Great Man Theory of Leadership Explained [Thomas Carlyle] Six Hero Classes, Pros/Cons, Born Leaders
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 พ.ค. 2021
- The Great Man Theory of Leadership states that leaders are born with certain traits, making them great men destined for leadership. The leader becomes a hero, which type depends on the circumstances of the world around them. The Great Man Theory of Leadership is unscientific and does not belong in modern leadership.
Learn about the Great Man Theory, its definition, advantages and disadvantages, its characteristics, criticism and many other things.
Refer to our video on the evolution of leadership theories to found out how leadership developed after this 1800 era theory: • 16 Leadership Theories...
Visit our portal with in-depth info on 25+ leadership styles at: www.leadershipahoy.com/leader...
For a useful leadership styles framework that works well for the modern leader, refer to our video here: • Leadership Styles - th...
For sources and additional information about the Great Man Theory, please visit our blog: www.leadershipahoy.com/the-gr...
![[Live] : ONE 167 วันนี้!! "ตะวันฉาย vs โจ"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/D9_dvfIa6Ao/mqdefault.jpg)
You can add:
7) General / warrior
8) CEO / visionary / innovator
Hello and thanks for your suggested additions.
Back when Carlyle defined his theory, these are the classifications he decided on.
Visit our portal with in-depth info on 25+ leadership styles at: www.leadershipahoy.com/leadership-styles/
Feel free to ask any questions about Great Man Theory here in the comments section. I'd be happy to answer them!
Thomas Carlyle revered to Marten Luther, not Martin Luther King, as shown in your video at 04:04.
This is not about leadership actually, but abour geniuses.
Carlyle wrote about history, and about heroes. "Leadership" was never the _precise_ subject, I think.
On history, the Great Man Theory is simply that "the history of the world is but the biography of great men". It's a rejection of the deterministic trends-and-forces view of history.
For example: just because the "conditions" existed for the birth of a new religion in Arabia and a subsequent aggressive Arab expansion, that doesn't mean any of that would have actually happened if not for Muhammed. So when writing the history of those events it makes sense to maintain a biography-like focus on Muhammed and things Muhammed did. Same with Martin Luther for the history of the Reformation, Napoleon for the history of the Napoleonic Wars, etc.
His point about the six classes wasn't "pick one of these six jobs if you want to be a leader"; but rather "these are the six distinct categories of people that have historically been the subject of hero-worship".
As for leaders being "born", that is indeed not a scientific claim. I'm sure geneticists could find genes that are particularly common in leaders and associated with traits like charisma or whatever, but that's not really the point here.
In this context it's less of a scientific theory and more of a post-hoc religious thing or literary trope.
Like: "Hitler/Stalin/Mao was destined for great and terrible things and here are all the extraordinary traits he had that made him different and special and in hindsight kind of foreshadowed that would end up doing something big".
The deterministic trends and forces ideas came after Carlyle, and to some real extent as an opposing viewpoint. Carlyle is out of style these days, but also highly misunderstood and highly underrated by most. He did not consider Napoleon to be a great man, so far as I remember reading, but since I can't source that off the top of my head, I'll have to let it go at that. Carlyle is far more nuanced than the modern reader can accept, but one must have a better conception of life in the 19th century to understand all of what that means.
Oh I completely agree that this is unscientific! It is more the work of a philosopher than a scientist in my mind.
My understanding is that these born leaders would use an avenue that fits the time. With great man theory, Napoleon was going to become a leader, had it been during other circumstances, perhaps he had become a religious leader rather than a military leader. That is how I interpret Carlyle anyway. Again, this is not science, and I would NEVER use his theories as any basis or approach to leading others. This is more of an introduction to the infancy of leadership research, but it would never qualify as research nowadays, rightly so.
Great Man Theory also leaves out women as leaders, which should be obvious, if it weren't for our history and culture blinding us to this fact.
That’s one hypothesis. Another possible explanation is that women have rarely been great movers of history, so there is simply nothing to recognize.
RROOBBOOTT VVOOIICCEE
He drew the wrong Martian Luther
I don’t think he was trying to draw the exact people that fit into the archetype. Look at when he writes poets. He names 3 men but draws a woman.
When he writes Martin Luther he draws what looks like a catholic or orthodox priest which both Martin Luther king Jr & Martin Luther weren’t
Robot voice
ROBOT VOICE