As I have read about it, a peculiar interest in me has been raised about the fantastic manner in which many people have utilized their natural abilities as a medium of reunion and leadership. I found a strong nexus between the gifts or accomplishments these individuals had and their peculiar behavior during the time they lived.
I would like to talk about the specific features that had to be present, specifically the building process of a godly person, a prophet capable of guiding their people, and the importance they represented to humanity, whether realistic or not, since the theory has been around for ages.
The Great-Man Theory
In order to get to know more about the theory of the great man, we should not disregard that this is a theory based on leadership. So, what is leadership? Scholars have defined leadership as “the process of social influence in which one person can enlist the assistance and support of others in the achievement of a common task.
” To my personal beliefs, leadership is a medium to an end. It is a very specific tool with which talented individuals in the interpersonal field can either solely or together command, guide, and lead another group of people towards completing an established goal by encouraging, supporting, and establishing a relationship with subordinates based on a strong foundation of trust.
Now, the Great-Man theory of leadership, according to Winston & Patterson (2006), refers to “the idea that leaders possess innately superior qualities that distinguish them from other people, including the ability to capture the imagination and loyalty of the masses.”
In other words, that leaders are born, not made. Winston & Patterson (2006) also state that “a leader achieves influence by humbly conveying a prophetic vision of the future,” meaning that they resonate with the followers’ beliefs and values in such a way that the follower can understand and interpret the future into present-time action steps.
According to Leadership Central (2012), Dr. Thomas Carlyle, a true believer in this theory, would say that “effective leaders were a bundle of Godly motivation and the right personality.” Under this definition, the same Dr. Thomas Carlyle, this time quoted by Lapham’s Quarterly (2012), included historical figures such as “Muhammad, Shakespeare, Luther, Rousseau, and Napoleon” as great-man leaders, undoubtedly amazing leaders that shaped their time. But many other scholars – and I think I am going to take their side – refute this theory.
Although Cherry (2012) gives a different definition, and I quote, “the great man theory is a speculation aimed at explaining the history of the effect of the great-born men or heroes: people of great authority, thanks to their personal charm, intelligence, and wisdom have used their power in such a way as to leave a decisive historical impact.
” There is a powerful contradictory hypothesis quoted by Leadership Central (2012) in which they say, “Herbert Spencer, one of the most forceful critics of the theory, explains that the great man theory is a nativist hypothesis of leadership,” and in this approach, leaders cannot be made but only born. Of course, leader nativism is highly questionable. Cultural skills are, by definition, highly questionable and acquirable only through human interaction and an environment conducive to the transmission of knowledge.
Leadership Central (2012) focuses on the fact that “many factors in life form the individual’s skills to lead,” and I believe they are in the right place since leaders are a product of society, which means leaders are shaped by the time they live in and not the other way around. Let’s take another example of another so-called “great man” leader. This time we have John Fitzgerald Kennedy, a famous character not only in his home country but around the world. His incredible abilities as a leader are not put into doubt, but the fact that he was this good just because he was born that way is certainly not true.
Although factors such as “your upbringing, education, experiences are just shaping your leadership abilities,” says Lapham’s Quarterly (2012), a person’s background and circumstances may have influenced what they are. It is only in their hands the responsibility of what they want to be.
Other examples to rebut this nativism theory are Stephen R. Covey’s paradigms shifts and rescripting. Since a paradigm is the way an individual perceives, understands, and interprets the surrounding world, “a paradigm shift is a change in thinking when we gain additional insights and understandings” (Covey, 1989). Anything could influence the way an individual thinks, and this person could perform a rescripting process, proving that a person does not have to be born with superior skills to become a leader, but he can obtain them throughout lived experiences.
Cherry (2012) explains that the term “Great Man” was used “because, at the time, leadership was thought of chiefly as a male quality, particularly in terms of military leadership.” To make it clear, this leadership theory leaves behind women despite their potential abilities (I’m not saying this is the only ability they have), which is the basis of the “great-man” theory.
