why should the company be expected to sacrifice a potential asset to productivity? If they are willing to financially invest in the testing and the potential employee consents to it then there should be no conflict assuming the results are addressed in conjunction with traditional criteria. Leaders cannot thrive in the absence of followers as such using the testing solely to fill leadership positions would maximize its efficiency. That being said training a new employee is a large financial and time investment. If this genetic trait could minimize the necessary training it would be a strong asset to employers. Those who test positive for the gene would feel obligated to support the test’s results while those who didn’t would feel obligated to prove their worth. It is a win-win for employers. Properly functioning companies expand, increasing the available jobs in the market. More jobs mean a better economy. The pros (stronger economy) far outweigh the cons (the low grade discrimination).
ReplyDeleteUpon reading this article, I was compelled to dig a bit deeper and do some more research regarding this topic. I found the original scientific paper mentioned in the article which was written by De Neve et. al. at the University College London & Centre for Economic Performance (LSE). I urge my classmates to do the same, and the article can be found from PubMed, at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23459689
ReplyDeleteThe original article was a bit short and resorted to making sweeping statements such as, “The new research suggests the possibility that some of the historic figures like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Martin Luther King, M K Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and Sir Winston Churchill were blessed with the leadership gene.” I felt that I could not formulate an educated opinion about this finding without trying to get a more in-depth, scientific analysis of the findings. When I read the original paper I was shocked to find a connection to the Framingham Heart Study, a ground breaking epidemiological endeavor that was conducted here in Massachusetts. I found it very interesting that the independent sample population of the Framingham Heart Study was utilized because it was the first study to, “identify a specific genotype associated with the tendency to occupy a leadership position,” and documented individual’s health outcomes in the context of socio-cultural factors such as occupation, class etc..
Studies such as the Framingham Heart Study and the 1967 Whitehall Study conducted in London, highlight the intersection of societal influences, the built environment and biology. Considering this intersection, I believe that the leadership qualities attributed to the rs4950 gene may be misleading, but rather the leadership is a result of confounding factor introduced via society. Genetics clearly play a factor in cognitive functions and emotions, as evident in diagnoses such as ADHD or depression, however genetics is not the only factor and “leadership” is not diagnosis able state. What constitutes leadership varies greatly depending on societal values, group dynamics, situational circumstances and even luck! For example, the advantageous characteristics of a leader in a combat zone are very different than those needed for a spiritual cleric or leader. I therefore, would find the incorporation of such genetic testing in the workplace as not only discriminatory but also counterproductive. Productive workplaces require a balance of personalities and especially a well-rounded pool of experience to grow, something a genetic test would not select for.
I think that the original paper states the correlation best by saying, “The results suggest that what determines whether an individual occupies a leadership position is the complex product of genetic and environmental influences; with a particular role for rs4950.” The particular role for rs4950 must be explored further but only in the context of confounding factors.
The article states that people with this gene are only 25 percent more likely to be leaders. This leaves room for all of the other environmental factors that come into one’s development. I don’t think that having a single gene can determine whether or not a person will possess leadership skills. A lot of the qualities of being a leader are either taught or learned from experiences over time. I definitely think that using this genetic test for the application process is discriminatory and probably would not be the best way to determine if an applicant would be best for the job. Just because someone has this rs4950 gene, does not necessarily guarantee that they will be the best leader, and just because someone does not have the gene doesn’t mean that he/she isn’t the best candidate for the job. I don’t think that companies should be hiring people based on their genome, or even looking at applicants’ genetic status while deciding who to hire. I agree with my classmates in that laws like GINA should be adhered to during employee selection and that genetic discrimination such as this should be prohibited under these laws.
ReplyDeleteUsing this genetic test in the workplace would definitely change the dynamics between coworkers. I feel like an employee without the leadership gene would feel more pressure to excel in the workplace and would be afraid of losing his/her job if they aren’t performing as well as a coworker who does have the gene. Also, employees might be treated differently by their coworkers or bosses depending on whether or not they have the gene. I don’t think that employers should be using this genetic test alone to select employees since there are so many other factors that determine one’s leadership abilities.
It is very clear to me why this article, which describes a gene that is linked to leadership, can lead to controversy. I definitely see ethical issues springing from this type of genetic test. I believe that if a company hypothetically ran these tests and hired applicants with the specific leadership gene it would be genetic discrimination. I am confused about why companies would even hire someone based on whether or not they have the gene. In my opinion, leadership ability is something that is shown through experience and illustrated in the work place, not something will occur simply because it is in one's genetics. These discriminatory companies will miss out on those people who do not have the gene, but have just what the company needs for success. As companies need all types of personalities, experience, and leadership to survive.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe employers should have any access to their applicants genetic characteristics. I believe ones has the right to keep their DNA and genetic history private. I agree with study researchers in the notion that "We should seriously consider extending current protections against genetic discrimination from health care to employment." We learned about the GINA act in class which helps protect individuals insurance companies and jobs from using their genetic information. I think it would be a good idea for policy makers further the act and prevent genetic discrimination to protect job applications. The article states that half the population possesses the so called leadership gene. It went on to call for more research about the rs4950 interaction with other factors, like child learning environment. When I think about a specific gene, that is present in half of the population, is is evident that this finding may simply illustrate the predictive factors of having the gene. The gene does NOT lead to causation. In my mind, it is likely that environmental factors influence this gene in a way that leads to leadership roles.
If a company was testing their applicants for the gene, I feel it would definitely affect the manner in which promotions and opportunities were given to their employees. I could see there being a divide between those with and without the gene, only causing workplace tension and undeserved position change within the company.I believe that in order to be a successful leader, you need much more than simply a gene. You need the confidence, wisdom, and eloquence to lead a group of people who depend on you. You need to be trustworthy, and have patience when working with those who work under you. If the only people in a company were those who specifically had the rs4950 gene, a company may be missing other characterists a company needs to survive. Imagine for a secone that the rs4950 gene directly correlated with leadership. This company would have all leaders and no followers. Imagine a room with all Type A personalities, nothing would get done. At the end of the day, I could only see this test having negative effect on the work ethic and future of the company.
Actually when someonе dоesn't be aware of after that its up to other users that they will assist, so here it happens.
ReplyDeleteAlso visit my site: short term loans
I mentioned GATTACA in my last blog post and will do so again. In the movie people are denied access to jobs because their genes disqualify them for the position. I don’t think employers should ever have access to your genetic information because it that information is so personal. It would definitely be discrimination if an employer could look at your genes and chose another candidate over you based solely on the presence of rs4950. To prevent such a thing from happening, I definitely advocate for stricter laws to make sure genetic discrimination is more clearly defined and prohibited. I also hope that society never reaches the point where we test people to see if they would be good in a certain position based on their genes. The rs4950 gene only gives a person a 25% greater chance that they will become a leader. 75% is a lot to leave up to chance when hiring someone for a leadership role. So much work goes into developing into a good leader; upbringing, support system, experiences, education and many more factors have a great impact on whether someone is ready for the challenge. As usual it comes down to a nature vs. nurture debate.
ReplyDeleteIt’s always good to look at the other side. Could using genetic testing in the hiring process lead to a more productive workplace? Maybe. I still don’t like the idea of it because I think that you can tell if someone has leadership skills after an interview and based on previous employment history and education. I definitely don’t think that the absence of this gene should disqualify you for a leadership position. Maybe it would just aid in the selection process if there were many people who had the same qualifications. I’m not advocating for it though, I’m just thinking of how someone might try to spin the information presented in a positive way.
I believe that our genes do contribute to the personality characteristics we all have and our abilities as a leader may be involved in this. I would be interested to know if I have such a gene but I do not think that a gene alone can determine whether or not you will be a leader, or with that even a good and efficient leader. If companies were to start running genetic rests in order to choose job applicants, I believe this would be considered discrimination. It is not fair to base a person’s professional abilities and capabilities on whether or not they have a particular gene. A person with this gene may not have other vital characteristics that make a good team member and hard worker. Choosing employees based on who has a gene or not, can be compared to choosing someone based on their race, ethnicity, age, or gender. It is a characteristic about ourselves that we are unable to control and should not be used against us. Making this test mandatory seems like employers would be invading my privacy. I would not like to be chosen for a job because I have a specific gene. I would like to be chosen for my past accomplishments, hard work, and personality.
ReplyDeleteHiring and denying applicants based on their genetic makeup is in fact going too far. This can lead down a very slippery slope and create ethical and moral issues. Allowing companies’ access to our genetic information not only violates privacy but can also cause those with undesirable traits to be discriminated against. These people may never display these ‘good’ or ‘bad’ characteristics and it should not be the responsibility of companies to judge whether or not they will. As employees, knowing if you have the leadership gene or not can change your attitude and your work ethic. People with the gene may be proud and work harder while those without it may not try simply because they believe they will never be a great leader. However, as science has shown us, genes do not solely determine the characteristics we display and the environment also plays a large role. Such genetic tests can contribute to a negative environment for those without the gene increasing the likelihood of them not taking on a leadership role.
I would absolutely consider this type of genetic testing for job applicants discrimination. Like I've strongly emphasized in previous blog articles, I believe that genetic testing should be limited to preventative care and curing illnesses and disease. I'm definitely pro research in terms of genetic experiments and tests, but only on the path to better human health. Things like the athletic gene in the previous blog, and this "leadership" gene are both pathways for organizations to milk money out of people, as well as extremely unjust and ethically immoral. If a company began running tests on their applicants to see which possessed this gene, it would create a huge unfair advantage to those without the gene. It is not something that someone can simply attain it is what they are born with, so people born without it are just out of luck.
ReplyDeleteIf employers started hiring people based on their genetic characteristics it would no doubt lead to some loss of morale for many people. For example, if someone knows they have this gene and certain companies do in fact test for it, they might not have the motivation or morale to work as hard as they would normally. They would know the genetic test would show that they possess this quality, so it wouldn't be worth their time to prove it to them by other means. On the other hand, if someone is aware that they don't possess this gene they might simply lose hope and not apply to jobs that they could normal get. It could also create a social hierarchy between the people with the gene, because they would believe they are on a different intellectual level.
If genetic testing was actually a factor in the hiring process, the work ethic in a company would be changed dramatically. For example, if the company had previous employees which tested negative and began hiring new employees who test positive, the communication and mindset in the company would probably create an unhealthy work place. The people that possess the gene would think they are inherently better than the previous employees and in turn would "lead" or "boss" them around. It would discourage the employees who do not possess this gene and it would lower their morale, changing their work ethic.
