• Bipolar Disorder
  • Therapy Center
  • When To See a Therapist
  • Types of Therapy
  • Best Online Therapy
  • Best Couples Therapy
  • Best Family Therapy
  • Managing Stress
  • Sleep and Dreaming
  • Understanding Emotions
  • Self-Improvement
  • Healthy Relationships
  • Student Resources
  • Personality Types
  • Verywell Mind Insights
  • 2023 Verywell Mind 25
  • Mental Health in the Classroom
  • Editorial Process
  • Meet Our Review Board
  • Crisis Support

What Is the Great Man Theory of Leadership?

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

great man essay

Amy Morin, LCSW, is a psychotherapist and international bestselling author. Her books, including "13 Things Mentally Strong People Don't Do," have been translated into more than 40 languages. Her TEDx talk,  "The Secret of Becoming Mentally Strong," is one of the most viewed talks of all time.

great man essay

  • Contemporary Views

The great man theory of leadership suggests that some individuals are born with characteristics that naturally make them skilled leaders. According to this view, leaders are born, not made. It also suggests that leaders assume authority when their leadership traits are needed.

Have you ever heard the phrase, "Great leaders are born, not made"? This quote sums up the basic tenet of the great man theory of leadership, which suggests that leadership capacity is innate. According to this theory, you're either a natural-born leader or not.

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.

Origins of the Great Man Theory of Leadership

The great man theory of leadership became popular during the 19th century. The mythology behind some of the world's most famous leaders, such as Abraham Lincoln, Julius Caesar, Mahatma Gandhi, and Alexander the Great, helped contribute to the notion that great leaders are born and not made.

Carlyle's Views on Leadership

In many examples, it seems as if the right man for the job seems to emerge almost magically to take control of a situation and lead a group of people into safety or success. Historian Thomas Carlyle also had a major influence on this theory of leadership. He stated, "The history of the world is but the biography of great men."

According to Carlyle, effective leaders are those gifted with divine inspiration and the right characteristics.

Early Leadership Reasearch

Some of the earliest research on leadership looked at people who were already successful leaders. These individuals often included aristocratic rulers who achieved their position through birthright. Because people of a lesser social status had fewer opportunities to practice and achieve leadership roles, it contributed to the idea that leadership is an inherent ability.

Even today, people often describe prominent leaders as having the right qualities or personality for the position. This implies that inherent characteristics are what make these people effective leaders.

Nature vs. Nurture

The great man theory of leadership is an example of using 'nature' to explain human behavior. The nature vs. nurture debate in psychology suggests that some skills are innate while others are acquired through learning and experience. In this case, great man theory suggests that nature plays the dominant role in leadership ability.

Examples of the Great Man Theory of Leadership

Some examples of famous historical figures who are often cited as examples of "great men" include:

  • Abraham Lincoln : The 16th president of the United States shepherded the Union through the Civil War and signed the Emancipation Proclamation. His leadership through this tumultuous period is often seen as an example of how great leaders seem to be born with specific skills that make them destined to lead.
  • Martin Luther King, Jr .: The civil rights leader was influential in the fight for civil rights during the 1960s. His leadership characteristics, including his persuasive abilities and charisma, are often cited as examples of how innate traits contribute to leadership ability.
  • Mahatma Gandhi : The spiritual and political leader who led the successful movement for India's independence from British rule advocated non-violent resistance. His resilience, wisdom, and vision made him an inspiration in the fight for freedom in India and across the globe.

Other leaders often used as examples of the great man theory of leadership include George Washington, Winston Churchill, and Nelson Mandela. Carlyle cited other figures in his book "Heroes and Hero-Worship," including Odin, Muhammad, William Shakespeare, Martin Luther, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Napoleon Bonaparte.  

Criticisms of the Great Man Theory of Leadership

The great man theory of leadership has been the subject of considerable debate and criticism. The following are some of the major critiques of this approach to explaining leadership.

Herbert Spencer's Response

Sociologist Herbert Spencer suggested that the leaders were products of the society in which they lived. In "The Study of Sociology," Spencer wrote:

"You must admit that the genesis of a great man depends on the long series of complex influences which has produced the race in which he appears, and the social state into which that race has slowly grown…Before he can remake his society, his society must make him."

Incomplete Account of Leadership

One of the critical problems with the Great Man theory of leadership is that not all people who possess the so-called natural leadership qualities become great leaders. If leadership were simply an inborn quality, all people who possess the ​ necessary traits would eventually find themselves in leadership roles.

Ignores Situational Factors

Research has instead found that leadership is a surprisingly complex subject and numerous factors influence how successful a particular leader may or may not be. Characteristics of the group, the leader in power, and the situation all interact to determine what type of leadership is needed and the effectiveness of this leadership.

Neglects Skill Development

The great man theory of leadership also fails to explain how leadership skills can be developed. It oversimplifies leadership and focuses on a very narrow set of skills that may not be effective or appropriate in every context or situation. Modern views emphasize that leadership abilities can be learned and honed with practice.

The psychologist William James defended Carlyle's ideas, suggesting that it is the innate characteristics of individuals that then shape their environments. The theory was critiqued by others in literary form, including in Leo Tolstoy's "War and Peace." 

Contemporary Views of the Great Man Theory

The great man theory was an influential early theory of leadership, but it has fallen out of favor in modern leadership research. Contemporary ideas take a more nuanced and complex view of the many factors that influence leadership, including the characteristics of group members and the role of the situation .

While the great man theory has been largely replaced by other ideas, elements of it are still relevant today. The theory does not fully explain or account for the many aspects of leadership, but the existence of specific traits that contribute to great leadership is still of interest to contemporary researchers.

Today, experts recognize that leadership is complex and that innate traits alone do not account for how and why some leaders are successful.

Halaychik CS. Leadership theories . In: Lessons in Library Leadership . Elsevier; 2016:1-56. doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-100565-1.00001-7

Spector BA. Carlyle, Freud, and the Great Man Theory more fully considered .  Leadership . 2015;12(2):250-260. doi:10.1177/1742715015571392.

Carlyle T. On Heroes, Hero-Worship and the Heroic in History. Fredrick A. Stokes & Brother, 1988.

Spencer, H. The Study of Sociology . Appleton, 1874.​

Yukl G. Effective leadership behavior: What we know and what questions need more attention .  Acad Manag Perspect . 2012;26(4):66-85. doi:10.5465/amp.2012.0088.

James W. Great men, great thoughts, and the environment . The Atlantic .

Kets de Vries M, Cheak-Baillargeon A. Leadership in organizations, sociology of . In: International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences . Elsevier; 2015:664-669. doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.73080-7

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Life is a journey, not a destination.

I T IS NATURAL to believe in great men. If the companions of our childhood should turn out to be heroes, and their condition regal it would not surprise us. All mythology opens with demigods, and the circumstance is high and poetic; that is, their genius is paramount. In the legends of the Gautama, the first men ate the earth and found it deliciously sweet.

Nature seems to exist for the excellent. The world is upheld by the veracity of good men: they make the earth wholesome. They who lived with them found life glad and nutritious. Life is sweet and tolerable only in our belief in such society; and, actually or ideally, we manage to live with superiors. We call our children and our lands by their names. Their names are wrought into the verbs of language, their works and effigies are in our houses, and every circumstance of the day recalls an anecdote of them.

The search after the great man is the dream of youth and the most serious occupation of manhood. We travel into foreign parts to find his works,- if possible, to get a glimpse of him. But we are put off with fortune instead. You say, the English are practical; the Germans are hospitable; in Valencia the climate is delicious; and in the hills of the Sacramento there is gold for the gathering. Yes, but I do not travel to find comfortable, rich and hospitable people, or clear sky, or ingots that cost too much. But if there were any magnet that would point to the countries and houses where are the persons who are intrinsically rich and powerful, I would sell all and buy it, and put myself on the road today.

