The 'Great Man Leadership Theory' has been a concept that has been widely discussed and debated since the 19th century. It suggests that successful leaders are born, not made, and that they have unique qualities and characteristics that make them stand out from the crowd. However, this theory is now often seen as outdated and is widely criticised for neglecting the importance of context in leadership development. In this blog post, we will discuss the myth of the great man leadership theory and examine why it has become so unpopular.

The history and concept of the Great Man theory

The Great Man theory, also known as the Trait theory, emerged in the 19th century as a popular explanation for leadership. It posits that successful leaders are born with unique qualities and characteristics that set them apart from others. This theory suggests that leadership is innate and cannot be developed or acquired through training or experience.

The concept of the Great Man theory can be traced back to the philosopher and historian Thomas Carlyle, who coined the term in his book "On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History" in 1841. Carlyle argued that history is shaped by a few extraordinary individuals who possess innate leadership qualities and have the ability to influence and inspire others.

The Great Man theory gained further traction through the work of other prominent thinkers, such as Herbert Spencer and Francis Galton. Spencer argued that leadership qualities were hereditary and could be passed down from one generation to the next, while Galton focused on the study of exceptional individuals to identify the traits that made them great leaders.

According to the Great Man theory, leaders are born with qualities such as intelligence, charisma, courage, and assertiveness. These inherent traits enable them to rise to positions of power and authority, where they can shape the course of events and lead others towards success.

However, the Great Man theory has faced significant criticism and is now widely regarded as outdated. One of the main criticisms is that it neglects the importance of context in leadership development. The theory fails to consider the impact of external factors such as culture, environment, and opportunity on leadership effectiveness.

Furthermore, the Great Man theory ignores the role of followers in the leadership process. It assumes that leaders are autonomous individuals who single-handedly make all the important decisions and drive organisational success. In reality, effective leadership requires the support and collaboration of followers who share the leader's vision and goals.

Another limitation of the Great Man theory is that it is based on the assumption that leadership is a fixed and unchanging quality. It fails to recognise that leadership is a dynamic and complex process that can be developed and enhanced through education, training, and experience.

The flaws and limitations of the Great Man theory

The Great Man theory, despite its popularity in the past, is now widely regarded as outdated and flawed. It fails to consider the impact of context, the role of followers, and the dynamic nature of leadership.

One of the main criticisms of the Great Man theory is its neglect of the importance of context in leadership development. This theory assumes that successful leaders possess inherent qualities that make them stand out from others, regardless of the circumstances they find themselves in. However, research has shown that leadership effectiveness is highly influenced by the context in which leaders operate. Factors such as culture, environment, and opportunity all play a significant role in shaping a leader's success. Without taking these contextual factors into account, the Great Man theory provides an incomplete and inaccurate explanation of leadership.

Furthermore, the Great Man theory fails to acknowledge the role of followers in the leadership process. It portrays leaders as autonomous individuals who single-handedly make all the important decisions and drive organisational success. In reality, effective leadership requires the support and collaboration of followers who share the leader's vision and goals. Without the involvement and commitment of followers, even the most talented leaders would struggle to achieve their objectives. The Great Man theory's narrow focus on the leader neglects the importance of followership and fails to capture the complexities of leadership dynamics.

Another limitation of the Great Man theory is its assumption that leadership is a fixed and unchanging quality. This theory suggests that successful leaders are born with inherent traits such as intelligence, charisma, and assertiveness. However, research has shown that leadership is a dynamic and complex process that can be developed and enhanced through education, training, and experience. Leaders are not simply born, but rather, they are shaped and moulded by their experiences and the opportunities for growth and development that they encounter throughout their careers. By ignoring the potential for growth and improvement, the Great Man theory overlooks the potential for leadership development and stifles the aspirations of aspiring leaders.

In summary, the Great Man theory of leadership has significant flaws and limitations. It neglects the impact of context, fails to consider the role of followers, and overlooks the potential for leadership development. While this theory may have held sway in the past, it is now widely seen as outdated and inadequate for explaining effective leadership. As we continue to study and understand the complexities of leadership, it is important to recognise that successful leadership is not solely determined by innate qualities, but rather, is shaped by a combination of factors that include context, followership, and the potential for growth and development.

Examples of successful leaders who don't fit the Great Man mould

Throughout history, there have been numerous successful leaders who defy the Great Man theory and prove that effective leadership is not solely determined by inherent traits. These leaders have shown that leadership can be developed, and that anyone, regardless of their background or characteristics, can become a successful leader.