Although the article states that there is a gene that is associated with an increased probability of being a leader, this gene only increases the probability that the individual will be a leader by 25%. The article also states that experience and environment still play a greater role in determining who will become a leader. As a result, I would consider it genetic discrimination if a company hypothetically ran these tests and hired an applicant with the leadership gene over an applicant without the leadership gene if both applicants were comparable, and especially if the applicant without the leadership gene was more qualified for the job.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, just because the gene is present in an individual, does not mean that it will be expressed. Considering that the environment and experiences of the individual play a more vital role in the development of a leader, I think it would be unethical for a company to hire someone just because he has a gene that increases his probability of becoming a leader. If an individual with the genetic predisposition for leadership is hired, and has a few negative experiences during the first year of employment, the leadership qualities resulting from him having this gene probably won’t be exhibited. If anything, his leadership qualities will probably be repressed because his confidence in his ability to successfully perform will dwindle as a result of those negative experiences. Instead of leading other employees in the company, he will be more inclined to follow the example of the more successful employers. However, as this individual begins to succeed and continues to have positive experiences in the workplace, he will become more confident in his abilities and then his potential leadership capabilities will surface. However, it is the interaction between experience and his genes that will bring about his leadership, not just genetic predisposition alone.
Currently employers hire individuals who are the most qualified, and who they believe will fit in best with the company, and appreciate the values the company upholds. This should continue to be the way employment decisions are made, not based on a genetic predisposition for leadership. If a company begins to hire people based on whether they have a genetic predisposition for leadership, it will negatively impact the work ethic of the company. An individual’s ability to be a team player also affects his ability to be a positive asset to the company as well as successful in the workplace. Sometimes, natural born leaders are too hot headed, and are not able to be team players, and therefore may not be as valuable to a company as someone who may not demonstrate leadership qualities 100% of the time. If a company only hires people with the capability to be strong leaders, there will be no one for them to lead because no one will want to accept the role of the follower. Although having some leaders in the work place will definitely have a positive impact on the work ethic of the company, too many leaders will prevent optimal success.
Finally, some individuals may be a leader in some situations but a follower in other situations. If an individual is more comfortable and confident amongst one group of people while participating in one task, he will be more likely to be a leader around those individuals, while completing that task. However, that same individual may be less comfortable around other individuals that he may not know as well, and therefore may not exhibit leadership skills until he feels that he has proven his skills and has become more comfortable around those individuals. Although this individual may not initially seem like a leader upon meeting the second group of people, that does not mean that he does not have the capability to be a leader. It just means that his natural born leadership instincts will interact with his environment and experiences to produce leadership within that social context.
Although the article states that there is a gene that is associated with an increased probability of being a leader, this gene only increases the probability that the individual will be a leader by 25%. The article also states that experience and environment still play a greater role in determining who will become a leader. As a result, I would consider it genetic discrimination if a company hypothetically ran these tests and hired an applicant with the leadership gene over an applicant without the leadership gene if both applicants were comparable, and especially if the applicant without the leadership gene was more qualified for the job.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, just because the gene is present in an individual, does not mean that it will be expressed. Considering that the environment and experiences of the individual play a more vital role in the development of a leader, I think it would be unethical for a company to hire someone just because he has a gene that increases his probability of becoming a leader. If an individual with the genetic predisposition for leadership is hired, and has a few negative experiences during the first year of employment, the leadership qualities resulting from him having this gene probably won’t be exhibited. If anything, his leadership qualities will probably be repressed because his confidence in his ability to successfully perform will dwindle as a result of those negative experiences. Instead of leading other employees in the company, he will be more inclined to follow the example of the more successful employers. However, as this individual begins to succeed and continues to have positive experiences in the workplace, he will become more confident in his abilities and then his potential leadership capabilities will surface. However, it is the interaction between experience and his genes that will bring about his leadership, not just genetic predisposition alone.
Currently employers hire individuals who are the most qualified, and who they believe will fit in best with the company, and appreciate the values the company upholds. This should continue to be the way employment decisions are made, not based on a genetic predisposition for leadership. If a company begins to hire people based on whether they have a genetic predisposition for leadership, it will negatively impact the work ethic of the company. An individual’s ability to be a team player also affects his ability to be a positive asset to the company as well as successful in the workplace. Sometimes, natural born leaders are too hot headed, and are not able to be team players, and therefore may not be as valuable to a company as someone who may not demonstrate leadership qualities 100% of the time. If a company only hires people with the capability to be strong leaders, there will be no one for them to lead because no one will want to accept the role of the follower. Although having some leaders in the work place will definitely have a positive impact on the work ethic of the company, too many leaders will prevent optimal success.
Finally, some individuals may be a leader in some situations but a follower in other situations. If an individual is more comfortable and confident amongst one group of people while participating in one task, he will be more likely to be a leader around those individuals, while completing that task. However, that same individual may be less comfortable around other individuals that he may not know as well, and therefore may not exhibit leadership skills until he feels that he has proven his skills and has become more comfortable around those individuals. Although this individual may not initially seem like a leader upon meeting the second group of people, that does not mean that he does not have the capability to be a leader. It just means that his natural born leadership instincts will interact with his environment and experiences to produce leadership within that social context.
I would definitely consider running genetic tests on job applicants to be a form of genetic discrimination. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act that was passed by Congress in 1996 requires the protection and confidential handling of protected health information. Since this clearly wasn't enough, Congress went even further to pass the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, designed to prohibit the improper use of genetic information in health insurance and employment. Genetic testing done to hire an applicant based on leadership would be a direct violation of both of these laws and entirely intolerable to the half of the population that does not possess the gene.
ReplyDeleteThe hiring process is done specifically to determine the applicants work ethic and experience. This should be thorough enough without the need for genetic testing.
Even if testing was ethically permissible, it would still create inaccurate or misleading results because not everyone who has the gene has put it to use. It may even have more negative results because it would give those individuals without the gene less of an incentive to compete, when what the company is really and ultimately looking for is just someone who works hard. The presence of a genetic test would also create a gap between these two groups of individuals, making the individuals who are positive feel more superior, and those without it feeling inferior.
Regardless of whether an individual has the gene for leadership does not necessarily make them a good person, or even a good candidate. Adolf Hitler, I would imagine for example, would not make an eligible candidate for a job if he had magically resurrected from his grave. He worked hard and definitely stood up for what he believed in, but that did not make him a good person and for his beliefs specifically, he would not be accepted in the society we have evolved into today.
Like several of the other blog posts, there are major downsides to this test. As several other students have mentioned, discrimination is a major concern especially if this testing is being done prior to job employment. While personality traits and characteristics are influenced by genetics, they are also heavily influenced by environment. Someone may have the gene and not be as strong a leader as someone who does not have the gene. In addition, there are several other characteristics and traits to consider besides leadership for job applicants. As important as leadership is, cooperating and working with others is also very important, as well as several other qualities.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do believe some people are natural born leaders, this article says the gene is "associated" with leadership. Therefore, causation cannot be assumed. I also agree with Morgan that companies should not have access to their clients genetic information. It seems irrelevant to me for employers to have that kind of information and can lead to several possibilities for discrimination.
In addition, I do not know how credible this article seems because it briefly mentions the name of the gene but does not describe study methods, etc. Therefore, it was not very persuasive to me.
I would consider it to be discrimination if a company ran genetic tests for leadership abilities and then hired people based on the results. This would essentially mean that they might disregard, or be more willing to disregard, other aspects of their personality or capabilities that are important to the job. What if they have the gene for being a good leader but are lazy? If a person has the leadership gene but is a rude person with few other positive attributes, then the test may not be the best indicator of success. I think that using any type of genetic test in order to determine whom to hire is going too far. People should be hired based on all the attributes they have demonstrated through previous jobs and other characteristics they possess. In terms of how this would effect work ethic, I think it would have a negative impact. I think people with the gene would get lazy or feel like they do not have anything to prove since their genes say it all. They probably would not be the most effective employees.
ReplyDeleteI think that the article was poorly written as to overemphasize the impact of this gene on leadership predictability. The subtitle, for example, is conclusive: "Science has proved what tradition has always been advocating. Leaders are born, not made. The gene says so." However, the researchers interviewed for the article were not so certain about how absolute the findings were: "Experience and environment still played a greater role in gaining a high-flying job." These are pretty contrasting statements. It's pretty clear to see that the writer of the article was sensationalizing the findings. It's an exciting topic, sure, and could have some broad implications, but it's too soon and the results are too inconclusive to make such sweeping statements as: "The new research suggests the possibility that some of the historic figures like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Martin Luther King, M K Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and Sir Winston Churchill were blessed with the leadership gene." So MLK Jr. would have been a great orator, even if he hadn't been born into a family of preachers and reverends..? I think the findings need to be taken with a grain of salt.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to genetic discrimination in employment, I believe that we haven't reached that point as a society. I'm fairly certain that employment legislation currently exists that prohibits the requirement of genetic material - and if it isn't already part of law, then I have faith that people would not willingly submit themselves to such rigorous and outrageous employment processes. In the future, however, if and when these genetic tests become more widely available and conclusive, legislation would probably be needed to prohibit discrimination on genetic grounds. Currently, the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals in hiring and employment - law could be expanded to include "genetic disabilities", such as the lack of the rs4950 genotype (I guess).
The idea that some people are born leaders is another nature vs. nurture debate. Being a leader has been defined as someone that influences or leaders others. One’s personality is somewhat genetic and you can be born with a certain personality. It is logical to think that if you are born with the personality of a “leader” it could be connected to genetics. However, you can also be taught to posses the qualities of a leader. A certain child may be shy but as they get older may grow to be more confident. Through exercises of responsibility I believe someone can learn to be a leader.
ReplyDeleteI believe that more research would need to be done in order to definitively say that leaders are born leaders. I also think that we would need new laws against job discrimination to make sure that people without this “leadership gene” are also given a chance to prove they can do a certain job.
ReplyDeleteA genotype has been found to be associated with inherited leadership characteristics. “The new research suggests the possibility that some of the historic figures like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Martin Luther King, M K Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and Sir Winston Churchill were blessed with the leadership gene.”
I would absolutely consider this test genetic discrimination is a company ran it on its job applicants. The article says it itself--environment and and experience still played a greater role in finding a job. I would also consider it genetic discrimination if a company hired an applicant based on the test's results. From my point of view, being positive for the rs4950 gene does not make you a better leader. I would not be surprised to find out that leaders such as President Obama or Mother Teresa didn't have this gene. Like anything, there are such an innumerable list of factors that contribute to a person being an adequate leader. In addition to experience and environment, there is also the person's character and people in their life that inspired them or helped them become a leader. Who is to say that a person with this gene, is not inspired by the work of Nelson Mandela or Abraham Lincoln? Are they still going to be great leaders? Perhaps not--they would probably tend to be more of a follower.
