If someone asked you to think of great leaders, who comes to mind? If asked to explain your reasoning, are there certain characteristics you would point out or choices they made that proved their leadership abilities? Do you think they were destined to become leaders from birth?

Great leaders come forward when they’re most needed to become the foundation upon which history is built. But exactly why specific leaders rise to positions of power has long been a topic of debate. Are leaders born with some inherent qualities that set them up to be visionary icons? Or are they shaped by their life circumstances, acquiring leadership skills and becoming influential because of their environment? The great man Theory suggests the former: leaders are born, not made. Essentially, according to the theory, people in positions of power deserve to lead because of characteristics granted to them at birth, which ultimately helped them become heroes.

Now considered quite outdated, this theory was a popular approach to studying history in the 19th century.¹ The great man Theory explored historical events through the acts of “great men” who, born with natural traits like superior intellect and innate leadership abilities, rose to power when needed and made significant contributions to human history. Specifically, the theory focuses on the ambitions and actions of notable figures rather than the small-scale contributions of “common folk.” 

Though historians no longer view history through the antiquated lens of the great man, we still look back on individual figures—whose actions truly did shape the course of history—as symbols of outstanding leadership. From political leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, George Washington, and Nelson Mandela to military leaders like Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and Napoleon Bonaparte, these notable people remain iconic examples of “natural-born leaders.”

Trait Theory: An approach to studying human personality that suggests people largely differ due to differences in their inborn qualities or traits.²⁰ The trait theory of leadership stems from the great man Theory, positing that only some individuals possess the inherent traits necessary to become effective leaders and that others could not develop these qualities.

Cultural Hero: A mythical or historical figure associated with a certain culture or group who embodies the ideals of that society. This figure is often credited with bringing about profound change through their inventions, actions, or discoveries.²¹ In the context of the great man Theory, such individuals are often portrayed as impactful figures who were able to rise against adversity and inspire followers to join them in driving change.

Determinism: The theory that all events are inevitable and predetermined by prior events, as opposed to being brought about by individuals acting with free will. The great man Theory takes a deterministic view of history, assuming that notable figures are predetermined by their innate traits and, therefore, destined to become leaders and inevitably shape the course of history.

Social History: A field that studies history through the lens of the everyday experiences of ordinary people.²² Also called history from below, social history rejects the great man Theory, acknowledging that large numbers of regular people—rather than elite figures acting alone—played a significant role in shaping historical events.

The Big Five Personality Model: A model that categorizes personality into five main dimensions: openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism.¹² Like the great man Theory, the Big Five model emphasizes the role of personality traits in leadership. However, it acknowledges that these traits are innate but can also be influenced and shaped by one’s environment and experience. Essentially, this model suggests that leaders are influenced by both nature and nurture.

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), prophet (i.e. Muhammad), poet (i.e. William Shakespeare), priest (i.e. John Knox), 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, 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 about 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.

Later research in the 20th century focused on uncovering the specific traits shared by successful leaders, such as confidence, reliability, initiative, and sociability.²³ This new trait approach to leadership suggested that certain innate qualities positioned people to be more effective leaders and that these traits remained relatively stable and consistent across life.

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 become a minister. However, he distanced himself from his faith while at the University of Edinburgh. He held onto some Calvinist values which shaped his later work, such as a desire to denounce evil. Carlyle’s work was highly influential—but controversial—during the Victorian era.

The idea that leaders are born (and not made) is still common and hotly debated. This concept has significantly impacted the study of historical events and the contemporary understanding of leadership.

Understanding Leadership Traits

Most contemporary support for the great man theory rests in its assertion that great leaders possess specific characteristics.^1,7 This emphasis on the inherent traits of impactful individuals has contributed to the widespread belief that certain people were essential to the historical events that drove societal progress and brought us to where we are today. As a result, we often similarly evaluate modern-day leaders—assuming that people who made it to positions of power must possess certain traits that led them there.

Appreciation for the theory, rather than direct support, is more fitting. Carlyle’s work inspired the development of theoretical leadership approaches, 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 regarding leadership still exists, but Carlyle’s work was undoubtedly influential on leadership research.

Glorification of Leaders

The great man theory suggests that only certain individuals possess traits that allow them to become great leaders, giving them a born superiority that, as Carlyle suggested, makes them deserving of admiration, worship, and glory.³ This has a number of concerning implications. For one, those who believe in this notion of innate superiority may be reluctant to take on leadership positions if they think they weren’t born with what it takes. As great leaders are often seen as near-mythical figures with extraordinary traits, people without these natural leadership qualities might shy away from leadership roles instead of looking for ways to develop the complex skills that would make them great leaders.

At the same time, glorifying leaders for their exceptional qualities and transformative abilities can reinforce power structures. The idea that individual people play such a significant role in shaping history exaggerates the impactful actions of a few powerful elites, overlooking the collective efforts of ordinary people—like those involved in social movements or activist organizations. When we glorify leaders and see ourselves as less capable of making a difference, we’re less likely to get involved in small, potentially transformative collectivist movements to change the status quo. Instead, we rely on our leaders to drive meaningful change and place the blame on them when they fail to do so.