One such example is Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi, known for his nonviolent resistance and leadership during India's struggle for independence, did not possess the traditional traits associated with the Great Man theory. He was not born into a position of power or authority, nor did he possess exceptional charisma or intelligence. Instead, Gandhi's leadership was built on his principles of nonviolence, compassion, and his unwavering commitment to justice. Through his actions and moral authority, he was able to inspire millions and lead a nation towards freedom.

Another example is Nelson Mandela. Mandela, the first black President of South Africa, emerged as a leader during a time of extreme racial division and oppression. Mandela did not possess the typical characteristics associated with the Great Man theory, but he demonstrated remarkable resilience, empathy, and a commitment to reconciliation. Despite spending 27 years in prison, Mandela emerged as a symbol of hope and unity, and played a crucial role in ending apartheid in South Africa.

Furthermore, there are leaders in the business world who challenge the notion of the Great Man theory. One such example is Mary Barra, the CEO of General Motors. Barra, the first female CEO in the automotive industry, did not fit the traditional mould of a leader. She did not possess extraordinary charisma or assertiveness, but rather, she displayed exceptional intelligence, adaptability, and a willingness to learn. Through her strategic decision-making and emphasis on innovation, Barra has transformed General Motors and positioned the company for long-term success.

These examples highlight the importance of context and the role of personal growth and development in leadership. They demonstrate that effective leadership is not solely determined by innate qualities, but rather, it is shaped by one's experiences, values, and the ability to adapt to changing circumstances.

These leaders also exemplify the importance of followership in the leadership process. They understood the significance of collaboration and empowering their followers, rather than relying solely on their own abilities. Through their ability to listen, inspire, and engage with their followers, they were able to build trust and create a shared vision that motivated others to follow.

Alternative leadership theories that better explain effective leadership

Throughout the years, scholars and researchers have developed alternative theories that provide a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of effective leadership. These theories acknowledge the limitations of the Great Man theory and emphasise the importance of context, followership, and the development of leadership skills.

One such theory is the Situational Leadership theory, developed by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard in the 1970s. This theory proposes that effective leadership is dependent on the readiness level of followers and the specific situational context. According to the Situational Leadership theory, leaders need to adapt their leadership style based on the competence and commitment of their followers. This means that leaders should be able to provide the appropriate amount of direction and support to their followers, depending on the situation. The Situational Leadership theory recognises that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to leadership and that leaders need to be flexible in their approach to effectively lead different individuals and teams.

Another theory that provides a more comprehensive understanding of leadership is the Transformational Leadership theory, introduced by James MacGregor Burns in the 1970s. Transformational leaders are those who inspire and motivate their followers to go beyond their self-interests and work towards a collective vision. These leaders have the ability to create a positive and supportive work environment where individuals feel valued and empowered. Transformational leaders often possess traits such as charisma, vision, and emotional intelligence.

They are able to engage and inspire their followers through their ability to communicate effectively and articulate a compelling vision of the future.

In addition to these theories, there is also the Authentic Leadership theory, which emphasises the importance of self-awareness, transparency, and ethical behaviour. Authentic leaders are those who are true to themselves and their values, and they build trust and credibility through their genuine and honest approach. Authentic leaders inspire trust and loyalty among their followers, as they are seen as genuine and reliable. This theory recognises that leadership is not just about skills and competencies, but also about having a strong sense of self and the ability to lead with integrity.

These alternative theories offer a more comprehensive and realistic understanding of effective leadership. They take into account the importance of context, followership, and the development of leadership skills. By recognising that effective leadership is not solely determined by inherent traits, but rather shaped by a combination of factors, these theories provide a more nuanced perspective on what it means to be a successful leader.

In conclusion, the Great Man theory of leadership has significant flaws and limitations. It neglects the impact of context, fails to consider the role of followers, and overlooks the potential for leadership development.

Alternative theories, such as the Situational Leadership theory, the Transformational Leadership theory, and the Authentic Leadership theory, provide a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of effective leadership.

These theories emphasise the importance of context, followership, and the development of leadership skills. As we continue to explore and study the complexities of leadership, it is important to recognise that successful leadership is not solely determined by inherent qualities, but rather shaped by a combination of factors. By embracing these alternative theories, we can better understand and cultivate effective leadership in a variety of contexts.