I personally would not apply for a job that required this genetic testing. It is so pointless from my perspective. It's discriminatory and moronic. Companies could lose out on the opportunity of hiring individuals who would be great a certain positions just because of the lack of said gene.
In addition, this would not contribute positively to the work ethic of a company. I feel that employees could get conceited because they would feel like they were the "choose ones." I also feel that this could lead to stupidity such as people thinking that they have superior rs4950 genes than others, since they perform better at their job than the rest. From another angle, this could contribute to employees not feeling to confident about their abilities. They would question if whether or not they really have what it takes to lead effectively, or if they got the position based solely on their genes. Also, people who get hired because of the gene but are lousy leaders regardless, would be able to tell that they shouldn't have gotten the position. This would also lead to employees feeling inadequate.
Without a doubt the article definitely has a point in that certain genes can increases one's affinity for certain tendencies and actions, thus making them a more likely candidate to become a leader one day. The rs4950 genotype may be one of these instances in which one who possesses the gene acts in a way and learn/interprets the world in a way that gears him or her to have a greater chance of being a leader. It would be insane to think that our chemical and physical make-up have nothing to do with the type of people we develop into and the tendencies we have. However, I do not think that there should be a percentage attributed to this genotype make-up.
ReplyDeleteIt is one thing to have the ability and tools necessary to become a great leader, in this case being the rs4950 genotype, but one must also have the character and upbringing necessary as well. The environment a person is brought up in plays just as large of a role in this. Therefore, while I do thing that recognizing if someone does or does not possesses a genotype that gives them a greater chance of becoming a leader is a useful tool, it is absolutely not the only determinant of leadership in an individual.
I think that requiring an applicant to take this genetic test is absolutely discrimination. I see this the same as discrimination based on sex, age, or race. All of these characteristics about us are things that we are born with and completely out of our control. We don’t choose what color we are, if we are a boy or girl, or which genes we get.
ReplyDeleteWhile this gene may have an effect on leadership, it would be absurd to think that this is the only factor that makes a leader great. I do not think that success or talent is predetermined, and I do think that the choices that we make each day are important. I would not apply for any job that required me to have genetic testing completed before I could be hired. In my opinion, our genes are a part of us but by no means define us. As genetic testing becomes more common in our society, we need to be careful with who has access to our genetic information. I think that our genetics should be for only ourselves and our doctors, and it will be challenging to ensure that this information does not get into the wrong hands because it can be used as a form of discrimination.
I would consider companies running genetic tests to hire an applicant with the leadership gene vs. an applicant without it as genetic discrimination. Employers should not use an applicant's genetic make up to hire them for a supervisor position just because they have a specific genotype. Even the article stated that experience and environment still play a greater role in gaining a high-flying job, so having the gene still would not guarantee a job applicant's leadership skills. If companies start hiring or denying applicants based on their genetic characteristics, then there will be no limit to what they can test for. It may start at the leadership skills, but go on to test how smart someone is naturally, if a person is more likely to having a drug problem or be more susceptible to certain diseases. Even with GINA in place, if a person is tested the company could get the information anyway if the lab has the employees DNA anyway. This testing would affect work ethic within companies by making employees who do not have this gene stay in subordinate positions and watch those with the gene pass them for promotions, which would make the subordinates work less harder at their jobs.
ReplyDeleteI believe that a company running tests and hiring applicants on the basis of a leadership gene is the same as running tests and hiring applicants on the basis of having a genetic disposition to such diseases as cancer or huntington's disease. I disagree with both scenarios and feel that it is an unjust violation of rights. Companies do not (or rather, should not) discriminate on the basis of race or gender and therefore should not discriminate on an individual's genetic predisposition to acquire a disease or a personality trait. I advocate that all potential and existing employees should be free from genetic discrimination. If a company chooses not to hire somebody on the basis of a past criminal record, then I believe that the company should feel free to do so. But if a company wants to deny a qualified applicant, who is a good fit for the company, a job based on the result of a genetic test that suggests that that particular individual is not "25 per cent more likely to be [a] leader" then I would argue that to be unjust.
ReplyDeleteLastly, I also believe that there is a place for all types of people in a company. A company that administers a test to determine potential leaders for employment might think that they want to hire only individuals that posses such potential. However, imagine a company in which every single employee is an overachieving individual with a genetic disposition to lead. I can not picture a work environment conducive to productivity, instead I see a room full of leaders trying to lead without a willingness to follow (this of course is an extreme example).
I agree with what many other students have been saying - that companies running genetic tests to look for leadership on prospective employees would absolutely be discrimination of a new kind. Already, methods hiring allow employers to potentially place some waves of discrimination on applicants, such as racial or gender bias. Permitting genetic testing to take place actually seems ridiculous and would take away from the applicant's ability to influence the employer in interview-like situations. I think allowing this would give employers too much power outright before an applicant gets a chance to show their skills and would be a negative indicator of the ethics of companies that permit this testing to occur. As we have learned, it would be unlikely that this would even be permitted based on protections outlined in the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008. Obviously, companies want to get the whole picture on potential employees during the hiring process, but this, I believe, would be taking it a step too far.
ReplyDeleteAs the article states, it would be foolish for companies to perform genetic testing on prospective supervisory employees because having the rs4950 gene is not the major influence on those with good leadership skill. In those tested and found to have the gene, it was also found that experience and environment still played a greater role in their ability to gain high station in employment. It is clear that there is a pattern in studies like these where genetic components are found to influence unlikely aspects of the human form- that is, that while these particular genes may contribute to some specific characteristic or talent, one's experiences in life still factor in (to sometimes a greater extent) to how much of an influence the gene has on expression of that characteristic.
This article reminds me of the video clip we saw in class several weeks ago, where “the cheating gene” was being discussed. The headline and paragraph leading into the article are a little misleading in the discussion of the research. I appreciate the reservations of the research in applying the findings to professional work as the author concedes that “experience and environment still played a greater role in gaining a high-flying job”. As many other students have discussed, there is still more to be discovered. A gene like rs4950 is not the only contributing factor (genetic or otherwise) to leadership.
ReplyDeleteI am reminded to think of genetics and genes as a foundation (like building blocks, as they are commonly referred to), embellished by many other things (experiences, the environment, behavior) – not to the point where genes/genetics are insignificant, but where the influence of other things need to be stressed. It’s not as simple as a person having a gene that makes them a good leader, but rather, having a gene can be involved in having certain qualities that contribute to characteristics as strong leadership.
Some students have discussed great leaders in history, and many of us are likely to disagree on some of them. Defining a “strong” and “good” leader is incredibly subjective and up for interpretation, easily muddled by the consequences of a leader’s actions. This particular research looked at individuals in a “supervisory role” – one other student, Chin Chu, had pointed out the difference between supervisory roles and leadership roles, and I agree – an individual in a supervisory role is not necessary a good leader (and think of situations in which leaders have been resented, or even ousted!)
I do not think that genetic profiles/testing (particularly for this so-called leadership gene) should be used in the context of job applications and the professional world. First off, many, if not most workplaces and job applications uphold a non-discrimination policy that vows to not discriminate on the basis of race, age, gender, marital status, and other characteristics. A gene/genetic profile could reasonably be incorporated into such a policy.
Reliance on a genetic profile gives the impression that what you have in your genes is set in stone, and that you can’t do much besides what you are genetically endowed with – that is not the case! Lastly, one student had mentioned that a gene like rs4950 would be a fair indicator of leadership qualities, but not certain (since those with the gene are “only” 25% more likely to be leaders). We are capable of questioning the claims of the research and article and seeing that influence of a gene is not completely certain, but many other people in this world are not. Consider the spin of this article - there are probably many people who would be persuaded, with a quick glance at this article’s headline, that leadership qualities are entirely genetically based.
Under the GINA Act, employers cannot use individual's genetic information in their hiring, firing, or promoting decisions. Thus, employers who base their hiring decisions on whether or not an individual possesses the "leadership gene" would be exercising a form of discrimination. Not only would an employer be breaking the law, I believe hiring based on a gene would not be in an employer’s best interest. First, genes are not the only deciding factor when considering a person’s working potential. Education, motivation, and previous experience are all important factors. It is noted in the article that 50% of people possess this leadership gene. However half of the population is not in leadership roles. Thus, employers would not be wise to put so much emphasis on a single gene. Secondly, hiring based on a leadership gene would lower morale. If someone knows that they do not possess this gene, they may feel demoralized and that there is no way they could move up in the company. This will ultimately lead to a lack of productivity. I would suggest for employers to look at the person’s phenotype, not their genotype, when hiring new employees.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that employers should use this gene test to decide if they should hire a person. I agree with the other students who say this is a form of discrimination. The article says that those with the rs4950 gene are only 25% more likely to become leaders. Just because a person has the gene it does not necessarily mean that they will become a leader, they could possess the gene and never end up being a leader or a good leader. There is more to being a leader than just your genes. Leaderships skills are can be acquired and developed over time. People who were not born with this gene still have the ability to become a great leader. Some people like Martin Luther King, M K Gandhi and Nelson Mandela most likely did posses a gene that made them who they were, but their environment that they lived in also brought out their natural ability to lead.
ReplyDeleteDepending on the job, being a leader may not be the most important quality to have in order to be successful in the work place. For some jobs it may be better for the applicant to be able to take direction and follow directions. If all of your employees were leaders and there were no followers nothing would get done. It good for a work place to have a balance of both type of people to get things done effectively.
ReplyDeleteSomething in this article just does not add up. The article explains that half the population possesses the “leadership gene,” which means that half the population should be responsible and more accepting of leadership roles. However, living in today’s society I know that this is not the case. I think that leadership may have some type of genetic influence, however you are a product of your environment. Those children that thrived in social situations explored leadership roles and have most likely continued those behaviors in adulthood. Also, what do the researchers define as “leadership qualities”? When the gene was found that linked the rs4950 to leadership, what were the qualifications to be considered a leader? Therefore, I do not think a genetic test has very much value in the hiring process.
I feel that companies are going too far if they require this type of genetic testing, and laws would be enacted to regulate these measures. If a company did enforce a policy to genetically test all employees then I feel that it would create a type of hierarchy within the community of employees. Everyone should be working together as a team and this testing would give rise to animosity and jealousy between coworkers. Thus, the work ethic in a company would plummet and could lead to bankruptcy, all because of a required genetic test.
Jonathan Greenbaum
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of my classmates in believing that companies should not be allowed to do genetic testing for hiring of certain jobs. This is absolutely genetic discrimination and it would be detrimental to the workforce. While I do believe there are certain genes that may make us more likely to lead, there are so many other factors that go into leadership. This is a classic nature vs nurture debate as you must consider that the environment has a huge effect on whether or not a person will be a leader.
