Key Takeaways
- The great man theory of leadership suggests that leaders are born with natural abilities to lead.
- This theory has been criticized because it doesn’t consider how leadership skills can be learned or developed.
The great man theory of leadership suggests that some individuals are born with characteristics that naturally make them skilled leaders. According to this view, leaders are born, not made. It also suggests that leaders assume authority when their leadership traits are needed.
Have you ever heard the phrase, “Great leaders are born, not made”? This quote sums up the basic tenet of the great man theory of leadership, which suggests that leadership capacity is innate. According to this theory, you’re either a natural-born leader or not.
The term “great man” was used because, at the time, leadership was thought of primarily as a male quality, especially in terms of military leadership.
Origins of the Great Man Theory of Leadership
The great man theory of leadership became popular during the 19th century. The mythology behind some of the world’s most famous leaders, such as Abraham Lincoln, Julius Caesar, Mahatma Gandhi, and Alexander the Great, helped contribute to the notion that great leaders are born and not made.
Carlyle’s Views on Leadership
In many examples, it seems as if the right man for the job seems to emerge almost magically to take control of a situation and lead a group of people into safety or success. Historian Thomas Carlyle also had a major influence on this theory of leadership. He stated, “The history of the world is but the biography of great men.”
According to Carlyle, effective leaders are those gifted with divine inspiration and the right characteristics.
Early Leadership Reasearch
Some of the earliest research on leadership looked at people who were already successful leaders. These individuals often included aristocratic rulers who achieved their position through birthright. Because people of a lesser social status had fewer opportunities to practice and achieve leadership roles, it contributed to the idea that leadership is an inherent ability.
Even today, people often describe prominent leaders as having the right qualities or personality for the position. This implies that inherent characteristics are what make these people effective leaders.
Nature vs. Nurture
The great man theory of leadership is an example of using ‘nature’ to explain human behavior. The nature vs. nurture debate in psychology suggests that some skills are innate while others are acquired through learning and experience. In this case, great man theory suggests that nature plays the dominant role in leadership ability.
Examples of the Great Man Theory of Leadership
Some examples of famous historical figures who are often cited as examples of “great men” include:
- Abraham Lincoln: The 16th president of the United States shepherded the Union through the Civil War and signed the Emancipation Proclamation. His leadership through this tumultuous period is often seen as an example of how great leaders seem to be born with specific skills that make them destined to lead.
- Martin Luther King, Jr.: The civil rights leader was influential in the fight for civil rights during the 1960s. His leadership characteristics, including his persuasive abilities and charisma, are often cited as examples of how innate traits contribute to leadership ability.
- Mahatma Gandhi: The spiritual and political leader who led the successful movement for India’s independence from British rule advocated non-violent resistance. His resilience, wisdom, and vision made him an inspiration in the fight for freedom in India and across the globe.
Other leaders often used as examples of the great man theory of leadership include George Washington, Winston Churchill, and Nelson Mandela. Carlyle cited other figures in his book “Heroes and Hero-Worship,” including Odin, Muhammad, William Shakespeare, Martin Luther, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Napoleon Bonaparte.
Criticisms of the Great Man Theory of Leadership
The great man theory of leadership has been the subject of considerable debate and criticism. The following are some of the major critiques of this approach to explaining leadership.
Herbert Spencer’s Response
Sociologist Herbert Spencer suggested that the leaders were products of the society in which they lived. In “The Study of Sociology,” Spencer wrote:
“You must admit that the genesis of a great man depends on the long series of complex influences which has produced the race in which he appears, and the social state into which that race has slowly grown…Before he can remake his society, his society must make him.”
Incomplete Account of Leadership
One of the critical problems with the Great Man theory of leadership is that not all people who possess the so-called natural leadership qualities become great leaders. If leadership were simply an inborn quality, all people who possess the necessary traits would eventually find themselves in leadership roles.
Ignores Situational Factors
Research has instead found that leadership is a surprisingly complex subject and numerous factors influence how successful a particular leader may or may not be. Characteristics of the group, the leader in power, and the situation all interact to determine what type of leadership is needed and the effectiveness of this leadership.
Neglects Skill Development
The great man theory of leadership also fails to explain how leadership skills can be developed. It oversimplifies leadership and focuses on a very narrow set of skills that may not be effective or appropriate in every context or situation. Modern views emphasize that leadership abilities can be learned and honed with practice.
The psychologist William James defended Carlyle’s ideas, suggesting that it is the innate characteristics of individuals that then shape their environments. The theory was critiqued by others in literary form, including in Leo Tolstoy’s “War and Peace.”
Contemporary Views of the Great Man Theory
The great man theory was an influential early theory of leadership, but it has fallen out of favor in modern leadership research. Contemporary ideas take a more nuanced and complex view of the many factors that influence leadership, including the characteristics of group members and the role of the situation.
While the great man theory has been largely replaced by other ideas, elements of it are still relevant today. The theory does not fully explain or account for the many aspects of leadership, but the existence of specific traits that contribute to great leadership is still of interest to contemporary researchers.
Today, experts recognize that leadership is complex and that innate traits alone do not account for how and why some leaders are successful.
Verywell Mind uses only high-quality sources, including peer-reviewed studies, to support the facts within our articles. Read our editorial process to learn more about how we fact-check and keep our content accurate, reliable, and trustworthy.
Halaychik CS. Leadership theories. In: Lessons in Library Leadership. Elsevier; 2016:1-56. doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-100565-1.00001-7
Spector BA. Carlyle, Freud, and the Great Man Theory more fully considered. Leadership. 2015;12(2):250-260. doi:10.1177/1742715015571392.
Carlyle T. On Heroes, Hero-Worship and the Heroic in History. Fredrick A. Stokes & Brother, 1988.
Spencer, H. The Study of Sociology. Appleton, 1874.
Yukl G. Effective leadership behavior: What we know and what questions need more attention. Acad Manag Perspect. 2012;26(4):66-85. doi:10.5465/amp.2012.0088.
James W. Great men, great thoughts, and the environment. The Atlantic.
Kets de Vries M, Cheak-Baillargeon A. Leadership in organizations, sociology of. In: International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier; 2015:664-669. doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.73080-7
Thanks for your feedback!
What is your feedback?
Helpful
Report an Error
Other
