Great-Man Theory Essay

IntroductionAs I have read about it, a particular occupy in my has been raising about the wonderful way piece of musicy quite a little has utilized their natural abilities as a medium of reunion and lead. I found a string link between this gifts or skills these work force had and their particular behavior in the clipping they lived. I would like to babble about the special characteristics that had to be present more specific the construction process of a divine individual, a prophet capable of channelize its people and the importance they have represented to humanity, whether realistic or not, since the guess has been around ever since.Great-Man TheoryIn order to get to hit the hay more about the possibility of the neat man, we should not ignore that this is a theory based on leading. So, what is leadership? Scholars have defined leadership as the process of social bow in which sensation soul can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common t ask. To my personal persuasions, leadership is a medium to an end, it is a very particular tool with which gifted individuals in the interpersonal athletic field can either alone or together command, guide, and lead some other grouping of people towards completing an established goal by cheering, livelihood and setting a relation with the subordinates based on a sanitary dose of trustworthiness.Now, the Great-Man theory of leadership according to Winston & Patterson (2006) refers to the idea that leaders receive innately superior qualities that distinguish them from other people, including the office to capture the liking and loyalty of the masses. In other few words, that leaders be natural, not made. Winston & Patterson (2006) overly quote that a leader achieves influence by scurvily conveying a prophetic vision of the future meaning that he resonates with the helper beliefs and values in such a way that the follower can understand and interpret the future into prese nt-time action steps.According to leadership primal (2012) Dr. Thomas Carlyle a true believer of this theory would set up that effective leaders were a package of Godly motivation and the remedy personality. Under this definition, the same Dr. Thomas Carlyle, this time quoted by Laphams quarterly (2012) included as neat-man leaders historical characters such as Muhammad, Shakespe ar, Luther, Rousseau, and forty winks undoubtedly amazing leaders that shaped their time. But, other many scholars and I destine I am going to take their side overthrow this theory.Although Cherry (2012) gives a different definition, and I quote the capital man theory is a conjecture aimed at explaining the history of the effect of the great born men or heroes people of great authority, thanks to their charisma, intelligence and wisdom have used their power in such a way as to leave a decisive historical adjoin at that place is a powerful contradictory hypothesis quoted by leading Central (2 012) 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 approach, leaders cannot be made, but just born. Of course, the leader nativism is highly refutable, cultural skills be by definition highly refutable and acquirable nevertheless done human interaction and an environment conducive to the transmission of knowledge. leading Central (2012) centrees in that many accompanimentors in life shape the individuals skills to lead and I believe their in the right position, since leaders atomic number 18 a product of society, which means leaders are shaped by the time they live in and not the way around. Lets take another example of a another so called great-man leader. This time we have John Fitzgerald Kennedy, a famous character not merely in his home country, but around the globe. His incredible abilities as a leader are not put in doubt, though the fact that he was thi s good just because he was born that way for certain(a) are.Although factors such as your up-bringing, education, experiences are only modeling your leadership abilities says Laphams Quarterly (2012), a persons background and circumstances whitethorn have influenced what they are, it is only in their hands the responsibility of what they want to be. different examples to refute this nativism theory are Stephen R. Coveys personas shifts and rescripting. Since a paradigm is the way an individual perceives, understands, and interprets the surrounding world, a paradigm shift is a heighten in thinking when we gain additional insight and understandings (Covey, 1989). Anything could influence the way a individual thinks, and this individual could perform a rescripting process, proving that a person does not have to be born with superior skills to build up a leader scheme, but he can obtain them passim lived experiences.Cherry (2012) explains that 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. To make it clear, this leadership theory leaves behind women despite they could have innate abilities (Im not saying this is the only ability they have) which is the basis of the great-man theory. For example, we have had great women capable of leading people, on the one hand the ex-prime minister of Britain, Margaret