The rs4950 genotype only makes a person more likely to be leader, it does not guarantee that they will be. This testing could have a negative impact on the company because if employees believe they cannot lead due to their genetics, then they are less likely to strive for the bigger successful promotions.
In addition, being a leader is not always the ideal position for every job. In some jobs, it is crucial to be able to work with a team and follow directions that are given to you. In my opinion, this type of testing will never become routine for hiring because it does not provide concrete results and it leaves much to be questioned.
I believe that although genetics may play a roll in leadership qualities, such famous leaders and even those lesser known have done much more than just purely rely on there genes to make them leaders. It's also how a person has been brought up and who their mentors are. There's a lot more to Martin Luther King Jr.'s story than just a genetic link to leadership.
ReplyDeleteAs for the questions, I would have to agree and say that it would be discrimination if a company ran these tests. Mostly because of the laws that we already have in place to protect us from anyone discriminating against us because of our genetic make up. Also, the company doesn't know what it's losing if they based their hiring just off a genetic test. It would be taking potential and throwing it away. Also, I believe that if a company did that then it may lead to those with the gene to become overconfident or possibly a stigma against those who lack the genetic modification.
When it comes down to whether or not you pass a “leadership” test that decides whether or not you qualify for a specific position, I would say yes it is a form of genetic discrimination. I think that this would allow for certain people to have the ability to obtain better jobs by simply passing a test, with no guarantee of whether or not they actually had the credentials or deserved the position. Half of the population has the gene, but that doesn’t translate into half the population being good leaders. Some leaders may also be slightly reserved. Environment plays a big role in the development of a leader. Some cultures may consider speaking up to be rude or offensive. So being a leader is defined differently across the board culturally.
ReplyDeleteIf employers did end up hiring someone based on genetic characteristics, then only people that seemed outspoken, had the gene, and met the definition would be considered leaders. It would remain to be seen what would define someone that would be considered genetically astute as a “leader.” Credentials and experience, as well as environment might not be taken into consideration. I think it would also depend on the company or workplace. There are places where genetic testing could be particularly useful. Maybe genetic testing and finding that you tested positive for this gene would give people the confidence to take advantage of their leadership qualities. Some people need an extra push in order to come out of their shell, so for some getting tested may be beneficial. I think more research as to what testing positive means and how a leader is defined genetically, would need to be more fully explored in order to even consider doing this as an employer.
I think that work ethic would be affected negatively for some, and positively for others. I think if there was a genetic test and people passed, it would give them the confidence to reach their full potential. It could also have the opposite effect though and cause some to feel pressure to assume a role that is outside of their comfort zone. But for people that did not pass the test, their morale may be lowered, even if they do possess leadership qualities. If a leader went into the test thinking they were going to test genetically positive, or that it would be easy to pass this genetic test and then did not pass, would be extremely disappointed. I think it would affect everyone differently but should not be the-be-all-end-all for how someone is hired. More studies need to be done because not enough is known about genes in general to fully say whether or not you can predict whether or not someone is more or less likely to lead later in life. I would agree that there are genes that make people more or less likely to have genes that make it easier to solve problems, or be or be sporty, or to bully. But environment also plays a role as well and I think will always need to be considered.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/01/15/health-leadership-gene-dna-sequence_n_2479658.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis article discussing the discovered link associated between the possession of leadership qualities and the gene rs4950 is quite interesting, but I did find the article to be quite vague. One issue that I took with the article is the fact that it was never discussed what a leader is; how can you find a gene that boosts leadership skills if you don't know what you are looking for? Furthermore, a leader is different in the minds of different people, and though I did like the idea of showcasing significant historical leaders that may have possibly had the rs4950 gene, such as M.L.K. and Nelson Mandela, they also mentioned ones that I do not agree with, such as Adolf Hitler and Stalin. As classmates have previously mentioned, a leader is not just about getting tasks done, but involves a variety of factors such as producing a friendly and warm energy and being able to inspire those around you to do better. The article having listed them has them lose a bit of credibility.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I do believe that some characteristics are better suited for leadership than others and therefore it is not hard to believe that this gene may have some sort of link to being a good leader. If this were true, then I think it would be wrong for companies to use this as a hiring criteria. My initial reaction to this happening is that it would be strange to have a situation where two candidates were just so qualified that the boss would resort to using genetic testing to determine who to hire. There are other sets of criteria that they can use, such as how well they work with others, that are better suited to use to make the decision. But if a company does use this as a tool, then I find it to be ethically wrong, because it would discriminate based on a person's genetics, something that they are born with and can't change. It would be no different than not hiring someone because they have down-syndrome or any other condition.
Applications should never be discriminatory and there are group activities whereby you hire contract a company to identify leaders among your group of interest in the company. Leaders are shaped and raised by many factors however to be born a leader means you have certain outgoing traits linked to genetic traits, but these must be nurtured and can easily be negated by an oppressive environment or abuse. I don't believe this is ethical or practical for a company to undertake such testing.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this is very interesting, I do not see it as dauntingly as perhaps a lot of people. So what if someone can have a gene that makes them 25% "more likely" to demonstrate leadership qualities? This by no means says that EVERY person with this gene will be a born leader, and of course it also enters the debate of Nature vs. Nurture: if someone is born with this gene but raised to be meek, will they still prevail as a leader? I do not think enough investigation has been done for people to be worried about job competition.
ReplyDeleteIf, in fact, someone were hired because of the presence of this gene, I would be surprised. I could see if two applicants were extremely close in the running and then the gene made that extra difference to break the tie- but to TRULY be a deciding factor? If one applicant presented with a 4.0 GPA and the other a 3.1, would the latter really be favored provided he presented the "leader gene"? Are employers only looking for leaders? Companies do not usually run on thousands of leaders, so who is really to tell who gets hired and who does not? The definition of what makes a leader is not defined in this article and could be confused with other tendencies such as impatience & aggression. I think that this is a preliminary finding which is, although interesting, in no danger of costing people equal chance in the job market.
I believe if people were tested for the rs4950 gene while applying for jobs, it would cause controversy regarding discrimination based on genotypic leadership qualities. I'm not sure how successful these tests would be in choosing applicants for jobs because the article states how experience and environment play a larger role on supervisory positions than having the rs4950 gene. After all, Adolf Hitler possessed the gene, but I'm sure no one would want to make the mistake of hiring him solely because of his rs4950 gene. I agree that extending protection against genetic discrimination is necessary especially as genetic testing is becoming increasingly popular.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that employers should use this gene test to decide if they should hire a person. I believe that the 25% chance that a person possessing rs4950 genes will exhibit leadership qualities is not significant enough to dictate the hiring or employment of individuals. Even if there is a correlation between this gene and leadership qualities, there are many aspects of being a good leader that can be developed later in life, such as experience or confidence. Perhaps there it is a combination of environment and genetics that contribute to a good leader.
ReplyDeleteI feel like this has been a common theme in a lot of the journal entries for this class: if someone has gene X, will they automatically become Y? I never believe that having a genetic make up will guarantee certain outcomes like being "born a leader." I think that a person's genetics will have an enormous impact on many, many qualities. But something like a profession or being a leader has many other factors that leads a person to that end-result in life that are determined by personal preferences, experiences, his or her personality, his or her environment, and so on.
ReplyDeleteI think it would be completely unethical to test a person if he or she had this specific leadership gene. I think genetics in this area for example plays little importance to the results that come from the person. A person could have all the potential in the world to be the greatest baseball player in history, but if he or she does not WANT to be the greatest player in history, that potential and ability does little good, if any at all. I think that a person's DRIVE and desire are much more important in situations like these. If a company wanted to use a genetic test to hire applicants with supposedly favorable genes over those who lack them, I think that it shows the company's true lack of understanding of genetics and findings in this field. So, not only do I find it unethical and a form of discrimination to test potential new workers for genes the company finds favorable, I think it also shows a great misunderstanding on the company's part, and also a focus on the wrong qualities and aspects of people.
To be honest, I find it really hard to take this article seriously. “Leaders are born, not made; Genes say so,” posted on SamayLive.com, states that scientists have discovered that people with a particular gene are up to 25 percent more likely to be leaders. This gene, called rs4950, appears to be associated with the passing of leadership ability down through generations. First of all, we are reading this article from a source that is not reputable, raising some red flags already. Furthermore, there is that common phrase how a certain percent of percentages are made up; I cannot help but question this article’s main claim. The new research suggests the possibility that some of the historic figures like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Martin Luther King, M K Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and Sir Winston Churchill were blessed with the leadership gene. I love how Sheba Ebhote went there, exclaiming, “As a boss I would not want Hitler to be my coworker!” Professor John Antonakis, who is known for his work on leadership, says in the article how “the rs4950 genotype can also play a significant role in predicting who is more likely to occupy leadership roles." I find this somewhat farfetched, and wished he hadn’t used the word “significant” in his quote. However, he did said that with half the population possessing the gene, experience and environment still played a greater role in gaining a high-flying job. I agree, there is so much more involved in success than one little gene. Like Shums Alikhan said, “When hiring for jobs, the most important factors should be experience and education. How well a person performs at work is likely related to the training they have received and how experienced they are in the field.” I would hope that this type of testing for job applicants does not occur; it would only increase the amount of health disparities in the world. It brings me joy to see my classmates discussing disability with regards to GINA and the ADA! As Liz Mathew said, these laws are “meant to bring our country forward and allowing companies to access our genetic information to discriminate against certain individuals who may or may not have the "leadership" gene is only going to bring our country as a whole backwards.” This article makes me skeptical in many ways; however, I will agree with my classmates in saying that more research will be necessary in the future.
ReplyDeleteAgain this article, like many posted on the blog before, attempts to inform the reader that the studies conducted are not 100% accurate and can completely predict the traits they are observing. In this case they try to insinuate that there is a correlation between the rs4950 gene and leadership qualities. Here again we see that these studies are not accurate enough at this point and far under-researched to seriously approach the findings as factual or telling in any way. Besides that obvious point which has been a common theme throughout past articles on gene correlated traits, this article finally warns the readers of the dangers of these assumptions .
ReplyDeleteAs students have already mentioned, the GINA act is quite relevant to the issue presented in the article regarding discrimination and genetic testing. The act was designed to loosely protect the public from discrimination in healthcare and insurance policies. I think in the future as genetic testing becomes more accurate this outdated and highly generalized policy needs to be amended to account for inequities that will inevitably arise in the future due to mainstreamed access to genetic testing and protection of that personal data from misuse.