Due to the lack of empirical evidence for the great man theory, there remains a lot of criticism.⁷ One of the main problems with the theory—besides its patriarchal assumptions—is its inference that great men are not shaped by society or helped along by the collective collaborations of other people.

Great Men Are Products of Their Environment

When the theory was 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. However, only a few of these individuals made it past the various environmental barriers and circumstantial filters that stifled other potential leaders, allowing a select few to rise to power. If leadership was truly innate, then this should not be the case: we would see far more “great men” throughout history. 

Rather, research has shown that successful leadership is complex and influenced by many factors.¹⁷ Some who became leaders were simply in the right place at the right time, lucky enough to fall into circumstances that let their leadership qualities shine. Others had to rely on many people to help them along the way. 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.

Individual Agency vs. Collective Action

As mentioned, the great man theory emphasizes individual agency while downplaying the influence of collective action. This opens up plenty of room for debate over how impactful these leaders really were. Who actually changed history? Can we credit everything to the few prominent individuals who dominate the pages of our history books? Or should we acknowledge the collective action of regular, everyday citizens? Certainly, the social, economic, and cultural factors of the time—shaped by masses of ordinary people—played a role in the historical events we know and study today. 

The truth is that people have long used their collective power to influence leaders and make wide-scale societal change, but it’s the leaders who tend to receive the credit.18 Consider how George Washington is credited for U.S. independence or Abraham Lincoln for abolishing slavery. Critics of this individualistic view argue for a need to place the people at the center of these events rather than individual leaders. In line with these arguments, some history teachers have started incorporating social history into their curriculums to ensure students understand the collective agency of ordinary people who lived during prominent historical events. For example, while Martin Luther King Jr. was a very important leader in the civil rights movement, the movement would not have happened without its many grassroots participants. Incorporating the stories of regular people into history education teaches students that they do have the power to change the course of history.

Prejudice and Bias

Aside from the tenets of the great man theory, Carlyle has also been criticized for how 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. According to Carlyle, only by obeying the rulings of these leaders can the “sick” world be healed. The great man theory 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.

Leadership Effectiveness

Due to the complexity of leadership, associated research tends to be limited in its breadth and clarity of core leader attributes. In particular, different studies tend to focus on varying, narrow categories of individual differences.¹⁹ In an attempt to organize the existing literature on the effects of individual differences on leadership, recent frameworks have distinguished between trait-like and state-like differences. While research on trait-like differences would be dispositional and thus an extension of the Great Man Theory, research on state-like differences shifts its focus to buildable skills.

In order to assess the conceptually varied research on individual differences and leadership effectiveness, a group of psychology and management researchers set out to compare the roles of trait-like (i.e. personality and intelligence) and state-like differences (i.e. knowledge and skills) in leaders.¹⁹ They conducted a meta-analysis of 1,846 articles across 25 individual differences proposed to be related to effective leadership.

Out of the 25 individual differences they assessed, 13 were found to be essential for effective leadership: seven trait-like individual differences (achievement motivation, charisma, creativity, dominance, energy, honesty and integrity, and self-confidence), and six state-like individual differences (decision making, interpersonal skills, management skills, oral communication, problem-solving skills, and written communication).

Ultimately, the researchers found that although both types of individual differences were important predictors of effective leadership, their relative impacts didn’t differ much.¹⁹ Additionally, the amount of variance in leadership effectiveness that was explained by individual differences was typically influenced by the leader’s organizational level and organization type. For organizational level, variances in effectiveness were better explained by individual differences for those in lower levels of leadership, rather than higher levels. Organization type also mattered, such that a willingness to adjust to change was more strongly related to leadership effectiveness in government and military settings.

The findings from this 2011 meta-analysis suggest the existence of a dispositional component to effective leadership, supporting Carlyle’s Great Man Theory. However, buildable knowledge and skills are also important for effective leadership, which suggests that leadership models should expand to include these more coachable characteristics.

Great man or great myth? It really does seem like it is a mix of the two perspectives. Of course, “great man” refers to innate traits here, rather than support of the idea that only male heroes deserve credit or respect.

Contemporary “Great Men”

As we’ve established, the great man theory emphasizes the individual accomplishments of certain individuals while overlooking the complex systems and societal conditions that contributed to their success. While the theory is largely considered outdated in modern historical study, the idea is still entirely relevant in how we attribute events and major changes to individuals. In fact, TIME’s long-running Person of the Year is rooted in the great man theory, highlighting how certain powerful individuals continue to shape the world.²⁵

Elon Musk, TIME's 2021 Person of the Year, is an excellent example of a contemporary figure associated with the theory. Musk—divisive as he is—is often portrayed as an individual visionary driving transformational change in the realm of technology and space travel. However, this “great man” perspective overlooks the many people involved in making his ideas possible: engineers, strategists, scientists, and the like who turn his ambitious ideas into reality. Musk’s leadership style has also been the topic of debate, with many criticizing his behavior as confrontational, erratic, and somewhat chaotic—qualities not traditionally associated with effective leadership.²⁴ That said, he does possess a kind of ambitious, risk-taking attitude that likely contributes to his success, aligning with the archetype of the trailblazing pioneer depicted by the great man theory.

