“The concept of leadership is abused by people who think a person becomes a leader when he grows grey hair, put into a position and expected to function. Everyone has a leadership potential carried within in a specific area of his or purpose. Leadership is universal and built on trust.” (Isrealmore, n.d.) This paper put forward the view that leadership is a completely innate quality. It suggests also that great leaders are born and not made as some want to believe.
Leadership is defined as the “action of leading a group of people or an organization.” (Oxford Dictionaries | English, 2018) The general thought is that leadership is explained as hardship because when one is in a position of leadership it is not always easy to coalesce different personalities to focus on a specific goal.
The great man Theory postulates the view that leaders have a completely innate quality for leadership.
A significant part of the work on this hypothesis was done in the nineteenth century and is frequently connected to crafted by the student of history Thomas Carlyle who remarked on the immense men or saints of the history saying that “the historical backdrop of the world is nevertheless the memoir of extraordinary men”. The great man hypothesis of leadership expresses that a few people are born with the vital characteristics that set them apart from others and that these qualities are in-charge of their accepting places of intensity and expert. Subsequently, it recommends that every single extraordinary leader share these traits paying little mind to when and where they lived or the exact part in the history they satisfied. (Juneja, n.d.)
Carlyle and counterparts picked up acknowledgment for the hypothesis in their time, as proved by such works as the Encyclopaedia Britannica Eleventh Edition, distributed in 1911. This reference book recounted the narrative of world history through life stories of the considerable men that drove amid various recorded periods.
Not every person in Carlyle’s time, nonetheless, concurred with the theory’s suppositions.
Herbert Spencer, a prominent philosopher, sociologist, scientist and political scholar of the Victorian period, countered that the Great Man Theory was immature, crude and unscientific. He contends that leaders were results of their condition. He pushed that before a “great man” can change his general public, that society needs to make him.
Regardless of Spencer’s beliefs were different, the Great Man Theory remained the prominent and transcendent theory for clarifying and understanding leadership until the mid-twentieth century. As the behavioural sciences developed, so did the possibility that leadership is a science that can be learned and supported.
Not everyone in Carlyle’s time, however, agreed with the theory’s assumptions.
Herbert Spencer, a noted philosopher, sociologist, biologist and political theorist of the Victorian era, countered that the Great Man Theory was childish, primitive and unscientific. He believed leaders were products of their environment. He advocated that before a “great man” can remake his society, that society must make him.
Despite Spencer’s arguments to the contrary, the Great Man Theory remained the popular and predominant theory for explaining and understanding leadership until the mid-20th century. As the behavioural sciences grew, so did the idea that leadership is more of a science that can be learned and nurtured. Those with opposing views say great leaders are shaped and moulded by their times as the traits necessary to lead are learned and honed.
However, much like the question of nature versus nurture, there are those who still support the Great Man Theory that men and women leaders are born, not made and sharpened.
Be that as it may, much like the topic of nature versus nurture, there are the individuals who still help the Great Man Theory that leaders are born, not made.
Additionally, Tamara H., (2015) contends that a few researchers still inquiry if leadership abilities can genuinely be educated, different researchers reason that while some leadership aptitudes can be learned, there will dependably be some individuals for whom those aptitudes come all the more effortlessly, much the same as math abilities come easily to specific people while language aptitudes come all the more easily to others.
Moreover, a joint human science and animal conduct examine on stickleback fish at the University of Cambridge demonstrated that the leadership position can’t be learned.
Stickleback fish are cluster creatures, and inside the gathering, bolder fish indicate diverse levels of strength; the bolder fish start a movement, for example, leaving hiding away to search, while the shyer fish follow.
All individuals, within breaking points, can be educated to take in more math and language abilities, yet the individuals who are weak in math or language will forever struggle more with the subject.
As I think on the topic that leadership is a completely innate quality it becomes more clearly, in that, it speaks to the fact of why we see that leaders are born and not developed. The great man leadership theory is one that speaks to the depth of born leaders which we experience their indelible mark they imprint not only on societies but in businesses as well. We learned that despite the opposing view that leadership can be learnt we see that those persons would not operate naturally with comfort. Hence, leadership is a complete innate quality and must be such.