I think it's important to look at the sources from which some of the quotations are taken and the article itself as a source. It doesn't seem like that credible of a genetics research website and the research that is quoted throughout the article is very loosely referenced and associated. I think this is a prime example of how the media can manipulate the way certain research studies are being presented to the public. It plays on certain key terms and statistics that aren't highly significant yet it makes it seems as this gene has everything to do with a person being a leader.
ReplyDeleteI would be very much opposed to genetic testing in job applicants to gauge their levels of leadership. As mentioned in the article I believe measures should be set in place to prevent genetic discrimination to take place in the work field. As mentioned by some of my colleagues it would be unethical and pointless to test for the leadership gene. It was mentioned in the article that half the population possesses this gene. So it is not a clear indicator of leadership there are so many other factors to take into consideration. The work ethic would be completely disrupted by an elitist company that decides to only hire those with the leadership gene. I believe that this research can be taken in a different direction as was briefly stated at the end of the article in the direction of children's interactions and possible dominance roles in their environments.
ReplyDeleteI would consider testing for this genetic indication of leadership genetic discrimination. This sort of testing would be directly violating GINA by being used to determine employment eligibility. The article even states that while this particular gene is believed to play a role in leadership qualities, experience and environment played an even stronger role. Based on that information alone, this testing would not be a tell tale sign of leadership qualities, thus, this testing would only be used for discriminatory purposes based on genes. I believe employers should never base employment on an applicant's genetic makeup. It is reassuring that GINA establishes that it is illegal for employers to use a person's genetic information for hiring, firing, or promotional purposes. I would not want to live in a society where a person's genetic makeup could be used in an employment setting because i feel it would generate discriminatory behaviors. If hiring was genetically based, I think it would complete devastate the work ethic for both people with those particular genes and without those particular genes. People with said " leadership" genes would gain employment based on their genetic makeup ( which may not be a true indication of leadership) and would not have to put as much work or effort into obtaining a leadership position. For those without said " leadership" genes, they would have little work ethic because their lack of genes has already disqualified them from any leadership roles. I think employment should be solely based on experience , determination, and work ethic. I am happy to have GINA to protect my employment aspirations from genetic discrimination.
I think that using genetic testing to make decisions on who should be hired/promoted is a terrible idea. As stated in the article the gene is not solely responsible for an individual’s ability to lead, environment plays a major role as well. Interviewing, considering past job performance, resume and contacting their references is still definitely a more effective route for choosing the best person for a job. As well as environment being a huge contributing factor excelling in a job does not only rely on a persons’ innate ability to lead. I agree to measures to protect a persons’ genetic information from prospective employers should be taken.
ReplyDeleteI was not surprised when I read this article. I have played sports all my life and I always wondered what made different leaders on a sports team better then others. Some leaders just have a way of controlling the team and bringing the level of play to new heights. I know that is the article is says that leadership is a skill that can be worked on but at the same time I think some people are naturally better then others. I would be curious for scientist to look at the genes of Michael Jordan or a Magic Johnson too see if these professional athletes who were leaders of their teams possessed this gene.
ReplyDeleteLeaders are not the only important part of a job or team. When the article talked about companies testing for this gene before you hired them I felt like it would be an invasion of privacy. I don’t think it is right to discriminate based on a person’s leadership gene. I think if a proper interview is done, then the interviewer will be able to tell what type of person they are whether, they are a leader or not. With that said, I think that not everybody working for a company should be a leader. If everyone was a leader then I think there would be to many disputes and arguments among coworkers. I think testing for this gene in someone is going to far. It is already so hard to get hired and adding more criteria to the equation is unfair. Also some people who may not have this gene could be the best leaders in the company. This person may have worked on their leadership skills their whole life but still may not posses the gene. I also think this could effect the dynamic the workplace. People could now only look to the person who posses this gene for answers rather then asking other people around the workplace. I do think this is a very interesting discovery but I don’t think it is necessary for the workplace.
I certainly think it is discrimination to hire based on the presence of the "leadership gene". I don't see the cost benefit to testing people for only a 25% chance that they will be leaders. I think there is a greater benefit to using the funds otherwise used for DNA testing towards leadership training. Similar to other DNA tests such as the BRCA1/2 gene, possessing the gene does not mean that it is a guarantee, but a greater likely hood that the trait linked to the gene will develop. So yes, people can be inherently more likely to lead, but I feel that the majority of the time a person with specific leadership training will out lead his competition that does not have any training at all.
ReplyDeleteI think that leadership is a trait that evolves more from the personality traits that are inherited from your parents and the influences of your environment than that it is a gene that we inherit. Besides, many people who hold higher positions or play greater roles in companies do so because of other abilities and may hold those positions because of connections rather than there ability to actually lead. Also, I think the credibility of the article and the research should be in question a little bit. The research was done on what seems like an extremely small sample (4,000) to make such a generalize about the entire population. Second, the website where the article is posted does not seem very credible at all.
ReplyDeleteI certainly agree with Amy. When it comes to the reliability of this information--I just read a local news article today where Daily Mail pulled photos off of Facebook, but they used the wrong person's family in the photos and published that they had been in a tragic accident. Also, to generalize to the whole population of people, 4,000 study participants is like nothing--especially when most report that other leadership experiences and opportunities have made large impacts on them.
DeleteSo, yes, I agree again in thinking that this is totally discrimination. If genes play a role in leadership, but a minimal role in comparison to other experiences, the point is null. Think of people who are adopted. Maybe they don't have the "leadership gene" but they were adopted by a family with the means to give the child opportunities and experiences that will help develop their leadership skills and connect them with future employment opportunities. Or think of people who may have the "leadership gene" but had most everything handed to them throughout their lives and have to drive to climb ladders or inspire others? Or for no reason feel uninspired to to attain leadership positions? Leadership may be inherent to some, but can be developed with work by anyone.
What concerns me most about this article is the way that the media spins the information. The title boldly claims that "Leaders are born, not made; Genes say so", which seems to be a definitive conclusion based on the way it's stated. They back this claim up with a statement that 25% of people in a study of 4,000 individuals were more likely to hold a supervisory role if they had the gene. These statistics are pretty weak because of the small sample size, and they do not tell the whole story. The very next statement says, "with half the population possessing this gene, experience and environment still played a greater role in gaining a high-flying job." This clearly shows that it is more about epigenetic factors than gene sequence, but this is heavily down-played in the article.
ReplyDeleteI believe that leadership depends more on these epigenetic factors like experiences, childhood, and environments. For example, a child could be born with this leadership gene, but if they grow up in an environment that does not foster independence or leadership, they might never show these characteristics. I think there is a lot more to this puzzle than genetics, even if it does play a small role in personality determinants. Since I believe there is a lot more to leadership than this gene, I obviously believe that hiring based on the presence or lack of this gene is unethical. Making decisions based on an individual's genetic information is wrong, and I hope that health care does not go down this road.
This article brings up a very interesting point about how strong leader share a common gene. I'm glad it mentions that this discovery could have ethical implications if employers used this as a tool for hiring. My peers also make valid arguments about nature and nurture, which is exactly what the research proves. I’m not sure that the article is interpreting the findings accurately. I found a study that shows that “leadership role occupancy is associated with rs4950, a single nucleotide polymorphism”. This SNP has a 24% chance of inheritance and the potential of the individual occupying a leadership role is a complex product of genetic and environment influences.
ReplyDeleteWe must do more research if we want to better understand the implications of this genetic variant. Whether rs4950 affect alternative measures of leadership emergence, leadership types, and personality traits that are essential components of leadership emergence and effectiveness. It should also focus on the way genetic variants interact with environmental influences to jointly shape leadership.
De Neve, J., Mikhaylov, S., Dawes, C. T., Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2013). Born to lead? A twin design and genetic association study of leadership role occupancy. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 45-60.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1048984312000811
It would definitely be genetic discrimination if a company hired a person over another because of any specific type of gene that they were looking for. When it comes to our genes it’s something that we can’t help therefore making it unfair for someone to do this. The purpose of the GINA act passed in 2008 and designed to prohibit the use of genetic information in health insurance and employment is what would not allow such a type of picking and choosing to occur. As stated by the article “experience and environment still play a greater role” when it comes to leadership. This is important to point out because there are other factors that take part in a leader other than this rs 4950 gene that is said to make a person more likely to be a leader.
ReplyDeleteEthics would be a concern as well, some people are very desperate to get a job that they may put themselves through this testing but it doesn’t make it right. With that being said, I believe this type of testing would be taking it too far. I think it would cause a lot of people to question themselves and even their families if they found out that they did not have this gene. It would also make people lose confidence in themselves by having the feeling that there was no room for improvement if this were to be one of the deciding factors. People would lose hope in working hard because in the back of their mind genes would play a role, which is something that we can’t help and change.
Work ethic may be very uniform if that makes sense. When it comes to companies I believe there needs to be diversity. If there were too many leader in one leader who would really listen? I see there being many conflicts that can arise by making this a requirement. People would use their genes as a way to feel superior to others causing a horrible work ethic and interaction between employees. For now, I would be against at this thought of testing at all but also included in the article was a statement that says future research is needed which I would agree on.
This, much like the testing to see if your child is athletic, is taking genetic testing too far. There is no need to know this information. Some people are born leaders and some are not; it's a simple fact. This would absolutely be discrimination if employers were to hire people solely on whether they have this gene or not. Genetics should not play a part in whether a person is hired for a job or not. The article states that there is a 25% chance that the person with the gene will be leader. So hiring on the basis of this gene would not guarantee that you have made the best choice in employment. The work ethic in a company would decline if they knew that opportunities were available to certain people based on their genetics and not actually on how they perform in the company. I don't see how this information would be useful to anyone.
ReplyDeleteEven though this gene, rs4950 may indicate whether or not someone is likely to become a leader, I cannot say that I agree with the fact that employers should use this gene test to decide if they should hire a person.
ReplyDeleteJust because someone lacks this gene, does not mean that they do not have any leadership skills. You have to keep in to consideration the many external factors that come into play. For instance, hard work, education, and the correct guidance are important external factors to consider and know that anyone can become a leader it has nothing to do with having a certain gene or not.
Further, I couldn’t agree more with what Connor argues. Our society has become so corrupt that instead of spending money on things that matter such as finding different genetic links for certain diseases, we waste money on test that aren’t even necessary. This article is a perfect example of money being well wasted.
