As I have read about it. a peculiar involvement in my has been raising about the fantastic manner many people has utilized their natural abilities as a medium of reunion and leading. I found a twine nexus between this gifts or accomplishments these work forces had and their peculiar behaviour in the clip they lived. I would wish to speak about the particular features that had to be present ; more specific the edifice procedure of a godly person. a prophesier capable of steering its people and the importance they have represented to humanity. whether realistic or non. since the theory has been around of all time since.
In order to acquire to cognize more about the theory of the great adult male. we should non disregard that this is a theory based on leading. So. what is leading? Scholars have defined leading as “ the procedure of societal influence in which one individual can enlist the assistance and support of others in the achievement of a common task” . To my personal beliefs. leading is: a medium to an terminal. it is a really peculiar tool with which talented persons in the interpersonal field can either entirely or together bid. usher. and lead another group of people towards finishing an established end by heartening. back uping and puting a relation with the subsidiaries based on a strong dosage of trustiness.
Now. the Great-Man theory of leading harmonizing to Winston & A ; Patterson ( 2006 ) refers “to the thought that leaders possess innately superior qualities that distinguish them from other people. including the ability to capture the imaginativeness and trueness of the multitudes. ” In other few words. that leaders are born. non made. Winston & A ; Patterson ( 2006 ) besides quote that “a leader achieves influence by meekly conveying a prophetic vision of the future” significance that he resonates with the follower beliefs and values in such a manner that the follower can understand and construe the hereafter into present-time action stairss.
Harmonizing to Leadership Central ( 2012 ) Dr. Thomas Carlyle a true truster of this theory would state that “effective leaders were a bundle of Godly motive and the right personality. ” Under this definition. the same Dr. Thomas Carlyle. this clip quoted by Lapham’s Quarterly ( 2012 ) included as great-man leaders historical characters such as “Muhammad. Shakespeare. Luther. Rousseau. and Napoleon” doubtless astonishing leaders that shaped their clip. But. other many bookmans – and I think I am traveling to take their side – refute this theory.
Although Cherry ( 2012 ) gives a different definition. and I quote “the great adult male theory is a speculation aimed at explicating the history of the consequence of the great born work forces or heroes: people of great authorization. thanks to their personal appeal. intelligence and wisdom have used their power in such a manner as to go forth a decisive historical impact” there is a powerful contradictory hypothesis quoted by Leadership Central ( 2012 ) in which they say “Herbert Spencer one the most forceful critics of the theory explains that the great-man theory is a nativist hypothesis of leadership” and in this attack. leaders can non be made. but merely born. Of class. the leader nativism is extremely questionable. cultural accomplishments are by definition extremely questionable and acquirable merely through human interaction and an environment conducive to the transmittal of cognition.
Leadership Central ( 2012 ) focuses in that “many factors in life form the individual’s skills to lead” and I believe their in the right place. since leaders are a merchandise of society. which means leaders are shaped by the clip they live in and non the manner around. Let’s take another illustration of a another so called “great-man’ leader. This clip we have John Fitzgerald Kennedy. a celebrated character non merely in his place state. but around the Earth. His unbelievable abilities as a leader are non put in uncertainty. though the fact that he was this good merely because he was born that manner for certain are.
Although factors such as “your up-bringing. instruction. experiences are merely patterning your leading abilities” says Lapham’s Quarterly ( 2012 ) . a person’s background and fortunes may hold influenced what they are. it is merely in their custodies the duty of what they want to be. Other illustrations to rebut this nativism theory are Stephen R. Covey’s paradigms displacements and rescripting. Since a paradigm is the manner an single perceives. understands. and interprets the encompassing universe. “a paradigm displacement is a alteration in believing when we gain extra penetration and understandings” ( Covey. 1989 ) . Anything could act upon the manner a single thinks. and this person could execute a rescripting procedure. turn outing that a individual does non hold to be born with superior accomplishments to get a leader strategy. but he can obtain them throughout lived experiences.
Cherry ( 2012 ) explains that the term “Great Man” was used “because. at the clip. leading was thought of chiefly as a male quality. particularly in footings of military leadership” . To do it clear. this leading theory leaves behind adult females despite they could hold unconditioned abilities ( I’m non stating this is the lone ability they have ) which is the footing of the “great-man” theory. For illustration. we have had great adult females capable of taking people. on the one manus the ex-prime curate of Britain. Margaret Thatcher besides known as the “Iron Lady” which is the longest-serving British premier curate of the last century. We besides find Oprah Winfrey. who non merely is one of the most richest adult females in the universe. but named besides as the most influential adult females in it. So. was Dr. Carlyle in the right place. or is it the clip he lived that did non let adult females to originate as great leaders?