The race goes with us on their credit. The knowledge that in the city is a man who invented the railroad, raises the credit of all the citizens. But enormous populations, if they be beggars, are disgusting, like moving cheese, like hills of ants or of fleas,- the more, the worse.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

If now we proceed to inquire into the kinds of service we derive from others, let us be warned of the danger of modern studies, and begin low enough. We must not contend against love, or deny the substantial existence of other people. I know not what would happen to us. We have social strengths. Our affection toward others creates a sort of vantage or purchase which nothing will supply. I can do that by another which I cannot do alone. I can say to you what I cannot first say to myself. Other men are lenses through which we read our own minds. Each man seeks those of different quality from his own, and such as are good of their kind; that is, he seeks other men, and the otherest. The stronger the nature, the more it is reactive. Let us have the quality pure. A little genius let us leave alone. A main difference betwixt men is, whether they attend their own affair or not. Man is that noble endogenous plant which grows, like the palm, from within outward. His own affair, though impossible to others, he can open with celerity and in sport. It is easy to sugar to be sweet and to nitre to be salt. We take a great deal of pains to waylay and entrap that which of itself will fall into our hands. I count him a great man who inhabits a higher sphere of thought, into which other men rise with labor and difficulty; he has but to open his eyes to see things in a true light and in large relations, whilst they must make painful corrections and keep a vigilant eye on many sources of error. His service to us is of like sort. It costs a beautiful person no exertion to paint her image on our eyes; yet how splendid is that benefit! It costs no more for a wise soul to convey his quality to other men. And every one can do his best thing easiest. "Peu de moyens, beaucoup d'effet." He is great who is what he is from nature, and who never reminds us of others.

But he must be related to us, and our life receive from him some promise of explanation. I cannot tell what I would know; but I have observed there are persons who, in their character and actions, answer questions which I have not skill to put. One man answers some question which none of his contemporaries put, and is isolated. The past and passing religions and philosophies answer some other questions. Certain men affect us as rich possibilities, but helpless to themselves and to their times,- the sport perhaps of some instinct that rules in the air;- they do not speak to our want. But the great are near; we know them at sight. They satisfy expectation and fall into place. What is good is effective, generative; makes for itself room, food and allies. A sound apple produces seed,- a hybrid does not. Is a man in his place, he is constructive, fertile, magnetic, inundating armies with his purpose, which is thus executed. The river makes its own shores, and each legitimate idea makes its own channels and welcome,- harvests for food, institutions for expression, weapons to fight with and disciples to explain it. The true artist has the planet for his pedestal; the adventurer, after years of strife, has nothing broader than his own shoes.

Our common discourse respects two kinds of use or service from superior men. Direct giving is agreeable to the early belief of men; direct giving of material or metaphysical aid, as of health, eternal youth, fine senses, arts of healing, magical power and prophecy. The boy believes there is a teacher who can sell him wisdom. Churches believe in imputed merit. But, in strictness, we are not much cognizant of direct serving. Man is endogenous, and education is his unfolding. The aid we have from others is mechanical compared with the discoveries of nature in us. What is thus learned is delightful in the doing, and the effect remains. Right ethics are central and go from the soul outward. Gift is contrary to the law of the universe. Serving others is serving us. I must absolve me to myself. "Mind thy affair," says the spirit:- "coxcomb, would you meddle with the skies, or with other people?" Indirect service is left. Men have a pictorial or representative quality, and serve us in the intellect. Behmen *(1) and Swedenborg saw that things were representative. Men are also representative; first, of things, and secondly, of ideas.

As plants convert the minerals into food for animals, so each man converts some raw material in nature to human use. The inventors of fire, electricity, magnetism, iron, lead, glass, linen, silk, cotton; the makers of tools; the inventor of decimal notation; the geometer; the engineer; the musician,- severally make an easy way for all, through unknown and impossible confusions. Each man is by secret liking connected with some district of nature, whose agent and interpreter he is; as Linnaeus, of plants; Huber, of bees; Fries, of lichens; Van Mons, of pears; Dalton, of atomic forms; Euclid, of lines; Newton, of fluxions.

A man is a centre for nature, running out threads of relation through every thing, fluid and solid, material and elemental. The earth rolls; every clod and stone comes to the meridian: so every organ, function, acid, crystal, grain of dust, has its relation to the brain. It waits long, but its turn comes. Each plant has its parasite, and each created thing its lover and poet. Justice has already been done to steam, to iron, to wood, to coal, to loadstone, to iodine, to corn and cotton; but how few materials are yet used by our arts The mass of creatures and of qualities are still hid and expectant. It would seem as if each waited, like the enchanted princess in fairy tales, for a destined human deliverer. Each must be disenchanted and walk forth to the day in human shape. In the history of discovery, the ripe and latent truth seems to have fashioned a brain for itself. A magnet must be made man in some Gilbert *(2) , or Swedenborg , or Oerstad, before the general mind can come to entertain its powers.

Nature always wear

If we limit ourselves to the first advantages, a sober grace adheres to the mineral and botanic kingdoms, which, in the highest moments, comes up as the charm of nature,- the glitter of the spar, the sureness of affinity, the veracity of angles. Light and darkness, heat and cold, hunger and food, sweet and sour, solid, liquid and gas, circle us round in a wreath of pleasures, and, by their agreeable quarrel, beguile the day of life. The eye repeats every day the first eulogy on things,- "He saw that they were good." We know where to find them; and these performers are relished all the more, after a little experience of the pretending races. We are entitled also to higher advantages. Something is wanting to science until it has been humanized. The table of logarithms is one thing, and its vital play in botany, music, optics and architecture, another. There are advancements to numbers, anatomy, architecture, astronomy, little suspected at first, when, by union with intellect and will, they ascend into the life and reappear in conversation, character and politics.

But this comes later. We speak now only of our acquaintance with them in their own sphere and the way in which they seem to fascinate and draw to them some genius who occupies himself with one thing, all his life long. The possibility of interpretation lies in the identity of the observer with the observed. Each material thing has its celestial side; has its translation, through humanity, into the spiritual and necessary sphere where it plays a part as indestructible as any other. And to these, their ends, all things continually ascend. The gases gather to the solid firmament: the chemic lump arrives at the plant, and grows; arrives at the quadruped, and walks; arrives at the man, and thinks. But also the constituency determines the vote of the representative. He is not only representative, but participant. Like can only be known by like. The reason why he knows about them is that he is of them; he has just come out of nature, or from being a part of that thing. Animated chlorine knows of chlorine, and incarnate zinc, of zinc. Their quality makes his career; and he can variously publish their virtues, because they compose him. Man, made of the dust of the world, does not forget his origin; and all that is yet inanimate will one day speak and reason. Unpublished nature will have its whole secret told. Shall we say that quartz mountains will pulverize into innumerable Werners, Von Buchs and Beaumonts, and the laboratory of the atmosphere holds in solution I know not what Berzeliuses and Davys?

Thus we sit by the fire and take hold on the poles of the earth. This quasi omnipresence supplies the imbecility of our condition. In one of those celestial days when heaven and earth meet and adorn each other, it seems a poverty that we can only spend it once: we wish for a thousand heads, a thousand bodies, that we might celebrate its immense beauty in many ways and places. Is this fancy? Well, in good faith, we are multiplied by our proxies. How easily we adopt their labors! Every ship that comes to America got its chart from Columbus. Every novel is a debtor to Homer. Every carpenter who shaves with a fore-plane borrows the genius of a forgotten inventor. Life is girt all round with a zodiac of sciences, the contributions of men who have perished to add their point of light to our sky. Engineer, broker, jurist, physician, moralist, theologian, and every man, inasmuch as he has any science,- is a definer and map-maker of the latitudes and longitudes of our condition. These roadmakers on every hand enrich us. We must extend the area of life and multiply our relations. We are as much gainers by finding a new property in the old earth as by acquiring a new planet.

We are too passive in the reception of these material or semi-material aids. We must not be sacks and stomachs. To ascend one step,- we are better served through our sympathy. Activity is contagious. Looking where others look, and conversing with the same things, we catch the charm which lured them. Napoleon said, "You must not fight too often with one enemy, or you will teach him all your art of war." Talk much with any man of vigorous mind, and we acquire very fast the habit of looking at things in the same light, and on each occurrence we anticipate his thought.