Other figures like Steve Jobs, Barack Obama, and even women like Greta Thunberg and Malala Yousafzai also exemplify the perspective of the great man theory. Each of these individuals is credited with significantly contributing to important movements or leading the way in their respective fields. Jobs revolutionized the tech industry, Obama reshaped American politics, Thunberg became a symbol of environmental activism, and Yousafzai fought for girls’ education on a global stage. Were all of these leaders born that way? Probably not.

Each of these contemporary figures was shaped by their environments and circumstances, acquiring their leadership skills and rising to positions of power due to the specific opportunities and challenges they encountered. But this doesn’t mean these remarkable people don’t deserve any personal credit. While all of these leaders owe some of their success to the collaborative efforts of other people—and the systemic circumstances that supported their work—they’re undeniably influential in their own right. For instance, when support for Austria’s Green Party nearly tripled in their 2019 election, Thunberg herself received credit for this change.²⁵ The ability of standout leaders to mobilize people and inspire action highlights how leadership is often a product of both individual agency and external factors.

The Business Case for Women Leaders

“No great man lives in vain” - what about women? This article delves into the lack of women in leadership positions today and considers how attention to implicit gender biases can help us start to bridge the gap, and capitalize on women.

Thinkers

Are great leaders born or made? Take a look through some of The Decision Lab’s many thinker pieces: consider their stories, and decide for yourself!

Want to Innovate? Stop Hiring the Safest Option

Is there room for innovation within Carlyle’s six archetypes? This article offers leaders a fresh perspective on innovative hiring practices and may be something to consider for your next move in leadership.

1. Spector, B. A. (2016). Carlyle, Freud, and the Great Man Theory more fully considered. Leadership, 12(2), 250-260.
2. Cockshut, A. O. J. (2021, February 1). Thomas Carlyle. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Thomas-Carlyle
3. Carlyle, T. (1888). On Heroes, Hero-Worship and the Heroic in History. Frederick A. Stokes.
4. Morrill, J. S. (2021, April 21). Oliver Cromwell. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Oliver-Cromwell
5. Anderson, M. S. (2021, February 24). Frederick II. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Frederick-II-king-of-Prussia
6. Boyles, D. (2016). Everything explained that is explainable: On the creation of the Encyclopædia Britannica’s celebrated eleventh edition, 1910-1911.
7. Halaychik, C. S. (2016). Chapter 1 - Leadership theories. Lessons in Library Leadership. 
8. De Vries, M. K., & Cheak-Baillargeon, A. (2015). Sociology of leadership in organizations. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition). 
9. Kumaran, M. (2012). Chapter 3 - Leadership styles. Leadership in Libraries. 
10. Hassan, H., Asad, S., & Hoshino, Y. (2016). Determinants of leadership style in big five personality dimensions. Universal Journal of Management, 4(4), 161-179.
11. De Hoogh, A. H., Den Hartog, D. N., & Koopman, P. L. (2005). Linking the big five‐factors of personality to charismatic and transactional leadership; Perceived dynamic work environment as a moderator. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 26(7), 839-865.
12. Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 751-765.
13. Germain, M. L. (2012). Traits and skills theories as the nexus between leadership and expertise: Reality or fallacy? Performance Improvement, 51(5), 32-39.
14. Kumar, S., Adhish, V. S., & Deoki, N. (2014). Making sense of theories of leadership for capacity building. Indian Journal of Community Medicine: Official Publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine, 39(2), 82-86.
15. Youngjohn, R. M. (2000). Is leadership trait theory fact or fiction? A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between individual differences and leader effectiveness.
16. Spencer, H. (1874). The Study of Sociology.
17. Yukl, G. (2012). Effective leadership behavior: What we know and what questions need more attention. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(4), 66-85.
18. Is There Still Value in ‘Great Man’ History? (2019, September 9). History Today. https://www.historytoday.com/archive/head-head/there-still-value-‘great-man’-history
19. Hoffman, B. J., Woehr, D. J., Maldagen-Youngjohn, R., & Lyons, B. D. (2011). Great man or great myth? A quantitative review of the relationship between individual differences and leadership effectiveness. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(2), 347-381.
20. Shonk, K. (2024, October 22). The trait theory of leadership. The Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School. https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/leadership-skills-daily/the-trait-theory-of-leadership/
21. Leeming, D.A. (2014). Culture Heroes. In: Leeming, D.A. (eds) Culture Heroes. Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6086-2_147 
22. Stearns, Peter N. (2015). Social History. obo in Sociology. doi: 10.1093/obo/9780199756384-0131
23. Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal Factors Associated with Leadership: A Survey of the Literature. The Journal of Psychology, 25(1), 35–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1948.9917362 
24. Percy, S. (2023, September 26). Is Elon Musk the greatest leader on Earth? Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypercy/2023/09/26/is-elon-musk-the-greatest-leader-on-earth/
25. Felsenthal, E. (2019). Why Greta Thunberg is the Person of the Year. TIME.https://time.com/person-of-the-year-2019-greta-thunberg-choice/