Theories Of The Great Man Theory

As it was written on one of the class slides, a leader can change the way people thinks about what is possible. In other words, it can be suggested that leaders have certain traits that allows them to possess or cultivate leadership characteristics. When a the “Great Man” theories was presented during the early 1990s, it focused on identifying innate qualities and characteristics that many great social, political, and military leaders possessed. This leaderships traits approach is one of the first methodical attempts to study what leaders possess, which ultimately concluded but not fully determine as the only traits needed. These traits are intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity and sociability. As to where I stand in this trait spectrum, I know that I have determination, integrity and

The trait leadership theory suggested by Ralph M. Stogdill, Trait theory is one of the early methodologies in leadership. Leadership trait theory suggests that leaders are innate rather than prepared. It places highlighting on the individual qualities of persons as signs of leadership success and with definite abilities that will make them shine in leadership parts. Such as cleverness, sense of charge, inventiveness and other values places them in the shoes of a good leader.

19). Still a part of the Great Man Leadership era, these trait theories just went a step further in attempting to pinpoint exactly which traits of these “great men” were consistently associated with the leaders, in an effort to more clearly define what a great leader was. This was again a further attempt to be able to identify a leader early on and predict which individuals were born to become leaders. It is thought that a major flaw with these theories was the failure to account for external factors, such as the environment in which the individuals were brought up in, as well as the situations they experienced (Horner, 2007, p. 270). Still today we do continue to study the characteristics of leaders in order to better define and understand what makes someone a good leader.

Leaders have a “the ability to influence a group toward the achievement of a vision or set of goals” (Robbins & Judge, 2007, p. 402). In the past leaders have been described by certain traits or characteristics. These traits can help an organization identify potential candidates who may be strong leaders. Later behavior approaches of leaders were identified that could be taught. In short, leaders could be made. Situations have an impact on which leader behaviors will be most effect at any given time. Several contingency theories have been formulated over the years to identify how situations influence leadership behavior. Each style has strengths and

Believing that there is no solitary style of leadership and that there is no “black or white” way to display leadership, Contingency theory of leadership best fits me and my leadership style. I strongly believe that the way a leader is able to lead is not only based on their skills but also the situation. Certain situations, such as the make-up of the group and the task, may cause a leader to demonstrate several different skills in order to lead the group. In other words, a contingency leader would most likely be able to use different leadership styles and management skills based on multiple situations; instead of being a “one size fit all” leader, they offer a sense of variety and flexibility.

I’m predisposed to this leadership theory or style because of its consideration for awareness of the element(s) of reality, that is, life experiences and some other factors, and the adaptability to each environment one finds self. This leadership theory presents itself with the understanding that organizations are different from one to another, and as a result of the differences in structures and the kinds of people that can be found around organizations; the most important leadership capability is the ability to adapt to the environment. There is no one style that fits all, but this style helps to better lead as there are times when one may need to exact authority and at some other time, one would need to show humility. Because we all come from different backgrounds, have difference life experiences and different role models, our values, preferences and priorities become shaped over the course of lifetime. Instead of trying to fit into expectations of people about what a

The problem of working teams has been something that researcher and theorists have been studying for years. Many of these researchers and theorists have developed a “standard” way to develop teams and team skills. A plethora of team development books have been written and team consulting firms have popped up all over the world. The Great Man Theory was a popular 19th century idea according to which history can be largely explained by the impact of "great men", using their power in a way that had a decisive historical impact. These great men always had impressive results from their teams because of their leadership qualities. The historian Thomas Carlyle enforced this theory with his statement "The history of the world is but the biography of great men." According to Carlyle, effective leaders are those gifted with

Julius Caesar was undoubtedly a man who changed history. His life and its story have inspired generations of awe and scrupulous study. Many would argue he is the most influential man in recorded history. However, can the great Caesar truly be declared a ‘event-making man', according to the criteria of the Great Man Theory? Did he truly influence the course of history through his own extraordinary acts of will and leadership? Or was he simply a fortunate man who appeared in the right place at the right time, being only the pawn of a greater scheme? By following and exploring the political ideals and abilities of Caesar, as well as his military ability and prowess, this essay hopes to clearly demonstrate that he was indeed a great

3) Contingency approach to leadership-this theory refers to the group atmosphere and to the degree of confidence, loyalty, and attraction the followers feel about their leader. If certain favourable situations occur then there has been a positive relationship between the followers and the leader which means that the task was clearly defined and there is a clear leader position power.

The contingency theory of leadership works to predict which style is best in which circumstance, because what may work in one situation, may not work in another. Imagine that as a CEO, Helena always applied a democratic based leadership style, but one day the company was faced with a dilemma that she had to address immediately. Without the ability to consult her employees, Helena has to make a decision, and this will affect the entire company. This would be an example of the contingency theory of leadership, being able to change ones leadership style to suite the situation.

The theories or concepts of leadership such as the Great Man theory, collective leadership, and scholar-practitioner are ideas that transformed the way leaders lead. The comparisons of the leadership styles illustrated that direction does not change. Within the comparisons, leadership links from one theory or concept to another. Each theory or idea is a building block for what a leader needs to be successful. The Great Man theory depicts a person of great need that possesses the characteristics of a leader from birth. A leader has the features or traits of a great leader without

Early on in the study of leadership, it was believed that people were born with specific traits that made them great leaders. In other words, early

Basically, contingency theory asserts that when managers make a decision, they must take into account all aspects of the current situation and act on those aspects that are key to the situation at hand. Basically, it’s the approach that “it depends.” For example, the continuing effort to identify the best leadership or management style might now conclude that the best style depends on the situation. If one is leading troops in the Persian Gulf, an autocratic style is probably best (of course, many might argue here, too). If one is leading a hospital or university, a more participative and facilitative leadership style is probably best.

This theory is based on the idea that a person is not born a leader, but that a person becomes a leader through self-development and learning. It focuses not on mental qualities or internal states, but on the actions and behaviors of leaders. According to this theory, people can learn to become leaders through teaching and observation (Wheeler, 2000).  One can conclude that it is the converse of the Great Man theory.

This theory is based on the premise that there are certain personality characteristics that are essential for a person to possess in order to be a leader. The main emphasis is on what the person is in terms of a constellation of personality traits. This theory searches for that set of universal leadership traits that will assure success. Numerous traits have been suggested: courage, integrity, loyalty, charisma, ambition, intelligence, honesty, clairvoyance, persistence, arrogance, health, political skill, confidence and vision.