I don't know if I would go as far as to say that employment based off of genetic testing is discrimination. This is simply because I feel as though a company boss/owner can run their company however they like, in terms of who they hire. Personally, I don't think the findings mentioned in the article are significant enough to be considered. I mean an individual with the rs4950 gene has a 25% chance of being a leader. Seriously? Research about anything and everything is good, but sometimes things become a little too much. I believe that time/effort/funding should be put into genetic testing for disease/illness prevention/cures...things that have truly been PROVEN to be impacted by such and are of great value. If companies just started hiring individuals with the rs4950 gene, then a good portion of the nation would be unemployed, and those employed would basically be showing no effort in the workforce. Why bother if a test is going to have the final say in whether or not you are hired? Why bother working hard, building your resume, gaining good recommendations? Individuals should be judged based off of what they have control over, not what they don't.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Anthony when he says leadership is not the only important quality that employers should look for when hiring someone. Other important qualities for example include, being a fast learner and being open-minded to new ideas. I think it is very silly that companies would even consider performing a genetic test on a potential employee to see whether of not they have a leadership skill. This is a form of genetic discrimination. I do not think that genetics plays a role when it comes to having the qualities of a leader, but rather experiences play a role. I have never believed in the saying that leaders are born, not made. People go through different life experiences, which make them stronger and have more confidence in themselves. These experiences shape their personality.
ReplyDeleteThe article mentions that people with this gene are 25 % more likely to be leaders. What about the other 75%? I do not think this percentage is very significant. Companies need to spend less time worrying about the genetic make-up of their future employees, but rather focus on offering them the proper training to improve their leadership skills.
I, like many of my classmates above, consider companies running genetic tests on its job applicants for the "leadership gene" to be an example of genetic discrimination. Though I know the scenario mentioned is hypothetical, it seems to me to be a direct violation of the Genetic Information Nondisclosure Act, which protects individuals from employers' attempts to genetically discriminate among job applicants (1).
ReplyDeleteI believe GINA is a good law, and that genetic information should continue to remain entirely outside of the workplace. The current standard method of conducting interviews and reviewing qualifications and past experience should continue to be the preferred method of selecting qualified individuals for leadership positions within a company; the "leadership gene" is not a hypothetical one-word-answer for locating all the leaders in the world, and as the article mentions, those that have the "leadership gene" are merely 25% more likely than others to be "leaders" and have supervisory positions than those without the gene.
This is not a strong association to me, and the article does not address any demographics of interest regarding the 4,000 individuals involved in the association study, including geographic location, SES, minority status, among others. If employers screened applicants for the leadership gene, I think the work ethic within the company would not change. Though "leaders" selected may feel like they have higher pressure to produce good work like Fatima Uddin mentioned, I believe this is just as much motivation as any person in a supervisory or leadership position would have to produce good work with the knowledge that they are being singled out as an important component in the company's successes, and responsible for those working below them. Deviating from my opinion that work ethic would not change in the company, Lauren DiCarlo has a good point that work ethic might decrease because those with the leadership gene may not have good work ethic. I believe this is a possibility, but I also believe that this is unproven, and it is safe to assume that unless this leadership screen for employment is conducted very far in the future, those who who are applying for the supervisory position at the company were not previously tested for the leadership gene and all applicants are unaware of their status as a "leader". If all applicants are of unknown status, and if there is no known association between being a "leader" and having good "work ethic," one cannot assume correlation between these two and therefore the work ethic among "leaders" would not vary from work ethic among the general population. Therefore, the work ethic in the company would not change.
(1) http://www.genome.gov/10002328#al-3
In a hypothetic situation where a company ran genetic tests and hired an applicant with the leadership gene and did not hire the applicant without it, I would definitely consider this as a discrimination – more specifically, genetic discrimination. I think that companies running genetics tests to determine whether or not they want to hire or deny an applicant is already taking this a bit too far, let alone basing on applicants’ genetic characteristics for the status of being hired or not. If a company decides to choose applicants with this rs4950 gene, a gene that has leadership abilities, they will be a company full of employees with potential leadership ability. With everyone having that same potential, I question whether or not this company will thrive in the success that they hope to be. With everyone as a leader, who will be the ones to follow? Everyone will want to be a leader yet there will be little room for people to follow or work under another person if they are hired for having this same gene.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe companies should even consider running genetic testing to test for a "leadership gene". I believe that a company has several other characteristics that they are looking for when considering an employee candidate. Companies look for a number of things in an employee such as past experience, intelligence, work ethic, and adaptability, just to name a few. I also believe that this article's definition of a "leader" is not clearly defined. Not all leaders are figures such as MLK and Hitler, that vocally lead and rally up groups. There are also leaders that can be relatively silent or leaders that lead by example rather than by their words. Also the idea that this gene only increases the chances of being a leader by 25% does not seem very substantial to me and should not be considered very strongly.
ReplyDeleteI believe that implementing genetic testing and choosing employees based solely on the results is considered genetic discrimination because people without the leadership gene surely can bring some valued qualities to these companies. I also believe that if certain people are chosen due to their rs4950, they will believe that they are predisposed to have some sort of leadership position and will not work as hard as others to obtain these positions because they might believe their genetics are enough.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs almost all of my fellow students have said, I agree that organizations and companies running genetic testing on applicants for the rs4950 gene would be a form of discrimination. We already have issues of hiring discrimination based on factors outside of our control such as race and gender, so if a company were to test and select applicants based on whether they possessed the "leadership" gene, we would be crossing a line which we rid of during the civil rights movement when intentional discrimination was seen as okay.
ReplyDeleteTo even consider this idea would be to base the discrimination on little to no evidence. As the article states, half of the population possess the gene, and 25% of those were more likely to have a supervisor role at work. However, there is no evidence to support that the gene was the sole reason for those who have led us in the past. In fact, it would be stupid of us as a society to ignore the nurture aspect of the development of a great leader; such as experience, education, and environment. Even if one has a greater chance at being a leader due to the rs4950 gene, nothing will come of it if isn't matched with the proper environment and experience to fully express that gene.
I agree with other students as well that if genetic testing was practiced in the work place, it would lead to low, to no productivity in those who lacked the rs4950 gene. For a company to discriminate in that way and create a divide between employees would negatively affect the ethic within a company. Those without the gene would put in less effort because they would believe that there was no hope for them in being promoted to superior positions compared to their coworkers with the "leadership" gene. Hopefully, we don't have to worry much about genetic testing in the workplace laws under the GINA act.
Yes, I do believe that it is genetic discrimination to try to test for this gene for job hiring purposes. The qualities of the rs4950 gene should be able to be determined by an individual’s leadership that one should show in their performances that can been seen on their resume through their work, academic and life experiences. Companies should be blind when it comes to people’s genetic make-up unless it is an obvious physical or mental abnormality that can impede the individual from succeeding in the particular tasks set out by that specific job and employer. Employers and companies should base their hiring process on the individuals experience or recommendations, and not an applicant’s genetics.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI would be wary of a company that takes the presence of the rs4950 genotype into consideration when hiring. I say this for two reasons. First is that selecting employees based on their genetic profile is discrimination. Secondly, such hiring practices reflect uninformed decision-making on behalf of the company. The idea of taking a gene associated with leadership characteristics and selling it, as a “leader gene” is an example of assuming causation from correlation. This is similar to the article we read about the “cheater gene” being used to predict uncommitted marital relations. When the presence of a gene is correlated to behavioral tendencies (more accurately – when the presence of a gene is related to answers on a survey that asks about certain behaviors), it does not mean that the presence of the gene causes such behaviors. To make such a connection would be illogical. I personally would not be interested in working for a company that utilizes such shallow, ill-informed hiring techniques.
I don't like the way the title doesn't really reflect the findings of the study. The article mentioned that the study repeatedly warned that genetics aren't the only factor influencing one's ability to be a leader, yet the title of the article is "Leaders are born, not made; Genes say so." I find that very misleading. If the study only contained 4,000 participants, I think more people's genomes would need to be studied in order to definitively say there is a gene that allows for leadership. Learning environment plays too important a factor to just be forgotten. I feel like this article does not tell the whole story and all of the findings, but just highlights the aspects of the study that would intrigue readers that don't know any better.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the repeated warnings about increased protection to prevent discrimination, and feel that more protection will absolutely be necessary in the near future. As genetic testing becomes more mainstream, it is likely to be used by employers, giving them new ways to categorize and classify applicants. I don't think that any decisions should be made by employers based on genetic make-up. Work ethic, intelligence, and capabilities differ among all people and can't be quantified or explained in a genetic sequence that can vary so much (through epigenetic factors, say). I think that employers should assess their workers and those applying for a job based on characteristics that the applicant can control, not those they cannot. You can't change your genetic make-up or choose whether you get this "leadership gene," but you can work hard, get a good education, and become a well-rounded person that can positively contribute to whatever it is your applying for, whether it be a company, program, institution, etc. I think these demonstrated and developed qualities are the ones that should be focused on in applicants, not specific genes that may mean nothing at all.
I would absolutely consider testing job applicants for the rs4950 "leadership gene" to be discrimination. Even if the individual is qualified, to deny a person a job based on his/her genetics is definitely discrimination. The presence of the rs4950 gene does not necessarily mean that the applicant is a better choice. It would be foolish for a company to rely on genetics over experience and skills. Just because a person is inclined to be a good leader, that does not necessarily make them a leader. More importantly, it is the experiences that a person has while growing up and throughout life that shape a person. The genes are the starting point for a person, but it is one's environment that interacts with and build off of the genes to determine how a person ends up. The rs4950 gene only indicates that the person has the potential to be a good leader, and even the article points out that "experience and environment still played a greater role in gaining a high-flying job." With or without the leadership gene, a person can become a good leader through experiences.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, if companies started to rely on genetics to determine who to hire, promote, etc. the work ethic would definitely suffer. Those with the "proper" genes would feel less inclined to work because they would feel that they already have a natural advantage. Employees without the genes will lack motivation to work because no matter how well they perform, they can never achieve the top positions due to their genetics. If hard work, experience, and talent is ignored in favor of genetics, then the work place would lack the much needed motivation and competition to keep the business running and improving.
In my opinion, the main argument that exists in this article is how significant is 25%? Also, what other factors will contribute into someone being a good leader? Or in other worlds, what constitutes the rest of the 75%? The article states that people with the gene rs4950 are more likely to have leadership roles. The fact that it is also not definite proves that other factors contribute into determining a person’s leadership skills
ReplyDeleteI would consider this genetic discrimination if a company hypothetically ran these tests and hired an applicant with the leadership gene vs. an applicant without it. Mainly because in my opinion 25% is not enough. Not only will it affect the work ethic in a sense that it will demotivate potential job applicants who do not have the gene to not apply to plenty of jobs because of this criteria. It will also devalue other qualities people have which are valuable in the work place (such as organizational skills and team work skills). Just because a person has a 25% chance of being a good leader, it does not necessarily mean he or she will be one. With education, determination and proper guidance, leadership skills can be fostered and then developed by anyone.