For example, we have had great women capable of leading people, on the one hand, the ex-prime minister of Britain, Margaret Thatcher, also known as the “Iron Lady,” who is the longest-serving British prime minister of the last century. We also have Oprah Winfrey, who not only is one of the richest women in the world but also named as the most influential women in it. So, was Dr. Carlyle in the right place, or is it the time he lived that did not allow women to emerge as great leaders?
Earlier when I gave my own definition of leadership and said that leadership is a matter of individuals who can exercise their leadership skills either alone or together, I knew it was not just me. It results that Winston & Patterson (2006) think similarly to me, since they say that “leadership may be provided by a group of individuals.” Having said that, we can now rebut another focus of this great-man theory concentrated on the idea that leadership “can only be exercised by one person, the great man” (Cawthon, 1996).
While some might say this is true because most companies, states, or houses have one person as its head leader, well, this is true. But let’s face it, there cannot be more than one president in a country; there cannot be more than one CEO in a company.
Although there is the board of managers, which is the group in charge of every decision the company should take. All in all, yes, according to Cherry (2012), “you can find more individuals as leaders than groups as leaders,” but that does not mean groups do not exist. On the contrary, they exist more than ever, and a good example of that is the music group “The Beatles,” which you can say was the most influential band of the last century, leading to a simple cause of millions of people.
You can also find groups leading millions of people to protest against the violation of human rights, more recently, the group called Invisible Children Inc., which “only employs 43 people but with its movement has encouraged thousands more” to spread the word about Joseph Kony’s crimes (ICU, 2012). “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, concerned citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has” (Mead, 1970).
I wholeheartedly agree with Cawthon (1996) when he says that many people, of course, “scoff at the theory because it is anecdotal and unscientific.” In the end, the Great Man theory does not have any credibility, because even though the ability to lead is directly linked to one’s personality, the belief that leaders are born and not made finds no truth.
In our times, it is meaningless to think of it as a feasible explanation for a person’s accomplishments in guiding, since it’s been proved that this theory, popularized in the 1840s but suggested much earlier, only took into consideration men born in a social position that would allow them to lead regardless of their abilities.
From there, the hypothesis of the innate leader. Nowadays, that particular matter has been changed since a person’s background is not judged, but instead, their ability to be a leader is highly valued. As Cawthon (1996) says, “Individuals in every society possess different degrees of energy, moral force, and intelligence, and in whatever way the masses might be influenced to move, they are always led by the superior few.”
In the managerial world, Winston & Patterson (2006) say, “A growing number of leaders from different parts of the world are being formed.” So, do not let people fool you when they say someone was born to be a leader because, given today’s uncertainty, many so-called traditional leaders are being superseded by those with the best abilities to manage people.
So, you better base your leadership skills on what you have learned, most significantly in what you truly are, and let other people influence you before you can exert a more significant influence on them because leadership is doing the right things. Do not ever live upon others’ expectations; you are what you choose to be. For that, being a leader is not being born a leader, living what others have scripted, but rescripting your life and forging yourself through exciting yourself from experiences and knowledge acquired in life. After all, if your actions inspire others to learn more, dream more, become more, and achieve more, you are a leader.
Mentions:
- Cawthon, D. L. (1996). Leadership: The great man theory revisited. Business Horizons, 39(3), 1-4. Retrieved April 7, 2012, from Academic Search Premiere.
- Cherry, K. (2012). The great man theory of leadership. Journal of Effective Management, 3(2), 10-17. Retrieved April 7, 2012, from Academic Search Premiere.
- Covey, S. R. (1989). The 7 habits of highly effective people. Provo: Free Press.
- Invisible Children (2012). More about us. Retrieved April 14, 2012, from www.invisiblechildren.com.
- Lapham’s Quarterly. (2012). Great man theory. Retrieved April 7, 2012, from http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/voices-in-time/great-man-theory.php.
- Leadership Central. (2012). Great man theory. Retrieved April 7, 2012, from www.leadership-central.com.
- Mead, M. (1970). Culture and commitment. San Francisco: Natural History Press.
- Winston, B., & Patterson, K. (2006). An integrative definition of leadership. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 1(2), 7-14. Retrieved April 7, 2012, from Academic Search Premiere.