Men are helpful through the intellect and the affections. Other help I find a false appearance. If you affect to give me bread and fire, I perceive that I pay for it the full price, and at last it leaves me as it found me, neither better nor worse: but all mental and moral force is a positive good. It goes out from you, whether you will or not, and profits me whom you never thought of. I cannot even hear of personal vigor of any kind, great power of performance, without fresh resolution. We are emulous of all that man can do. Cecil's saying of Sir Walter Raleigh, "I know that he can toil terribly," is an electric touch. So are Clarendon's portraits,- of Hampden, "who was of an industry and vigilance not to be tired out or wearied by the most laborious, and of parts not to be imposed on by the most subtle and sharp, and of a personal courage equal to his best parts";- of Falkland, "who was so severe an adorer of truth, that he could as easily have given himself leave to steal, as to dissemble." We cannot read Plutarch without a tingling of the blood; and I accept the saying of the Chinese Mencius: "A sage is the instructor of a hundred ages. When the manners of Loo are heard of, the stupid become intelligent, and the wavering, determined."

This is the moral of biography; yet it is hard for departed men to touch the quick like our own companions, whose names may not last as long. What is he whom I never think of? Whilst in every solitude are those who succor our genius and stimulate us in wonderful manners. There is a power in love to divine another's destiny better than that other can, and, by heroic encouragements, hold him to his task. What has friendship so signal as its sublime attraction to whatever virtue is in us? We will never more think cheaply of ourselves, or of life. We are piqued to some purpose, and the industry of the diggers on the railroad will not again shame us.

Under this head too falls that homage, very pure as I think, which all ranks pay to the hero of the day, from Coriolanus and Gracchus down to Pitt, Lafayette, Wellington, Webster, Lamartine. Hear the shouts in the street! The people cannot see him enough. They delight in a man. Here is a head and a trunk! What a front! what eyes! Atlantean shoulders, and the whole carriage heroic, with equal inward force to guide the great machine! This pleasure of full expression to that which, in their private experience, is usually cramped and obstructed, runs also much higher, and is the secret of the reader's joy in literary genius. Nothing is kept back. There is fire enough to fuse the mountain of ore. Shakespeare's principal merit may be conveyed in saying that he of all men best understands the English language, and can say what he will. Yet these unchoked channels and floodgates of expression are only health or fortunate constitution. Shakespeare's name suggests other and purely intellectual benefits.

Led by your dreams - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Senates and sovereigns have no compliment, with their medals, swords and armorial coats, like the addressing to a human being thoughts out of a certain height, and presupposing his intelligence. This honor, which is possible in personal intercourse scarcely twice in a lifetime, genius perpetually pays; contented if now and then in a century the proffer is accepted. The indicators of the values of matter are degraded to a sort of cooks and confectioners, on the appearance of the indicators of ideas. Genius is the naturalist or geographer of the supersensible regions, and draws their map; and, by acquainting us with new fields of activity, cools our affection for the old. These are at once accepted as the reality, of which the world we have conversed with is the show.

We go to the gymnasium and the swimming-school to see the power and beauty of the body; there is the like pleasure and a higher benefit from witnessing intellectual feats of all kinds; as feats of memory, of mathematical combination, great power of abstraction, the transmutings of the imagination, even versatility and concentration,- as these acts expose the invisible organs and members of the mind, which respond, member for member, to the parts of the body. For we thus enter a new gymnasium, and learn to choose men by their truest marks, taught, with Plato, "to choose those who can, without aid from the eyes or any other sense, proceed to truth and to being." Foremost among these activities are the summersaults, spells and resurrections wrought by the imagination. When this wakes, a man seems to multiply ten times or a thousand times his force. It opens the delicious sense of indeterminate size and inspires an audacious mental habit. We are as elastic as the gas of gunpowder, and a sentence in a book, or a word dropped in conversation, sets free our fancy, and instantly our heads are bathed with galaxies, and our feet tread the floor of the Pit. And this benefit is real because we are entitled to these enlargements, and once having passed the bounds shall never again be quite the miserable pedants we were.

The high functions of the intellect are so allied that some imaginative power usually appears in all eminent minds, even in arithmeticians of the first class, but especially in meditative men of an intuitive habit of thought. This class serve us, so that they have the perception of identity and the perception of reaction. The eyes of Plato, Shakespeare, Swedenborg , Goethe , never shut on either of these laws. The perception of these laws is a kind of metre of the mind. Little minds are little through failure to see them.

Even these feasts have their surfeit. Our delight in reason degenerates into idolatry of the herald. Especially when a mind of powerful method has instructed men, we find the examples of oppression. The dominion of Aristotle, the Ptolemaic astronomy, the credit of Luther, of Bacon, of Locke;- in religion the history of hierarchies, of saints, and the sects which have taken the name of each founder, are in point. Alas! every man is such a victim. The imbecility of men is always inviting the impudence of power. It is the delight of vulgar talent to dazzle and to blind the beholder. But true genius seeks to defend us from itself. True genius will not impoverish, but will liberate, and add new senses. If a wise man should appear in our village he would create, in those who conversed with him, a new consciousness of wealth, by opening their eyes to unobserved advantages; he would establish a sense of immovable equality, calm us with assurances that we could not be cheated; as every one would discern the checks and guaranties of condition. The rich would see their mistakes and poverty, the poor their escapes and their resources.

But nature brings all this about in due time. Rotation is her remedy. The soul is impatient of masters and eager for change. Housekeepers say of a domestic who has been valuable, "She had lived with me long enough." We are tendencies, or rather, symptoms, and none of us complete. We touch and go, and sip the foam of many lives. Rotation is the law of nature. When nature removes a great man, people explore the horizon for a successor; but none comes, and none will. His class is extinguished with him. In some other and quite different field the next man will appear; not Jefferson, not Franklin, but now a great salesman, then a road-contractor, then a student of fishes, then a buffalo-hunting explorer, or a semi-savage Western general. Thus we make a stand against our rougher masters; but against the best there is a finer remedy. The power which they communicate is not theirs. When we are exalted by ideas, we do not owe this to Plato, but to the idea, to which also Plato was debtor.

I must not forget that we have a special debt to a single class. Life is a scale of degrees. Between rank and rank of our great men are wide intervals. Mankind have in all ages attached themselves to a few persons who either by the quality of that idea they embodied or by the largeness of their reception were entitled to the position of leaders and law-givers. These teach us the qualities of primary nature,- admit us to the constitution of things. We swim, day by day, on a river of delusions and are effectually amused with houses and towns in the air, of which the men about us are dupes. But life is a sincerity. In lucid intervals we say, "Let there be an entrance opened for me into realities; *(3) I have worn the fool's cap too long." We will know the meaning of our economies and politics. Give us the cipher, and if persons and things are scores of a celestial music, let us read off the strains. We have been cheated of our reason; yet there have been sane men, who enjoyed a rich and related existence. What they know, they know for us. With each new mind, a new secret of nature transpires; nor can the Bible be closed until the last great man is born. These men correct the delirium of the animal spirits, make us considerate and engage us to new aims and powers. The veneration of mankind selects these for the highest place. Witness the multitude of statues, pictures and memorials which recall their genius in every city, village, house and ship:-

"Ever their phantoms arise before us, Our loftier brothers, but one in blood; At bed and table they lord it o'er us With looks of beauty and words of good."

How to illustrate the distinctive benefit of ideas, the service rendered by those who introduce moral truths into the general mind?- I am plagued, in all my living, with a perpetual tariff of prices. If I work in my garden and prune an apple-tree, I am well enough entertained, and could continue indefinitely in the like occupation. But it comes to mind that a day is gone, and I have got this precious nothing done. I go to Boston or New York and run up and down on my affairs: they are sped, but so is the day. I am vexed by the recollection of this price I have paid for a trifling advantage. I remember the peau d'ane on which whoso sat should have his desire, but a piece of the skin was gone for every wish. I go to a convention of philanthropists. Do what I can, I cannot keep my eyes off the clock. But if there should appear in the company some gentle soul who knows little of persons or parties, of Carolina or Cuba, but who announces a law that disposes these particulars, and so certifies me of the equity which checkmates every false player, bankrupts every self-seeker, and apprises me of my independence on any conditions of country, or time, or human body,- that man liberates me; I forget the clock. I pass out of the sore relation to persons. I am healed of my hurts. I am made immortal by apprehending my possession of incorruptible goods. Here is great competition of rich and poor. We live in a market, where is only so much wheat, or wool, or land; and if I have so much more, every other must have so much less. I seem to have no good without breach of good manners. Nobody is glad in the gladness of another, and our system is one of war, of an injurious superiority. Every child of the Saxon race is educated to wish to be first. It is our system; and a man comes to measure his greatness by the regrets, envies and hatreds of his competitors. But in these new fields there is room: here are no self-esteems, no exclusions.