Thatcher as well as known as the urge on Lady which is the longest-serving British prime minister of the last deoxycytidine monophosphate. We also adventure Oprah Winfrey, who not only is one of the most richest women in the world, but named also as the most influential women in it. So, was Dr. Carlyle in the right position, or is it the time he lived that did not allow women to arise as great leaders?Earlier when I gave my own definition of leadership and verbalise that leadership is a matter of persons who can either alone or together habit their lea dership skills, I knew it was not only me, it results that Winston & 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 refute another focus of this great-man theory concentrated in that leadership can only be exercised by one person, the great man (Cawthon, 1996). While some talent say this is true, because most of companies, countries, or firms have one person as its head leader, well this is true. But, lets face it there can not be more than one president in a nation, there can not be more than one president in a firm o company.Although there is the bill of fare of directors, which is the group in charge of every(prenominal) decision the company should take. all(prenominal) in all, yes, according to Cherry (2012) you can find more individuals as leaders than groups as leaders, but that does not mean, groups dont exist, to the contrary, they exist more than ever, and a good example of that is the music group The Beatles which you can say was the most influential band of the last century leading into a simple cause millions of people. You can find also groups leading millions of people to manifest against the violation of human rights, more deep the group called Invisible Children Inc. who only employs 43 people but with its performance has encouraged thousands more to spread the word about Joseph Konys crimes (ICU, 2012). neer doubt that a small group of thoughtful, concerned citizens can change world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has (Mead, 1970).I completely sustain with Cawthon (1996) when he says that many people, of course scoff at the theory, because it is anecdotal and unscientific. At the end, the great-man theory does not have any credibility, because even though the ability to lead is directly linked to ones personality, the belief that leaders are born and not made finds no veracity.In our times, it is meaningless to think of it as a viable expla nation for a persons skills in guiding, since its been proved that the this theory popularized in the 1840s but suggested much earlier, only took into consideration men born in a social status that would allow them to lead no matter of their abilities, from there the hypothesis of the innate leader. Nowadays that particular matter has been changed, since a persons background is not judged but instead their ability to be a leader is highly paid. As Cawthon (1996) says Individuals in every society posses different degrees of energy, moral force and intelligence, and in whatever management the masses might be influenced to go, they are always led by the superior few.In the managerial world, Winston & Patterson (2006) say a increment number of leaders from different parts of the world are beingness formed so do not let people soak up you when they say someone was born to be a leader, because given at onces uncertainty many so called traditional leaders are being superseded by those with best abilities to manage people.So, you better base your leadership skills in what you have reckoned, most importantly in what you truly are and let other people influence you before you can exercise a bigger influence on them, because leadership is doing the right things. Do not ever live upon others expectations, you are what you withdraw to be, for that, being a leader is not being born a leader living what others have scripted, but rescripting your life and forging yourself by dint of stimulating yourself from experiences and knowledge acquired in life. After all If your actions inspire others to learn more, dream more, become more and do more, you are a leader.REFERENCESCawthon, D.L (1996). Leadership The great man theory revisited. Business Horizons, 39(3), 1-4. Retrieved April 7, 2012, from schoolman Search Premiere.Cherry, K. (2012). The great man theory of leadership. Journal of Effective Management, 3(2), 10-17. Retrieved April 7, 2012, from Academic Search Premi ere.Covey, S.R. (1989). The 7 habits of highly effective people. Provo Free Press.Invisible Children (2012). More about us. Retrieved April 14, 2012, from www.invisiblechildren.comLaphams Quarterly. (2012). Great man theory. Retrieved April 7, 2012, from http//www.laphamsquarterly.org/voices-in-time/great-man-theory.phpLeadership Central. (2012). Great man theory. Retrieved April 7, 2012, from www.leadership-central.comMead, M. (1970). Culture and commitment. San Francisco lifelike History Press.Winston, B. & Patterson, K. (2006). An integrative definition of leadership. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 1(2), 7-14. Retrieved April 7, 2012, from Academic Search Premiere.