Why I Believe Great Leaders Are Trained, Not Born

Anthony Berryhill, Founder and CEO of Elite College Hacker, reflects on how discipline, structure, and self-belief shape leadership far more than natural talent ever could.

| Written by Anthony Berryhill

“Not naturally persuasive. Doesn’t look the part. I’ve never seen someone so short in debate.”

These words, from debate judges, stayed with me. And the reason why requires some reflection.

This was in the late 1990s, when I was attending Isidore Newman High School. I was not the prototype of a typical Newman student. I was born in the pre-Katrina Lower 9th Ward of New Orleans. The closest way to describe my childhood environment is a mix of The Wire, Power, and Lean on Me.

My primary school, Edwards Elementary, reflected the harsh realities of a system that often felt like a pipeline rather than a pathway. Schools in my neighborhood did not emphasize student safety in the ways many do today. Discipline was enforced through intensity, both physical and psychological, with a clear message: survive, adapt, and aim for a narrow set of acceptable futures.

The result was a deeply ingrained belief system. Leadership, in that context, meant having a deep voice, performing visibly, or possessing what people called a “God-given ability.” Leadership was treated as something you were born with, not something you could build.

A Different Path

Everything changed when the Breakthrough Collaborative found me and offered access to a program that supported my transition into a college preparatory school. That opportunity became a turning point.

Then came debate.

When I entered ninth grade at Isidore Newman, I was recruited by Greg Malis, a Hall of Fame debate coach. It took him nine attempts to convince me to join. The first two years were difficult.

I had to work through speech impediments, shaped partly by trauma from earlier schooling and partly by the tension between formal academic language and cultural expectations. Debate became my workshop to relearn how to speak.

For many, debate is like an intellectual proving ground. Students compete at high speed, engaging in complex arguments on global issues. My early results were far from impressive. The feedback was blunt. My speaker scores were average at best.

At home, the reaction was just as skeptical.

“Debate?” my parents asked, surprised that I was not pursuing sports or music.

The feedback I received from others reinforced a familiar narrative. Leadership meant confidence, height, presence, and the so-called “gift of gab.” It was always framed as something innate.

Those early judgments hurt, not just because of performance, but because they reflected a deeper assumption about what a leader should look and sound like.

Leadership is not something you are born with. It is built through discipline, structure, and the courage to challenge what a leader is supposed to look like.

Rewriting the Script

Toward the end of my sophomore year, I made a decision.

I went back and reread every piece of feedback I had received. I treated it like data. I looked for patterns. And I found one clear conclusion: I needed to become more technical.

From there, I built my own system.

I studied strategies for speaking with precision and clarity. I practiced “flowing,” a form of rapid note-taking used in debate. I spent hours in the library reading extensively to strengthen my content knowledge. I immersed myself in books on communication, business, and performance.

This process culminated at the 1997 Barkley Forum, one of the most competitive high school debate tournaments in the United States.

At that time, results were not immediately shared. You did not know if you were winning or losing. You simply kept competing.

As the rounds progressed, I noticed something. Each round became more difficult, and I began recognizing my opponents as top performers I had previously watched from the sidelines.

But this time felt different.

The skills I had built through deliberate practice allowed me to compete with confidence. By the sixth round, I found myself in a room with three other debaters. I was the only Black student there.

Later, I learned that I was undefeated and had advanced to the elimination rounds. It would be years before another sophomore achieved the same result.

What Leadership Really Is

That experience shaped everything that followed.

Across my journey, from academia as a PhD student to corporate HR and over 25 years of coaching, one belief has remained constant:

Leadership is a set of behaviors, not an identity.

Debate forced me to create my own instruction manual for credibility. It taught me that leadership can be developed through discipline, structure, and intentional practice.

But it also revealed a problem that still exists today.

Many organizational systems, such as 9-box frameworks, performance reviews, and high-potential programs, often reinforce narrow definitions of leadership. These systems, while well-intentioned, can unintentionally exclude people who do not fit a traditional mold.

Leadership potential is too often judged through visible traits like extroversion, confidence, or self-promotion. Quick wins are rewarded because they are easy to see, even when they are more about visibility than impact.

Meanwhile, quieter, high-impact contributors, what Seth Godin calls “linchpins,” are often overlooked.

Challenging the Default Image

One practical solution is to actively challenge the unspoken assumptions of what a leader should look like.

This includes questioning biases related to background, personality, appearance, and communication style.

Even institutions known for rigid leadership models are evolving. Elite military units, for example, increasingly value leaders who are thoughtful, composed, and not traditionally “alpha.”

This shift reflects a deeper truth.

Leadership is not about fitting a predefined image. It is about creating impact.

A Different Way Forward

My core belief is simple.

The idea that leadership is something you are born with separates it from what truly matters: vision, results, and meaningful contribution.

That version of leadership is, at best, incomplete.

The alternative is to invest in developing leadership as a capability. To train people. To equip them with the tools, structure, and mindset needed to lead effectively.

When organizations do this, they unlock a much broader and more inclusive pool of leaders.

And in today’s world, that is not just an advantage. It is a necessity.