Adopt the pace of nature: her secret is patience.

I admire great men of all classes, those who stand for facts, and for thoughts; I like rough and smooth, "Scourges of God," and "Darlings of the human race." I like the first Caesar; and Charles V, of Spain; and Charles XII, of Sweden; Richard Plantagenet; and Bonaparte, in France. I applaud a sufficient man, an officer equal to his office; captains, ministers, senators. I like a master standing firm on legs of iron, wellborn, rich, handsome, eloquent, loaded with advantages, drawing all men by fascination into tributaries and supporters of his power. Sword and staff, or talents sword-like or staff-like, carry on the work of the world. But I find him greater when he can abolish himself and all heroes, by letting in this element of reason, irrespective of persons, this subtilizer and irresistible upward force, into our thought, destroying individualism; the power so great that the potentate is nothing. Then he is a monarch who gives a constitution to his people; a pontiff who preaches the equality of souls and releases his servants from their barbarous homages; an emperor who can spare his empire.

But I intended to specify, with a little minuteness, two or three points of service. Nature never spares the opium or nepenthe, but wherever she mars her creature with some deformity or defect, lays her poppies plentifully on the bruise, and the sufferer goes joyfully through life, ignorant of the ruin and incapable of seeing it, though all the world point their finger at it every day. The worthless and offensive members of society, whose existence is a social pest, invariably think themselves the most ill-used people alive, and never get over their astonishment at the ingratitude and selfishness of their contemporaries. Our globe discovers its hidden virtues, not only in heroes and archangels, but in gossips and nurses. Is it not a rare contrivance that lodged the due inertia in every creature, the conserving, resisting energy, the anger at being waked or changed? Altogether independent of the intellectual force in each is the pride of opinion, the security that we are right. Not the feeblest grandame, not a mowing idiot, but uses what spark of perception and faculty is left, to chuckle and triumph in his or her opinion over the absurdities of all the rest. Difference from me is the measure of absurdity. Not one has a misgiving of being wrong. Was it not a bright thought that made things cohere with this bitumen, fastest of cements? But, in the midst of this chuckle of self-gratulation, some figure goes by which Thersites too can love and admire. This is he that should marshal us the way we were going. There is no end to his aid. Without Plato we should almost lose our faith in the possibility of a reasonable book. We seem to want but one, but we want one. We love to associate with heroic persons, since our receptivity is unlimited; and, with the great, our thoughts and manners easily become great. We are all wise in capacity, though so few in energy. There needs but one wise man in a company and all are wise, so rapid is the contagion.

Great men are thus a collyrium to clear our eyes from egotism and enable us to see other people and their works. But there are vices and follies incident to whole populations and ages. Men resemble their contemporaries even more than their progenitors. It is observed in old couples, or in persons who have been housemates for a course of years, that they grow like, and if they should live long enough we should not be able to know them apart. Nature abhors these complaisances which threaten to melt the world into a lump, and hastens to break up such maudlin agglutinations. The like assimilation goes on between men of one town, of one sect, of one political party; and the ideas of the time are in the air, and infect all who breathe it. Viewed from any high point, this city of New York, yonder city of London, the Western civilization, would seem a bundle of insanities. We keep each other in countenance and exasperate by emulation the frenzy of the time. The shield against the stingings of conscience is the universal practice, or our contemporaries. Again, it is very easy to be as wise and good as your companions. We learn of our contemporaries what they know without effort, and almost through the pores of the skin. We catch it by sympathy, or as a wife arrives at the intellectual and moral elevations of her husband. But we stop where they stop. Very hardly can we take another step. The great, or such as hold of nature and transcend fashions by their fidelity to universal ideas, are saviors from these federal errors, *(4) and defend us from our contemporaries. They are the exceptions which we want, where all grows like. A foreign greatness is the antidote for cabalism.

Thus we feed on genius, and refresh ourselves from too much conversation with our mates, and exult in the depth of nature in that direction in which he leads us. What indemnification is one great man for populations of pigmies! Every mother wishes one son a genius, though all the rest should be mediocre. But a new danger appears in the excess of influence of the great man. His attractions warp us from our place. We have become underlings and intellectual suicides. Ah! yonder in the horizon is our help;- other great men, new qualities, counterweights and checks on each other. We cloy of the honey of each peculiar greatness. Every hero becomes a bore at last. Perhaps Voltaire was not bad-hearted, yet he said of the good Jesus, even, "I pray you, let me never hear that man's name again." They cry up the virtues of George Washington,- "Damn George Washington!" is the poor Jacobin's whole speech and confutation. But it is human nature's indispensable defence. The centripetence augments the centrifugence. We balance one man with his opposite, and the health of the state depends on the see-saw.

There is however a speedy limit to the use of heroes. Every genius is defended from approach by quantities of unavailableness. They are very attractive, and seem at a distance our own: but we are hindered on all sides from approach. The more we are drawn, the more we are repelled. There is something not solid in the good that is done for us. The best discovery the discoverer makes for himself. It has something unreal for his companion until he too has substantiated it. It seems as if the Deity dressed each soul which he sends into nature in certain virtues and powers not communicable to other men, and sending it to perform one more turn through the circle of beings, wrote, "Not transferable" and "Good for this trip only," on these garments of the soul. There is somewhat deceptive about the intercourse of minds. The boundaries are invisible, but they are never crossed. There is such good will to impart, and such good will to receive, that each threatens to become the other; but the law of individuality collects its secret strength: you are you, and I am I, and so we remain.

For nature wishes every thing to remain itself; and whilst every individual strives to grow and exclude and to exclude and grow, to the extremities of the universe, and to impose the law of its being on every other creature, Nature steadily aims to protect each against every other. Each is self-defended. Nothing is more marked than the power by which individuals are guarded from individuals, in a world where every benefactor becomes so easily a malefactor only by continuation of his activity into places where it is not due; where children seem so much at the mercy of their foolish parents, and where almost all men are too social and interfering. We rightly speak of the guardian angels of children. How superior in their security from infusions of evil persons, from vulgarity and second thought! They shed their own abundant beauty on the objects they behold. Therefore they are not at the mercy of such poor educators as we adults. If we huff and chide them they soon come not to mind it and get a self-reliance ; and if we indulge them to folly, they learn the limitation elsewhere.

We need not fear excessive influence. A more generous trust is permitted. Serve the great. Stick at no humiliation. Grudge no office thou canst render. Be the limb of their body, the breath of their mouth. Compromise thy egotism. Who cares for that, so thou gain aught wider and nobler? Never mind the taunt of Boswellism: the devotion may easily be greater than the wretched pride which is guarding its own skirts. Be another: not thyself, but a Platonist; not a soul, but a Christian; not a naturalist, but a Cartesian; not a poet, but a Shakespearean. In vain, the wheels of tendency will not stop, nor will all the forces of inertia, fear, or of love itself hold thee there. On, and forever onward! The microscope observes a monad or wheel-insect among the infusories circulating in water. Presently a dot appears on the animal, which enlarges to a slit, and it becomes two perfect animals. The ever-proceeding detachment appears not less in all thought and in society. Children think they cannot live without their parents. But, long before they are aware of it, the black dot has appeared and the detachment taken place. Any accident will now reveal to them their independence.

But great men:- the word is injurious. Is there caste? Is there fate? What becomes of the promise to virtue? The thoughtful youth laments the superfoetation of nature. "Generous and handsome," he says, "is your hero; but look at yonder poor Paddy, whose country is his wheelbarrow; look at his whole nation of Paddies." Why are the masses, from the dawn of history down, food for knives and powder? The idea dignifies a few leaders, who have sentiment, opinion, love, self-devotion; and they make war and death sacred;- but what for the wretches whom they hire and kill? The cheapness of man is every day's tragedy. It is as real a loss that others should be as low as that we should be low; for we must have society.