Earlier when I gave my ain definition of leading and said that leading is a affair of individuals who can either entirely or together exercise their leading accomplishments. I knew it was non merely me. it consequences that Winston & A ; Patterson ( 2006 ) think similar to me. since they say that “leadership may be provided by a group of persons” . Having said that. we can now rebut another focal point of this great-man theory concentrated in that leading “can merely be exercised by one individual. the great man” ( Cawthon. 1996 ) . While some might state this is true. because most of companies. states. or houses have one individual as it’s caput leader. good this is true. But. let’s face it there can non be more than one president in a state. there can non be more than one president in a house O company.
Although there is the board of managers. which is the group in charge of every determination the company should take. All in all. yes. harmonizing to Cherry ( 2012 ) “you can happen more persons as leaders than groups as leaders” . but that does non intend. groups don’t exist. to the contrary. they exist more than of all time. and a good illustration of that is the music group “The Beatles” which you can state was the most influential set of the last century taking into a simple cause 1000000s of people. You can happen besides groups taking 1000000s of people to attest against the misdemeanor of human rights. more late the group called Invisible Children Inc. who “only employs 43 people but with its motion has encouraged 1000s more” to distribute the word about Joseph Kony’s offenses ( ICU. 2012 ) . “Never uncertainty that a little group of thoughtful. concerned citizens can alter universe. Indeed it is the lone thing that of all time has” ( Mead. 1970 ) .
I wholly agree with Cawthon ( 1996 ) when he says that many people. of class “scoff at the theory. because it is anecdotal and unscientific” . At the terminal. the great-man theory does non hold any credibleness. because even though the ability to take is straight linked to one’s personality. the belief that leaders are born and non made finds no veracity.
In our times. it is nonmeaningful to believe of it as a feasible account for a person’s accomplishments in steering. since it’s been proved that the this theory popularized in the 1840’s but suggested much earlier. merely took into consideration work forces born in a societal position that would let them to take regardless of their abilities. from there the hypothesis of the unconditioned leader. Nowadays that peculiar affair has been changed. since a person’s background is non judged but alternatively their ability to be a leader is extremely paid. As Cawthon ( 1996 ) says “Individuals in every society posses different grades of energy. moral force and intelligence. and in whatever way the multitudes might be influenced to travel. they are ever led by the superior few” .
In the managerial universe. Winston & A ; Patterson ( 2006 ) say “a turning figure of leaders from different parts of the universe are being formed” so do non allow people gull you when they say person was born to be a leader. because given today’s uncertainness many so called traditional leaders are being superseded by those with best abilities to pull off people.
So. you better establish your leading accomplishments in what you have learned. most significantly in what you truly are and allow other people influence you before you can exert a bigger influence on them. because leading is making the right things. Do non of all time live upon other’s outlooks. you are what you choose to be. for that. being a leader is non being born a leader populating what others have scripted. but rescripting your life and hammering yourself through exciting yourself from experiences and cognition acquired in life. After all If your actions inspire others to larn more. dream more. go more and make more. you are a leader.
Cawthon. D. L ( 1996 ) . Leadership: The great adult male theory revisited. Business Horizons. 39 ( 3 ) . 1-4. Retrieved April 7. 2012. from Academic Search Premiere.
Cherry. K. ( 2012 ) . The great adult male theory of leading. Journal of Effective Management. 3 ( 2 ) . 10-17. Retrieved April 7. 2012. from Academic Search Premiere.
Covey. S. R. ( 1989 ) . The 7 wonts of extremely effectual people. Provo: Free Press.
Invisible Children ( 2012 ) . More about us. Retrieved April 14. 2012. from World Wide Web. invisiblechildren. com
Lapham’s Quarterly. ( 2012 ) . Great adult male theory. Retrieved April 7. 2012. from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. laphamsquarterly. org/voices-in-time/great-man-theory. php
Leadership Central. ( 2012 ) . Great adult male theory. Retrieved April 7. 2012. from World Wide Web. leadership-central. com
Mead. M. ( 1970 ) . Culture and committedness. San Francisco: Natural History Press.
Winston. B. & A ; Patterson. K. ( 2006 ) . An integrative definition of leading. International Journal of Leadership Studies. 1 ( 2 ) . 7-14. Retrieved April 7. 2012. from Academic Search Premiere.