The Basic Idea
If someone asked you to think of a great leader, who would come to mind? If asked to explain your reasoning, are there certain characteristics you would point out, or certain choices you would say proved their leadership abilities?
According to the Great Man Theory, great leaders are born, not made.1 Leadership traits are inherent and cannot be learned. Great leaders come forward when they’re most needed, to become the foundation upon which history is built. Essentially, according to the Great Man Theory, people in positions of power deserve to lead because of characteristics granted to them at birth, which ultimately help them become heroes.
No great man lives in vain. The history of the world is but the biography of great men.
– Thomas Carlyle, Scottish historian and author of On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History
History
The Great Man Theory is mostly associated with Thomas Carlyle, who looked for a source of strength and direction during the Napoleonic wars.1 Carlyle put his faith in the Great Man: someone who was “unmistakably” sent to earth by God. Expanding on his beliefs, Carlyle delivered a series of lectures on the role heroes play in shaping history. These lectures were synthesized into a single work in 1841, titled On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History. In his work, a deep respect for strength combined with the conviction of a God-given mission emerged.2
Ultimately, there could be six archetypes: the hero as divinity (i.e. pagan myths), a prophet (i.e. Muhammad), a poet (i.e. William Shakespeare), a priest (i.e. John Knox), a man of letters (i.e. Jean-Jacques Rousseau), and king (i.e. Oliver Cromwell).2 Carlyle argued that studying great men was profitable to our own heroic sides: examining heroes’ lives and greatness could help us uncover aspects of our character.3
Carlyle went on to do much subsequent work regarding his heroes. Oliver Cromwell, an English soldier and statesman who led parliamentary forces in the English Civil Wars, was Carlyle’s ideal man.2 4 Frederick the Great - King of Prussia from 1740 to 1786 and a military campaigner - was another “hero as king” in Carlyle’s eyes.5 Carlyle wrote Oliver Cromwell’s Letters and Speeches in 1845 and The History of Friedrich II of Prussia, Called Frederick the Great in 1857, detailing the men’s heroic accomplishments.2
Due to Carlyle’s work, the Great Man Theory was most prominent in the 19th century, popularized in the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition of 1911. This book is filled with detailed biographies of the great men of history.6 Early research related to Carlyle’s work considered successful leaders, often aristocratic rulers who were granted their positions through birthright.1 Of course, people of lower social status did not have the same opportunities to achieve leadership roles; this was blindly considered to be evidence that leadership ability is inherent.
People
Thomas Carlyle
Scottish historian and writer Thomas Carlyle is most known for his book, On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History, in which he argued the key role in history played by the actions of great men.2 Carlyle grew up in a family with strong Calvinist beliefs, and was expected to be a minister. Although he distanced himself from his faith while at the University of Edinburgh, he held onto some Calvinist values that shaped his later work, such as a desire to denounce evil. Carlyle’s work was highly influential - albeit controversial - during the Victorian era.
Consequences
The idea that leaders are born (and not made) is still common and hotly debated. Those who believe in the original notion of innate superiority may be reluctant to take on positions of leadership if they believe they don’t have what it takes.
Most contemporary support for the Great Man Theory rests in its assertion that great leaders possess certain characteristics.1 7 An extension of appreciation for the theory, rather than direct support of it, maybe more fitting, as Carlyle’s work inspired the development of theoretical approaches of leadership, such as leadership styles and trait theories.8 9
For example, the Big Five personality traits are frequently cited in contemporary research about leaders.10 11 12 The five traits themselves are: (1) extraversion: the tendency to be outgoing, assertive, and active; (2) agreeableness: the tendency to be kind and trustworthy; (3) conscientiousness: determined by achievement and dependability; (4) neuroticism: the tendency to be anxious and fearful; and (5) openness to experiences: the tendency to be creative and perceptive. Researchers assess the five traits and determine which contribute to effective leadership, and which may be ineffective (i.e. neuroticism).
The Big Five personality traits and their bearing on leadership share some common assumptions with Great Man Theory. The debate between nature and nurture when it comes to leadership still exists, but Carlyle’s work was certainly influential on leadership research.
Controversies
Due to the lack of empirical, scientific evidence for the Great Man Theory,7 there remains a lot of criticism. When the theory was first popularized, one of the most prominent critics was biologist and sociologist Herbert Spencer. Spencer held that attributing historical successes to individual decisions was primitive and unscientific and that the so-called “great men” were solely products of their social environment.16 Before a “great man” could shape and build his society, the same society had to shape and build him.
There is also a sense of survivorship bias attached to the Great Man Theory: there are likely more people who possess “leadership qualities” than there are “great” historical leaders. If leadership was truly innate, then this should not be the case. Rather, research has shown that successful leadership is complex, and influenced by many different factors.17 Similarly, the theory excludes those who may not have necessarily been prominent leaders, but without whom history would not exist as we know it.18 Carlyle’s concept thus raises philosophical concerns about the role of the individual versus the collective and brings to light the psychological debate of nature versus nurture.
Aside from the tenets of the Great Man Theory, Carlyle has also been criticized for the way his work was written in On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History.1 Of course, the use of “man” itself in his theory reflects a gender bias: a perception that history lies on the backs of dominant males, combined with the conviction that leadership is inherently masculine. There is also a deep religiosity to Carlyle’s language in this text, especially in his warning that - for those who were not divinely appointed by God to become heroes - our jobs are to recognize and uplift “great men” into their positions of prominence. Only by obeying the rulings of these leaders can the “sick” world be healed, according to Carlyle. The Great Man thesis may ultimately say more about the patriarchal and individualistic assumptions of Western society in the 19th century than it informs about the progression of historical events. It demonstrates how historians and academics reflect the prejudices of their age in their work.
This is an interesting theory. I am more intrigued by the Man of Letters classification. What is more interesting is the classification reflects what I am doing here.
So now I know am the Man of Letters. A different type of Visionary Leader.
Still, I was born into it.
I actually subscribed to this Great Man Theory without knowing what it is called.
If we put two and two together, we can conclude that the theory supports the notion of the Stone that Creates the Ripples.
If that is the case, then what we are doing is based on a model rather than at random. What is amazing, the working model fits with the theory without us force-feeding the variables.
How about that?
SJ 4964