Is it a reply to these suggestions to say, Society is a Pestalozzian school: all are teachers and pupils in turn? We are equally served by receiving and by imparting. Men who know the same things are not long the best company for each other. But bring to each an intelligent person of another experience, and it is as if you let off water from a lake by cutting a lower basin. It seems a mechanical advantage, and great benefit it is to each speaker, as he can now paint out his thought to himself. We pass very fast, in our personal moods, from dignity to dependence. And if any appear never to assume the chair, but always to stand and serve, it is because we do not see the company in a sufficiently long period for the whole rotation of parts to come about. As to what we call the masses, and common men,- there are no common men. All men are at last of a size; and true art is only possible on the conviction that every talent has its apotheosis somewhere. Fair play and an open field and freshest laurels to all who have won them! But heaven reserves an equal scope for every creature. Each is uneasy until he has produced his private ray unto the concave sphere and beheld his talent also in its last nobility and exaltation.

The heroes of the hour are relatively great; of a faster growth; or they are such in whom, at the moment of success, a quality is ripe which is then in request. Other days will demand other qualities. Some rays escape the common observer, and want a finely adapted eye. Ask the great man if there be none greater. His companions are; and not the less great but the more that society cannot see them. Nature never sends a great man into the planet without confiding the secret to another soul.

Laugh as much you breath and love as long as you live

One gracious fact emerges from these studies,- that there is true ascension in our love. The reputations of the nineteenth century will one day be quoted to prove its barbarism. The genius of humanity is the real subject whose biography is written in our annals. We must infer much, and supply many chasms in the record. The history of the universe is symptomatic, and life is mnemonical. No man, in all the procession of famous men, is reason or illumination or that essence we were looking for; but is an exhibition, in some quarter, of new possibilities. Could we one day complete the immense figure which these flagrant *(5) points compose! The study of many individuals leads us to an elemental region wherein the individual is lost, or wherein all touch by their summits. Thought and feeling that break out there cannot be impounded by any fence of personality. This is the key to the power of the greatest men,- their spirit diffuses itself. A new quality of mind travels by night and by day, in concentric circles from its origin, and publishes itself by unknown methods: the union of all minds appears intimate; what gets admission to one, cannot be kept out of any other; the smallest acquisition of truth or of energy, in any quarter, is so much good to the commonwealth of souls. If the disparities of talent and position vanish when the individuals are seen in the duration which is necessary to complete the career of each, even more swiftly the seeming injustice disappears when we ascend to the central identity of all the individuals, and know that they are made of the substance which ordaineth and doeth.

The genius of humanity is the right point of view of history. The qualities abide; the men who exhibit them have now more, now less, and pass away; the qualities remain on another brow. No experience is more familiar. Once you saw phoenixes: they are gone; the world is not therefore disenchanted. The vessels on which you read sacred emblems turn out to be common pottery; but the sense of the pictures is sacred, and you may still read them transferred to the walls of the world. For a time our teachers serve us personally, as metres or milestones of progress. Once they were angels of knowledge and their figures touched the sky. Then we drew near, saw their means, culture and limits; and they yielded their place to other geniuses. Happy, if a few names remain so high that we have not been able to read them nearer, and age and comparison have not robbed them of a ray. But at last we shall cease to look in men for completeness, and shall content ourselves with their social and delegated quality. All that respects the individual is temporary and prospective, like the individual himself, who is ascending out of his limits into a catholic existence. We have never come at the true and best benefit of any genius so long as we believe him an original force. In the moment when he ceases to help us as a cause, he begins to help us more as an effect. Then he appears as an exponent of a vaster mind and will. The opaque self becomes transparent with the light of the First Cause.

Yet, within the limits of human education and agency, we may say great men exist that there may be greater men. The destiny of organized nature is amelioration, and who can tell its limits? It is for man to tame the chaos; on every side, whilst he lives, to scatter the seeds of science and of song, that climate, corn, animals, men, may be milder, and the germs of love and benefit may be multiplied. *(6)

Ralph Waldo Emerson Self Reliance

Ralph Waldo Emerson left the ministry to pursue a career in writing and public speaking. Emerson became one of America's best known and best-loved 19th-century figures. More About Emerson

Quick Links

Self-reliance.

  • Address at Divinity College
  • English Traits
  • Representative Men
  • The American Scholar
  • The Conduct of Life
  • Essays: First Series
  • Essays: Second Series
  • Nature: Addresses/Lectures
  • Lectures / Biographies
  • Letters and Social Aims

Early Emerson Poems

  • Uncollected Prose
  • Government of Children

Emerson Quotes

"Every man has his own courage, and is betrayed because he seeks in himself the courage of other persons." – Ralph Waldo Emerson

“Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

“The purpose of life is not to be happy. It is to be useful, to be honorable, to be compassionate, to have it make some difference that you have lived and lived well.”  – Ralph Waldo Emerson

Emerson's Essays

Research the collective works of Ralph Waldo Emerson. Read More Essay

Emerson's most famous work that can truly change your life. Check it out

America's best known and best-loved poems. More Poems

The Great Man Theory of Leadership Explained

"Great Man Theory" in large white title text with the subtitle "great leaders: natural ability or learned behavior?" on a dark blue background.

Last Updated January 8, 2015

What makes a man or woman rise above others to assume the mantle of leadership? Why are some more drawn to the burdens of the job than others? What set history’s great leaders apart from their contemporaries and enabled them to navigate often tumultuous waters, defying the odds to achieve their goals on behalf of themselves and their people Some theorists have argued that these questions are answered by the Great Man Theory of Leadership.

What is the Great Man Theory of Leadership?

The Great Man Theory of Leadership espouses that great leaders are born, not made. These individuals come into the world possessing certain characteristics and traits not found in all people. These abilities enable them to lead while shaping the very pages of history. Under great man theory, prominent leaders throughout the course of history were born to lead and deserved to do so as a result of their natural abilities and talents.

The Great Man Theory of Leadership centers on two main assumptions:

  • Great leaders are born possessing certain traits that enable them to rise and lead.
  • Great leaders can arise when the need for them is great.

Those who support the great man theory say leaders are born with the attributes necessary to set them apart from those around them and that these traits enable them to assume roles of authority and power. Great leaders are heroes, according to this theory, that accomplish great feats against the odds on behalf of followers. The Great Man Theory of Leadership essentially implies that those in power deserve to lead because of the traits they’ve been endowed with.

History of the Great Man Theory

The Great Man Theory was established in the 19 th century by proponents such as historian Thomas Carlyle, who put forth the idea that the world’s history is nothing more than a collection of biographies belonging to great men.

Carlyle and contemporaries gained recognition for the theory in their time, as evidenced by such works as the Encyclopedia Britannica Eleventh Edition , published in 1911. This encyclopedia told the story of world history through biographies of the great men that led during different historical periods. Not everyone in Carlyle’s time, however, agreed with the theory’s assumptions.

Opposing Views to the Great Man Theory

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 has to 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-20 th century. As the behavioral 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 molded 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 of Leadership and the idea that men and women leaders are born, not made.

great man essay

Related Articles

great man essay

Take the next step in your career with a program guide!

By completing this form and clicking the button below, I consent to receiving calls, text messages and/or emails from BISK, its client institutions, and their representatives regarding educational services and programs. I understand calls and texts may be directed to the number I provide using automatic dialing technology. I understand that this consent is not required to purchase goods or services. If you would like more information relating to how we may use your data, please review our privacy policy .

helpful professor logo

Great Man Theory of Leadership: Examples, Pros and Cons

Great Man Theory of Leadership definition and example, explained below

The Great Man Theory of leadership postulates that great leaders are born, not made. Some people are just born with the personality characteristics that predispose them to have great leadership skills .

According to this theory, it is not possible to teach people how to become great leaders.

Because they are born with a very specific personality profile, they emerge in society at key moments in history. During these times their in-born traits allow them to excel and accomplish greatness.

Examples of leaders in history and modern times that fit the definition of the Great Man Theory include Napoleon Bonaparte, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Abraham Lincoln.

Definition of Great Man Theory of Leadership

The study of great leaders in history focused on both physical and personality traits. For instance, physical characteristics such as height and appearance were often included in a descriptive taxonomy of “great man” traits.

Personality factors were also identified as traits of great leaders, which included self-confidence, extraversion, charm, courage, aggressiveness and energy level.

This view was strongly supported by the 1911 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which provided an account of history as told through the biographies of great men that held leadership positions during significant times in history.

In that era, few women were allowed in the military or positions of political power, and were therefore excluded from consideration.

Examples of Great Man Theory of Leadership

1. napoleon bonaparte   .