Genetic Testing for the rs4950 leadership gene could indicate who would fit well in leadership positions. However, it should not be the determining factor in deciding whether someone is qualified for a specific position. The study indicates that those who possess the gene are up to 25% more likely to maintain a leadership position. I don't believe that these numbers are significant enough to separate two job applicants alone. Employers need to continue to take past experience and skill-sets into account, for the environment an applicant was raised in could have provided clues into other attributes that may have been activated within the DNA. If a person did not get hired for a position he/she was qualified for because they lacked the rs4950 gene, then I would certainly consider this discrimination. Although genetics play a role in shaping personality traits, I feel that much is still unknown about where and when these attributes are displayed. Someone without the leadership gene may work twice as hard to accomplish their goals, with the possibility of providing a higher quality product than someone who possesses rs4950. Instead of companies spending money on genetic testing, they should try and foster leadership through educational practices. Therefore, I believe that leaders can be made with the right training in the right environment. The gene's influence may not be as significant as employers should consider it to be.
ReplyDeleteLeadership has somehow become something that is above us these days. Yes, while people like Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela have done quite admirable things during their lifetime, our definition of leadership skills may be a little distorted.A few months ago while surfing the Internet, I came across a TED talk titled Everyday Leadership by Drew Dudley; the title peaked my interest so I decided to take a look. Dudley begins by asking the members of the audience if they are comfortable with calling themselves leaders. A portion of the audience raises their hands but a large portion does not. He begins with the premise that leadership has somehow become something bigger than us and simply reserved for the extraordinary. Somehow leadership is associated with changing the world in unprecedented ways and to call oneself a leader right now would mean we are arrogant or cocky. However, he declares we should begin to give ourselves some credit for those everyday moments in which we exhibit leadership. He refers to these moments as “lollipop” moments inspired by an encounter he had with a young lady while giving out lollipops for a charity he worked with. The girl was a college freshman ready to call it quits on move in day and a simple joke Dudley made convinced her to stay. At the time, he was unaware of this and admits to not being able to explicitly remember the encounter. Since watching this video, my definition of what leadership is has drastically changed which I find such a thing as hiring people based on a leadership gene very disturbing. We are all leaders in our own way, yes some people are more natural born leaders than others but someone should not be discriminated against regarding a job based on whether they have this gene or not. It is like employers are just trying to find more things to discriminate potential employees. Moreover, environment and past experiences play a large role in personality and one's potential leadership skills, so I am not quite sure how effective this test would be. Employees would feel like there are in even more competition with each other than they already are at some companies knowing how is a natural born leader and who isn't. It would be very bad for company morale.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ted.com/talks/drew_dudley_everyday_leadership.html
This article is particular interesting because it is a clear-cut example of nature vs nurture. In this case, the article would claim that nature does have a pretty strong influence on whether or not someone will be a leader/ possess leadership skills. The rs4950 gene makes an individual 25% more likely to possess a leadership role. I pleased though to see that the findings did include that the researchers do believe that like many other traits, environment has a strong if not the strongest influence on whether someone is a leader or not.
ReplyDeleteThe most interesting part of this article though was the mention of genetic discrimination. If people are genetically tested for the rs4950 genotype during job interviews and they test negative, they could be passed over for another individual who does possess the gene. While this gene could be a good indicator of a person’s baseline potential to be a leader, there is nothing to say that a person who does not possess the gene would not develop into a leader.
Perhaps a person is born without the rs4950 gene, but they have been given a lot of responsibility at home growing up, went to a school that encouraged and cultivated leadership skills in children, and worked hard in high school and college to develop these skills. This person could potentially be equally as competent a leader as someone with the gene. Same as there are people more inclined to play sports or music, if one not born with an inclination practices enough, these skills can develop.
This would not be a fair way to evaluate individuals and I believe experience speaks volumes more to a person’s abilities than does their genome.
This article is particular interesting because it is a clear-cut example of nature vs nurture. In this case, the article would claim that nature does have a pretty strong influence on whether or not someone will be a leader/ possess leadership skills. The rs4950 gene makes an individual 25% more likely to possess a leadership role. I pleased though to see that the findings did include that the researchers do believe that like many other traits, environment has a strong if not the strongest influence on whether someone is a leader or not.
ReplyDeleteThe most interesting part of this article though was the mention of genetic discrimination. If people are genetically tested for the rs4950 genotype during job interviews and they test negative, they could be passed over for another individual who does possess the gene. While this gene could be a good indicator of a person’s baseline potential to be a leader, there is nothing to say that a person who does not possess the gene would not develop into a leader.
Perhaps a person is born without the rs4950 gene, but they have been given a lot of responsibility at home growing up, went to a school that encouraged and cultivated leadership skills in children, and worked hard in high school and college to develop these skills. This person could potentially be equally as competent a leader as someone with the gene. Same as there are people more inclined to play sports or music, if one not born with an inclination practices enough, these skills can develop.
This would not be a fair way to evaluate individuals and I believe experience speaks volumes more to a person’s abilities than does their genome.
This article states that people who have the gene rs4950 are 25% more likely to be leaders. But is 25% significant enough and what makes up the other 75%?
ReplyDeleteI would most definitely consider it genetic discrimination if a potential employer ran my DNA to find if I possessed the gene for leadership and then rejected me if I did not have it. The rs4950 gene which is linked to leadership only makes the person who has the gene 25% more likely of becoming a leader. I do not think 25% is significant enough to actually consider a potential employee a good or bad candidate for a leadership position whether they have the gene or not. I believe that genetics does account for things like personality and potential but I think nurture also plays an important role. A person could potentially have the gene for leadership but not have the qualities need to become a leader. The opposite could be said about someone without the leadership gene, they may not have the gene but they may have the qualities and drive to become a leader and just passing them on because of their genetic make up is not fair. I think basing whether an applicant should be hired or denied depending on their genetics is going to far. Genetics are not necessarily the best predictors of job performance. I think that if genetic testing were to become a factor in hiring, work ethics would change since people would see no point in working hard since in the end it would all come down to their genetics, which is something they can do nothing about.
The first thing I thought about was, "I wonder if I have that gene." I would like to consider myself a leader, but it would also be disheartening to find out that the only reason I like to take leadership roles is because of my natural ability. I believe that leadership is an experience rather than a characteristic trait. The term "natural born leaders" may very be a true statement, but there needs to be regulation when it comes to genetic testing. Just like all of the other articles, the controversy seems to be when the idea of a genetic screening comes up. The idea that a potential employee may be pre-screened only to find out if they have the ability to be a leader is a ridiculous notion to me. What does it mean then to grow as a person or an employee? Do experience and social skills not factor into play or is there more weight and strength carried to a candidate that has the leadership gene? There just needs to be regulation when it comes these types of screenings because in the long-run it will be our tax dollars paying for them and the benefits need to outweigh the costs.
ReplyDeleteAs the article itself states "experience and environment still played a greater role in gaining a high-flying job". With my own experiences in ROTC and going to OCS last summer, I can confidently say that without the correct environment and structure to develop you as a leader, you will not reach that point. While this gene may be indicative of a natural propensity for leadership, as with anything else, without the proper guidance then a quality will not come to fruition.
ReplyDeleteIt would be naive to think that just because a person possesses this gene then they will automatically be a good leader. Many have not received proper training or have not grown up in the right environment to develop them in to effective leaders. There is also the question of desire. Does this gene make people DESIRE to be leaders? Many people do not want to the burden of leadership. While this may be less of an issue say in a corporate setting, in a situation where lives are at stake, many people wold rather not be placed in a leadership position. This is an instance where I believe that only training can produce a leader capable of dealing with decisions many others could not make.
I would definitely consider this genetic discrimination if a company hypothetically ran these tests and hired an applicant with the leadership gene vs. an applicant without it. This is because even if someone was to have the leadership gene, that does not mean that they are good leaders. They have the potential to be good leaders but depending on their background experience (like what we do by reading resumes), leaders are made. I think the spectrum of a good leader is also not included in the detail of if the person has the gene or not. Let's look at this quote: “The new research suggests the possibility that some of the historic figures like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Martin Luther King, M K Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and Sir Winston Churchill were blessed with the leadership gene.” Is 'blessed" the right word in this sentence that also mentions someone like Adolf Hitler? Someone can have the gene and be a good leader, but that does not mean that they should be a leader for your company because they can be a good leader with a different motive. Employers should not hire or deny applicants based on their characteristics but by their previous experience and references because that best shows the applicant's ability. Within the company, if someone was to not have the leadership gene and everyone knew, there could be a different environment where those people will be taken advantage of and that would not be right. It is not ethical to judge by the genetics, because it does not fully depict the person's personality.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was went through this article I could not believe what I was reading, the first thing that came to my mind is that this is a complete farse. There is no way that I will believe that just because you have a certain gene you are more likely to be a leader, and even if it is true, does 25% more likely really make a difference? I believe that situations and experiences make true leaders, I do not think that leaders can be just born; as Harry Walker stated in his piece, there needs to be the correct environment and structure to develop a leader. It cannot just be expected of someone.
ReplyDeleteI do not think it would be ethical for employers to test their employees for this gene, i believe that there would be a great deal of bias with hiring employees and even giving people promotions. I am afraid that people would begin to get jobs and be successful on their genetic structure rather than their work ethic. Ultimately I think that just like we have GINA to deal with discrimination of preexisting conditions, there needs to be a law protecting people against discrimination because of their genetic structure.
I think it would definitely be discriminatory if companies decided to run genetic tests on job applicants. Like others have said, this “leadership gene” only makes it more likely for an individual to be a good leader, and if this potential is not tapped into or developed, there is no guarantee of that person being successful in a leadership role. As the article states, “leadership should still be thought of predominantly as a skill to be developed.” I do agree that genes play a large role in a person’s personality, but their environment, education and social skills are all factors than can either inhibit or enhance someone’s natural abilities. Also, I think experience as a well as a multitude of other characteristics such as a strong work ethic, ability to work well with others, and to give and take quality feedback are important qualities of a leader that should not be overlooked even if that applicant does not have the rs4950 genotype. Employers that base their hiring solely on whether and applicant has that gene could be missing out on more qualified and well rounded individuals; who could potentially be better at the job. Furthermore, the work ethic and moral of other employees in the company could be inhibited, because if the organization was always looking to recruit new candidates possessing the desired genotype to fill leadership positions, current employees may think there is little chance for promotions and career growth.
