"You would never be able to lead our team, we would run all over you!" Leading a group of people requires a lot of work and experience, while following along is easy to do. The military for example, is made up of soldiers, but what distinguishes one from another? The key attributes of a soldier are inherent and the process of finding these soldiers are highly selective.
             The qualities possessed by soldiers that make them different from the rest are due partly because they have that special something that is part of their nature. Take a look at some of the great leaders of our nation, the reason they are in the military is because they want to. They have met the calling to serve and protect our nation. You would think that all Americans feel this way, however that would be a huge generalization. If not everyone would be a soldier in the military, but that as we know does not exist.
             Some would argue that a good soldier is one that can acquire the right qualities and over time develop them into characteristics. However, this may not always be the case. Even though a soldier may acquire certain skills, he may not necessarily be able to express the knowledge he possesses. For instance, you can have a well educated person with a doctorate's degree teach students, but if that person does not have the effectiveness of teaching, their degree in some respects was earned in vain. If they cannot pass down their knowledge to future generations, they have learned nothing.
             I think it is safe to say the key attributes of a soldier are inherent rather than acquired traits. Though the process of finding these select individual may be scarce, why would you expect anything less? For Clausewitz once wrote, "The fewer the employments followed by a Nation, the more that of arms predominates, so much the more prevalent will military genius also be found."
             ...