Napoleon Bonaparte was a French military leader who is famous for conquering most of Europe in the early 19th century.

Napoleon’s conquests led to a swift rise in his political status, which he parlayed into a coup, seizing political power in 1799 and crowning himself emperor in 1804.

Napoleon was shrewd and ambitious, and a great military strategist. He successfully waged war against various European nations and expanded his empire.

Although most famous for his military accomplishments, many of his other initiatives are also noteworthy. For instance, he instituted many reforms in banking and education, and was a strong supporter of the sciences and arts.

One of his most meaningful and enduring accomplishments was his role in reshaping the French legal system. An effort that resulted in significant reform and remains the foundation of French civil law today.

Napoleon Bonaparte fits the profile of a Great Man because of these accomplishments, but is also widely known as an autocratic leader due to his strongman approach.

2. Abraham Lincoln  

Abraham Lincoln appears on the list of “great men” put together by many writers because of several very significant accomplishments. First, he was the 16th president of the United States.

His political rise was mostly due to his moderate views on several core controversies impacting the country at the time. One reason he makes the Great Man list is because he preserved the Union during the Civil War.

This feat alone was remarkable and without it, no one knows how the history of the world would have unfolded. His second most notable accomplishment was the emancipation of slaves in 1863.

Throughout his presidency, he was steadfast in his principles and withstood defiance and opposition from all sides, including his generals, his Cabinet, his party and a majority of the American people.

3. Martin Luther King, Jr.   

Martin Luther King, Jr. played a prominent role in the American civil rights movement in the 1960s.

MLK grew up in a relatively well-off family in the Deep South in an era of strict segregation. However, one summer King worked in the North and was astounded at how well Blacks and Whites got along and ate together freely. It was a summer that had a profound impact on his understanding of race relations.

His most famous moment in history is the “ I Have a Dream ” speech he delivered in Washington D.C. in 1963. King was a strong proponent of nonviolence and peaceful protest. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964 and was at that time the youngest person to receive the award.

Martin Luther King, Jr. possessed many of the key personality characteristics identified in the Great Man Theory, including being charismatic, persuasive, confident and courageous .

4. Nelson Mandela  

Nelson Mandela fought against racism his entire life. He faced enemies far more powerful than himself as an individual man.

However, his ideals and his determination allowed him to prevail against incredible odds.

He worked tirelessly to end apartheid in South Africa in the 20 th century. In 1993, he won the Nobel Peace Prize along with F. W. de Klerk, who was South Africa’s president at the time.

Even though he spent nearly 30 years in jail, he persevered and eventually became the first democratically elected president of South Africa.

He demonstrated many of the personality traits identified by the Great Man Theory, including being determined, persuasive, courageous, and self-confident.

See Also: Democratic Leadership Model

5. Mahatma Gandhi

Mahatma Gandhi was the driving force behind at least three revolutions. He worked tirelessly to end racism, violence against the oppressed, and colonial rule of India.

Gandhi is an example of an amazing individual that possessed some of the most admirable attributes of a Great Man. He was focused and determined; resilient and strong, especially in the face of seemingly insurmountable opposition.

He spoke with a level of wisdom and eloquence that inspired millions of people to take action, even at great personal expense. Even though he endured physical assaults and imprisonment, he refused to accept defeat. He has gone down in history as one of the greatest and most visionary leaders of mankind.

Great Man Theory of Leadership Strengths and Weaknesses

Pro: described personality characteristics.

One value of the Great Man theory of leadership is the early attempt to identify key personality characteristics and traits of great leaders.

Although different authors produced slightly different descriptions, there are several common denominators, such as: charisma, persuasiveness, courage, and self-confidence. This psychological perspective on leadership is one that nearly all modern theories of leadership rely on today.

Pro: Considered Physical Characteristics

A lot of criticism of the Great Man Theory actually points to the consideration of physical characteristics of leaders, such as height.

However, this criticism may not be as valid as it once was in light of more recent research. For example, research reviewed by Vugt and Grabo (2015), shows that:

“ People prefer leaders with dominant, masculine-looking faces in times of war and conflict, yet they prefer leaders with more trustworthy, feminine faces in peacetime. In addition, leaders with older-looking faces are preferred in traditional knowledge domains, whereas younger-looking leaders are preferred for new challenges “ (p. 484).

Pro: Classification of Leadership Domains

The Great Man Theory, as proposed by Thomas Carlye, offered a taxonomy of leadership types. These types were labeled “Hero Classes” and included: Divine, Prophet, Poet, Priest, King, or Man of Letters.

For example, the Divine Hero could be found in Greek or Norse mythology, such as Odin or Thor.

The formal study of leadership was in its infancy and this first step in creating a classification framework for different types of leadership is a strength of the theory which shows an understanding that not all leaders are the same.

Pro: Propelled the Study of Leadership

The Great Man Theory of leadership and the 1911 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica helped bring the formal study of the subject into the scholarly domain.

It helped popularize the educated public’s understanding of leadership styles and sparked further interest and debate on the matter. No subject matter can advance without considerable discussion and analysis, and so perhaps the greatest value of the Great Man Theory is that it gave birth to a much more thorough and eventually scientific study of leadership.

Con: Not Supported by Science   

One very common criticism of the Great Man Theory is that it was postulated without being supported by any science at all.

This is true, there is no denying that. However, psychological science was practically non-existent in the 1800s. There were no such things as personality inventories or observational study which modern researchers rely on today to study leadership scientifically.

In a way, it is a bit unfair to criticize a theory for not using scientific methodologies that did not exist at the time.  

Con: Leadership can’t be Taught     

The fundamental premise of the Great Man Theory is that leaders are born. This means there is no way for the common man to become a great leader; quite the discouraging blow to the infinite number of leadership training programs that exist in the world today.

Corporations spend millions of dollars every year trying to develop the leadership potential of their employees, but according to the Great Man Theory, that is all a waste of time and money.

Fortunately, there are many examples of great leaders today that will confess to not possessing great skills early in their careers. Many of them had to evolve into greatness, mostly as a result of professional and personal failures. Therefore, it would seem that great leadership can be acquired by those not gifted with it at birth.

Con: Fails to Consider the Role of the Environment

Many leaders that are considered great today were shaped by significant and sometimes traumatic events in their lives.

Roosevelt became paralyzed from the waist down and married a woman who showed him the unsightly state of the poor in America. This helped open his eyes and heart to their plight. Martin Luther King, Jr. was influenced by his family’s devotion to the church and the summer he spent in the North where he was astonished at the freedom Blacks enjoyed.

There is no room in the Great Man Theory for these environmental factors that helped shape the personalities and personal philosophies of many great leaders.

Con: Gender Exclusivity    

The name of the theory itself says it all. The Great Man Theory only accepts one gender as being able to possess leadership skills.

It would seem that in addition to being born with certain personality traits that lead to greatness, it is also necessary to be born of a specific gender as well. Although to be fair, the 1800s was a time in history in which society was not as enlightened as it is in the 21 st century.

A modern version of the Great Man Theory could be renamed to reflect the possibility of either gender being capable of great leadership, perhaps: the Great Human Theory.

More Leadership Models

  • Contingency Theory of Leadership
  • Full Range Leadership Model
  • Pacesetting Leadership Model

The Great Man Theory of leadership was one of the first attempts to identify the personality traits of leadership. Great leaders were described as possessing courage , charisma, self-confidence, and aggressiveness.

Although it was originally proposed in the 1800s, it is often criticized as lacking a scientific foundation, not being gender inclusive, and not taking in to account environmental factors that often shape the personality and philosophy of those identified as great leaders.

These shortcomings are substantial and are a major reason the theory is less relevant in the 21 st century. However, the theory generated much discussion and helped propel the subject of leadership to become a formal object of scientific study.  

Antonakis, J., & Eubanks, D. L. (2017). Looking leadership in the face.  Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26 (3), 270-275. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417705888

Carlyle T. On Heroes, Hero-worship and the heroic in history. Fredrick A. Stokes & Brother, 1988.

Conger, J. A. & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12 , 637-647.

Little, A. C. (2014). Facial appearance and leader choice in different contexts: Evidence for task contingent selection based on implicit and learned face-behaviour/face-ability associations, The Leadership Quarterly, 25 (5), 865-874. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.04.002 .