ReplyDeleteI believe that it would be discriminatory for companies to run genetic tests to see whether applicants have the rs4950 gene. Although I am against employers running these tests on applicants, I honestly think it would be a very poor choice for companies to waste their money on such insignificant things. If they actually started to require this testing, it would not guarantee any kind of benefit necessarily. It is even possible that it may hurt these companies if they made decisions based on the rs4950 gene. Why? Because, as the article mentions, this gene did not prove much other than that people who possessed this gene were "up to" 25% more likely to have a leadership type of character. This is to say that this gene does not even constitute a concrete 25% by any means. Moreover, I cannot avoid the fact that so much of this leadership character that is found in some people comes from pure experience and passion of interest. I know many people who would not be considered leaders per se in all aspects of their lives, but yet have strong presences in activist groups because of their strong interest in that group. All in all, I really don't think this gene should be taken too seriously and it would be a rash decision for jobs to require testing for this gene. Who knows, they may hire a person who possesses this gene but is not much of a leader. At the same time, employers may deny/reject a person who does not have this gene who is truly a leader because of his/her own personal experiences throughout his/her life. I believe that the nurture and environmental aspect of a person's life outweigh the rs4960 gene.
ReplyDeleteThe article briefly mentions that the study suggests extending protections for genetic discrimination. I agree with their claim. If an employer were to test for this gene they would be violating some serious privacy rights, in my opinion. If the employer's sole purpose was to figure out if an applicant posses leadership qualities, they should look at the resume of the applicant rather than the genetics of the applicant. I would personally emphasize this since the genetic relationship to leadership is only 25%, that means more often than not, the applicant may not turn out to be the leader the company hoped for.
ReplyDeleteIf employers, however, did hypothetically hire based on this rs4950 gene, work ethic would be completely different. Management would consist of those with the gene and everyone underneath would not posses said gene. This can also lead to prejudice in payroll. Paying those with the leadership gene more due to their higher position in the company.
In another situation, if employers hired based on presence or absence or rs4950, potentially the company would only hire those with the gene. The reasoning behind this is to decrease health insurance costs to the company. Since most employers provide health care to their employees, if the company hires only those with the rs4950 gene, the company can argue that their employees will have less exposure to cortisol. Cortisol is correlated to high blood pressure by constricting veins and can lead to heart attacks that may cripple the victim. This hormone is more prevalent in those holding lower positions in companies, or in other words, those who do not have the rs4950 gene.
I don't think it's at all reasonable to hire someone based on whether they have the rs4950 gene. First of all, this "leadership gene" only proves to be statistically representative of its name 25% of the time. This gene may be a link to leadership qualities but it doesn't account for in every person with leadership skills nor does having the gene mean that the person will become a significant leader in his or her lifetime. Secondly, while it may be true that some genes provide a candidate with qualities that befit a leader, I believe anyone can learn the traits and necessary skills to become a leader. One doesn't need to be "born" as a leader to learn leadership skills and flourish their desire to become an influential person. There are many outside factors that play into being a leader. This is another nature and nurture issue; some things, like being a good leader, may come naturally, but they can also be learned.
ReplyDeleteWould you consider this (genetic) discrimination if a company hypothetically ran these tests and hired an applicant with the leadership gene vs. an applicant without it? How far is too far – what are your thoughts on employers hiring or denying applicants based on their genetic characteristics? How do you think this would affect work ethic within a company?
Sorry, I published an't revise my previous post so I'll add on:
DeleteIf employers hired applicants based on a single gene, there would be no way for candidates to showcase their talents in other ways (job experience, skills, education, even hobbies) simply because they are being looked at for their genetics. That makes absolutely no sense, since leadership in certain positions is based on past experience and the person's dedication/time/effort that they've put in. In terms of work ethic, without fail people will probably just live by their genes. As in, people will fall into self-fulfilling prophecies if agencies start accepting applicants based on this gene and either: those with the gene will strive to become a leader even without prior desire to gain leadership or think they can become a leader without really trying, and those without the gene will most likely give up their goals to become a leader. I think it's obvious that it would be pretty unfair to let people on based on something that was coded inside of them since conception. The point of work ethic is to have anyone and everyone strive for the challenge of a leadership positions, and those who really deserve it should earn it.
I would consider a company who would not hire their employees based on lacking a genetic trait to be discrimination. It is discriminatory to say that because an individual is lacking of a certain gene, they do not posses the ability to fulfill the duties that the job requires. Especially when looking at leadership roles in jobs, a persons credentials for the job should be based on a combination of their performance, their place in the company, and their own desire to climb up the working chain. Personally, I think that unless the genetic information of a person is completely required for a specific credential of the job (genetic uses, not workplace uses) there is no reason for a person to have to reveal this information.
ReplyDeleteIf employers have access to a persons genetic traits with or without one's discretion, there would need to be an extension of a persons privacy rights. Genetic information is extremely valuable and companies should not have access to that information if it serves no purpose in the workplace. Furthermore, the article states people with the rs4950 were to have up to a 25% of being in a supervisory role. The personality of a human being is made of thousands of genes and their reason for being in a leadership role is not from having rs4950 in their genome, but the various genes that combined make up a personality; in addition to the life experiences one went through and the opportunities they had over their lifetime. The information received from this article is not helpful to genetics because there are too many confounding influences on this study and is very inconclusive.
This article seems to be extending the application of its results too far; it states that people with this gene are 25% more likely to have a supervisory role at work but then extends this to say that Hitler, Stalin, Khan, King, Ghandi, Mandela, & Churchill may have been BLESSED with this gene. By saying they are "blessed" with the gene, they are implying that the association between the gene and being a leader is not influenced by the environment. Since we don't know enough about the relationship between the expression of genes and the environment in general, hiring one employee over another based on their genetic makeup would be ignorant and would, without a doubt, be genetic discrimination.
ReplyDeleteGenetics, just like race, ethnicity, and mental capacity, should not be considered when hiring new employees, accepting college applicants, selecting members of a sports team, etc. A person's genetic makeup is entirely out of their control and someone with a less favorable genome should still have an equal opportunity to succeed.
I specifically disagree with screening applicants for the leadership gene. Selecting applicants based on whether or not they are predisposed to be a leader will have an extremely negative impact on the productivity of the company. For instance, think of the saying "too many cooks in the kitchen," which implies that there are too many individuals trying to take control of a situation, and it ultimately results in chaos. Being a leader isn't the only defining characteristic of good work ethic; being motivated or genuine are just a couple traits that employers should look for as well. In order for a leader to be a leader, one needs to have individuals to lead; these individuals are just as important in the workplace to create a balance of power.
This article seems to be extending the application of its results too far; it states that people with this gene are 25% more likely to have a supervisory role at work but then extends this to say that Hitler, Stalin, Khan, King, Ghandi, Mandela, & Churchill may have been BLESSED with this gene. By saying they are "blessed" with the gene, they are implying that the association between the gene and being a leader is not influenced by the environment. Since we don't know enough about the relationship between the expression of genes and the environment in general, hiring one employee over another based on their genetic makeup would be ignorant and would, without a doubt, be genetic discrimination.
ReplyDeleteGenetics, just like race, ethnicity, and mental capacity, should not be considered when hiring new employees, accepting college applicants, selecting members of a sports team, etc. A person's genetic makeup is entirely out of their control and someone with a less favorable genome should still have an equal opportunity to succeed.
I specifically disagree with screening applicants for the leadership gene. Selecting applicants based on whether or not they are predisposed to be a leader will have an extremely negative impact on the productivity of the company. For instance, think of the saying "too many cooks in the kitchen," which implies that there are too many individuals trying to take control of a situation, and it ultimately results in chaos. Being a leader isn't the only defining characteristic of good work ethic; being motivated or genuine are just a couple traits that employers should look for as well. In order for a leader to be a leader, one needs to have individuals to lead; these individuals are just as important in the workplace to create a balance of power.
I think that if a company were to run tests and hire an applicant based on the presence of the rs4950 gene, it absolutely would be genetic discrimination. Whether or not this is ethical is another debate-- but if a company were to use the presence as a positive trait in one employee (Employee A) over another potential employee (Employee B) without further examining the actual leadership capability in employee A, then this should be considered ineffective. As other people have mentioned, the work experience and evidence that an employee has in a corporate setting is still more definitive evidence for a job applicant. Moreover, if we considered a situation in which a company hired 4 employees, all with the rs4950 gene, the chance of a person with leadership ability being present would still result in one single "leader," with three others; this might be ineffective and even detrimental to a company if these employees were to be in similar positions and had opposing views.
ReplyDeleteWhile I don't oppose the practice of testing genetic characteristics, I do oppose employers hiring solely based on this information. As we know in modern medicine, genetics offers predisposition to traits, while environment can still ultimately influence an individual in one way or another. If a company were to test for these traits without recognizing other factors such as experience, environment, and other personality traits (that may be recognized during interviews, etc), it may even result in lower quality employees.
Whether or not work ethic would be affected might be contingent on how the company also screens applicants-- whether a standard of prior experience is maintained, and how factors like these might weigh against the presence of the rs4950 gene. In the end, however, I would not expect work ethic to change drastically; workers whose productivity clearly decrease may be found out in annual reviews and promptly terminated from companies.
Most importantly, I believe that an emphasis on a "leadership" gene would be too reductive. No analysis has been done, to my knowledge, on whether or not this gene predisposes individuals to traits such as higher social skills, or better public speaking, or some sort of heightened analysis of systemic issues. More information needs to be obtained before any conclusions could be drawn from this information.
Last week it wouldn't let me post, so I emailed Professor Chan my post, but for some reason it is working now. Here it is:
ReplyDeleteIn regards to prenatal microarray testing, it can be helpful to know certain things. A future Mother may be able to find out whether their child has any genetic disorders or special needs. Knowing this beforehand can be helpful for mentally and physically preparing for taking care of that child for the rest of his/her life. A future Mother can make sure she has the best guidance she will need for raising her child in all aspects of life. Simultaneously, knowing certain things about a future child can be negative and stressful. I believe in the concept of trusting that everything is meant to be and everything happens for a reason. We should always try to see the glass half full. If you trust in these ideas, then no matter how the child turns out to be, it will be good. I also do not completely trust in prenatal genetic testing because what one sees on an ultrasound can change, tests can sometimes be wrong, screenings can sometimes be false, and all of these things can be invasive, stressful, and unnecessary for a future Mother.
Someone with a history of genetic abnormalities and disorders would probably benefit from prenatal microarray testing because they know that there is a high chance for their future child. I don't think this is something to be taken lightly, and it is not something that needs to be done with every pregnancy. I have said this in many of my responses, but I think it is an issue of us needing to have the control by knowing everything. Sometimes we need to let go and recognize that it is impossible to know everything about a child before he or she is born.