Vugt, M. V., & Grabo, A. E. (2015). The many faces of leadership: An evolutionary-psychology approach.  Current Directions in Psychological Science ,  24 (6), 484-489. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415601971

Dave

Dave Cornell (PhD)

Dr. Cornell has worked in education for more than 20 years. His work has involved designing teacher certification for Trinity College in London and in-service training for state governments in the United States. He has trained kindergarten teachers in 8 countries and helped businessmen and women open baby centers and kindergartens in 3 countries.

  • Dave Cornell (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/dave-cornell-phd/ 25 Positive Punishment Examples
  • Dave Cornell (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/dave-cornell-phd/ 25 Dissociation Examples (Psychology)
  • Dave Cornell (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/dave-cornell-phd/ 15 Zone of Proximal Development Examples
  • Dave Cornell (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/dave-cornell-phd/ Perception Checking: 15 Examples and Definition

Chris

Chris Drew (PhD)

This article was peer-reviewed and edited by Chris Drew (PhD). The review process on Helpful Professor involves having a PhD level expert fact check, edit, and contribute to articles. Reviewers ensure all content reflects expert academic consensus and is backed up with reference to academic studies. Dr. Drew has published over 20 academic articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education and holds a PhD in Education from ACU.

  • Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link 25 Positive Punishment Examples
  • Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link 25 Dissociation Examples (Psychology)
  • Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link 15 Zone of Proximal Development Examples
  • Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link Perception Checking: 15 Examples and Definition

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Andrew Bernstein

The Great Man Theory of History

Jan 17, 2020 | Articles

great man essay

(This essay was originally written as a chapter in my book, Heroes, Legends, Champions: Why Heroism Matters , and is an outtake from that book.)

Do specific geniuses or “great men” drive forward the events of history?   Is profound impact on social history the criterion of such great men or heroes?

This idea, known as “the great man theory of history,” was extensively argued during the 19th century, when Western support  for heroism was still pronounced.

Despite a fascinating philosophic debate among serious thinkers, the theory is fatally flawed.

The Great Man Theory

The essence of the hypothesis is that certain great men or heroes, by virtue of their genius, charisma, and/or military-political acumen, are the primary causal agents of historic events. Society does not shape great individuals; rather, great individuals shape society.

Napoleon—who, in accordance with this speculation, can be interpreted as seizing control of the French Revolution and imposing it on sundry European monarchs—is often advanced as an exemplar.

Thomas Carlyle, in his book, On Heroes, Hero-Worship, And The Heroic In History, analyzes writers, priests, and prophets as authentic examples of heroes, but definitively proclaims rightful rulers the greatest of the great. “The Commander over Men; he to whose wills our wills are to be subordinated, and loyally surrender themselves, and find their welfare in doing so, may be reckoned the most important of Great Men.” [i]

It is Carlyle’s fervent exhortation that we: “Find in any country the Ablest Man that exists there; raise him to the supreme place, and loyally reverence him….The Ablest Man; he means also the truest-hearted, justest, the Noblest Man: what he tells us to do must be precisely the wisest, fittest, that we could anywhere, anyhow learn;–the thing which it will in all ways behoove US, with right loyal thankfulness and nothing doubting, to do.” [ii]

Drawn from history, Carlyle’s principal examples of proper commanders over men are Cromwell and Napoleon who, presumably, he believes, will provide us guidance “the wisest, fittest, that we could anywhere, anyhow learn.”

Friedrich Nietzsche, although aphoristic and metaphoric in style—and hardly systematic—is a thinker vastly more profound; who mocks the “insipid muddleheaded Carlyle,” and who provides trenchant if brutal argumentation in support of his vision.

Ironically, Nietzsche, despite his devout atheism, holds a quasi-religious metaphysics, in which “will”—a feature of spirit or mind or consciousness—is presented as the impelling drive of reality itself.  He repudiates the mechanistic, “billiard ball” vision of the universe, which posits, in effect, a world composed of material entities moving, totally and unconditionally, in accord with the laws of physics; and does so, because such a view wrongly models human life and society, actuated as they are by passion and desire.

Nietzsche, rejecting dualism, and seeking a unified world view, resists a projection of inanimate matter’s form of causation onto man—and rather, projects man’s form of causation onto inanimate matter: “Let us assume that nothing is ‘given’ as real except our world of desires and passions….Would we not be allowed to experiment with the question whether these ‘givens’ are not sufficient for understanding the so-called mechanistic (or material) world?…To understand the material world as a pre-form of life?” [iii]

“Will-causality” is the sole form of causality he recognizes.  What are the will(s) composing reality willing? In some primordial sense, a drive to power, about which he works out no detailed theory applied to the universe, but does so applied to life. He writes:  “Life itself is essential assimilation, injury, violation of the foreign and the weaker, suppression, hardness, the forcing of one’s own forms upon something else, ingestion and—at least in its milder form—exploitation.” [iv]

For human beings, as for all organisms, the ultimate good is mastery, domination, subjugation.

(It is not to be overlooked that, for Nietzsche, the paradigm examples of the superior person or Overman were, most likely, such creative artists as Michelangelo, Leonardo, and Goethe; who harness the passion, the turbulence, the raw, burgeoning power of their frenzied souls, and, having gained self-mastery, project order onto the world’s intractable materials, bringing forth in structured, stylized beauty, a momentous work of art. “One must still have chaos in oneself to give birth to a dancing star.” [v] )

Nevertheless, the most frequent examples of the exuberantly hard, indomitably self-assertive, world-bursting individuals he extols are generals, politicians, ruthless leaders of men—Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon. These individuals topple city-states, overturn republics, crush freedom, not as wantonly destructive nihilism but so they may establish empire.

“Most of the overmen whom Nietzsche mentioned by name were politicians and generals whose creativity often expressed itself in the conquest of alien peoples or the subjugation of their fellow citizens.” [vi]

Such giants of history were “beyond good and evil” precisely because, in overturning the old political order among men, and imposing a new, they flouted, violated, shattered conventional moral codes and thrust upon society rules, guidelines, commandments inherently  their own.

“The History of the world is but the Biography of great men,” stated Carlyle in perfect, pithy expression of this view. [vii]

Nineteenth Century Criticisms of the Theory

Today, it is generally held that the great man theory was logically devastated by the withering critique of Herbert Spencer. Spencer, arguing for the causal role of society in shaping an individual, famously observed: “You must admit that the genesis of a great man depends on the long series of complex influences which has produced the race in which he appears, and the social state into which that race has slowly grown…Before he can re-make his society, his society must make him.” [viii]

William James, from a distinctively biological standpoint, critiqued Spencer’s critique. James pointed out, in terms of causation, a reciprocal relationship between geniuses (or great men) and society; comparing these to the mutual impact on each other of organism and physical environment, as elucidated in Darwinian theory.

“The causes of production of great men lie in a sphere wholly inaccessible to the social philosopher. He must simply accept geniuses as data, just as Darwin accepts his spontaneous variations…these data being given, how does the environment affect them, and how do they affect the environment? …the relation of the visible environment to the great man is in the main exactly what it is to the ‘variation’ in the Darwinian philosophy. It chiefly adopts or rejects, preserves or destroys, in short selects him. And whenever it adopts and preserves the great man, it becomes modified by his influence in an entirely original and peculiar way.” [ix]

For James, biological—not social—factors produce a great man: “Physiological forces, with which the social, political, geographical…conditions have just as much…to do as the condition of the crater of Vesuvius…with the flickering of this gas by which I write, are what make him.” [x]

Presumably, for James, expressed in contemporary terms, a genius arises due predominantly (perhaps exclusively) to genetic causation—either matches his environment or not—and by it is either accepted or rejected, embraced or crushed. When an individual’s genius matches his society, it welcomes him, and he becomes, for it, a driving catalyst of change. “The mutations of societies, then, from generation to generation, are in the main due directly or indirectly to the acts or the examples of individuals whose genius was so adapted to the receptivities of the moment…” [xi]

Or, as James puts it, writing in the late 19 th century: “Not every ‘man’ fits every ‘hour’…A given genius may come either too early or too late. Peter the Hermit [an 11 th century priest who helped incite the First Crusade] would now be sent to a lunatic asylum…Cromwell and Napoleon need their revolutions, Grant his civil war…” [xii]

There are a constellation of errors permeating this debate, some committed by this thinker, others by that.

These are: 1. Impact on historic events is not a primary criterion of heroism. 2. Mistakes regarding the complex relationship between an individual and society. 3. Failure to apprehend a fundamental aspect of a great individual’s greatness. 4. The critical error that everyman should obey the commands of heroes, who properly should hold political and legal dominion.

Let’s examine these one at a time.

Critiquing the Great Man Theory

One: Impact on social history: Regarding heroism, an individual’s impact on history is the wrong question to ask. Vivid counter-examples form the start of a counter argument; principles extracted from them, its culmination.

Attila and earlier Hun chieftains had an incalculable impact on social history. Their invasions of Eastern and Central Europe swept before them Germanic tribes, who, fleeing, burst the boundaries of the Roman Empire; catalyzing a series of migrations and battles that, decades later, contributed to the collapse of civilization and triumph of barbarism. Attila ravaged extensive portions of northern Italy and even threatened Rome itself.

Attila and prior Hun leaders were a powerful force in early medieval European history. Is this sufficient to make them heroes? No. Blood-drenched barbarians who dramatically augment the destruction of civilization are, no doubt, mighty villains—but, by virtue of this alone, are excluded from the ranks of heroes.

Epistemologically, the concept “hero” refers to the identification that, in real life, some rare individuals achieve goals that substantially advance human life; that support construction and life, not destruction and death. If a powerful Roman emperor had arisen—a latter-day Augustus—had selected skilled commanders, rallied his troops, defeated the invaders, saved Rome, restored and upheld some degree of intellectual freedom, thereby promoting a revival of civilization, and had continued to protect it against barbarians—this would be a hero.

A different example on the same theme: If impact on history is a prime criterion of heroism, then few can lay better claim to the title than Hitler. But, in truth, one of history’s most egregious mass murderers has even less claim to the title of “hero” than does Attila.

There is a fundamental flaw in the great man theory of history: It asks the wrong question.

The proper criterion of heroism is not impact on society—but benefit to human life. The individual who discovers new knowledge—or applies it to such life-promoting fields as music, agriculture, medicine, electrical engineering, or numerous others—the person who creates material or intellectual wealth—or who effectively protects the creators—the men and women responsible for originating civilization, for raising mankind out of the caves and the jungles, for immensely increasing living standards, life expectancies, leisure time, and for creating art, entertainment, and consequent immeasurable  enhancement of men’s ability to enjoy their earthly time—these are mankind’s heroes.

Heroes, by this measure, do greatly impact social history—but such influence is not the fundamental criterion of heroism. If we employ the Carlyle-Nietzsche definition of “great men,” then, in truth, all (epic)heroes are great men—but not all great men are heroes. Unfortunately, heroes are not as widespread a phenomenon as “great men;”  worse, “hero worship” has been too often directed at “great men” unworthy of it.

Two: The relationship between the great individual and society :  Looked at from one perspective—viewing society as an immense but nonetheless single entity, composed of an incalculable number of components—a reciprocal influence upon each other of great man and society is undeniably true.

Napoleon certainly shook European monarchies to their foundations.

But the causal factors animating such momentous events stretched back through centuries; including, most obviously, the French Revolution; but also the long-unchallenged power of the ancien regime —the thoughts, values, and actions of various Bourbon monarchs, their families, foes, and advisors—the teachings and actions of the Catholic Church, its popes, cardinals, and theologians; the writings of various philosophes, supporting the freedom of man’s mind, opposing the ancient regime; the influence, especially on Voltaire, of Britain’s gradual movement away from absolute monarchy in the direction of increased individual liberties; the prevalence across the Continent of oppressive hereditary monarchies, and the opposition of many to the ideals and goals of the Revolution; and so on, in incessant litany of causes and conditioning persons and events, that could not be exhaustively recounted in a dozen lifetimes by a regiment of Will Durants.

Napoleon was acted upon, by society, in ways too numerous to catalogue.

But viewing society as a single super-organism that thinks and acts and influences an individual is worse than a fiction of lazy minds unwilling to examine its multitude of constituent parts. It is the fallacy of reification writ large. “Reification…is the hypostatizing [thing-making] of entities, that is, the making of abstractions into substances.” [xiii]

That, in some sense, society exists, is not to be doubted. But in what sense? Surely, “American society” does not exist in the sense that, for example, Clint Eastwood—American citizen—exists. One could meet face-to-face with Eastwood, converse, dine, and tipple with him—might visually observe, on the silver screen, his impressively manly squint—applaud (or not) as he garners “Best Director” awards—and so on. Can one engage in such activities vis-à-vis “American society?” One cannot.

American society, or any other, is an amalgam of such an immense quantity of individuals—their thoughts, values, emotions, actions, and swirling interactions—as to be, in a literal sense, incalculable. One could not encounter all such social components, never mind remember, during the latter stage of encountering, those antecedently encountered; much less keep track—in the time elapsed during these subsequent encounters—of the further doings of those initially encountered.

The concept “society” is a mental construct subsuming an immeasurable quantity of data, much, although not all of it, observational.  To state the point simply: Society is a collection of individuals who act upon each other.

Whose actions impinge most heavily on others?

Napoleon exerted more influence—for better or worse—on far more individuals than the vast majority of other individuals exerted on him. Although it is true, in some sense, to say that “society” significantly influenced (but not “made” or “molded”) Napoleon, the conventional understanding of this claim is—including by many philosophers—at best, woozy.

The sense in which it is true is that many members of human society—individuals—exerted some influence on Napoleon, and that some members exerted much; this latter includes more than the usual suspects of parents, family, peers, teachers, and so on; but also some of history’s other “great men,”  including a wide array of diverse artists, philosophers, scientists, and statesmen who helped create both the relatively-advanced Western society in which Napoleon was educated and the opportunities it afforded.

James succinctly expresses the point: “…the important thing…is that what makes a certain genius now incompatible with his surroundings is usually…that some previous genius of a different strain has warped the community away from the sphere of his possible effectiveness. After Voltaire, no Peter the Hermit…” [xiv]

Regarding the exertion of influence, not all human beings are created equal.  A few exert substantially—in some cases vastly—more on other individuals than do other individuals on them (or than these other individuals do on the still other individuals composing the rest of society). A critically important question is: Is such influence for good or ill—or is it mixed? To make such a judgment, of course, requires a standard.

That Napoleon exerted enormous impact on European society is clear. Further, numerous of his policies effectively supported human life. He ended feudalism, abolished serfdom, and annulled the Inquisition. He advanced religious freedom in Europe, even for the long-oppressed Jews. Across the continent, he so weakened the ancient regime that it would not long survive his own demise.

But the blood, the guts, the enormous cost in human life, in service of his dreams of conquest and power, cannot be sanctioned. Although certainly not a scourge of civilization a la Attila, much less a monster, the countless youthful lives snuffed out, in endless procession of gory battles, to fulfill his imperial designs renders unconscionable an overwhelming preponderance of his career.

It is definitely tragic, and possibly criminal that we, the human race, have so often glorified conquerors. Stendhal, as but one example, praised Napoleon as “the greatest man to appear in the world since Caesar.” [xv] Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon, despite some noble qualities and beneficent policies, shed such an ocean of innocent blood as to dwarf their life-giving achievements. It is the creators and their protectors, not power-seekers and warmongers that deserve our respect and emulation. Nietzsche, in his best moments, understood this; unfortunately, his best moments were rare.

Three: The overlooked cause of a great man’s greatness: James, in effect, argues that geniuses or great men are born, not made. Presumably, the biological causes of a hero’s gifts are operative whether his society is ready or not for them; whether, to these gifts, it offers nurture or opposition; whether, for them, it provides outlet or stone wall.

In response to his chief opponent, he wrote: “Can it be that Mr. Spencer holds the convergence of sociological pressures to have so impinged on Stratford-upon-Avon about the 26 th of April, 1564, that a W. Shakespeare, with all his mental peculiarities, had to be born there, –as the pressure of water outside a certain boat will cause a stream of a certain form to ooze into a particular leak?  And does he mean to say that if the aforesaid W. Shakespeare had died of cholera infantum, another mother at Stratford-upon-Avon would needs have engendered a duplicate copy of him, to restore the sociologic equilibrium,–just as the same stream of water will reappear, no matter how often you pass a sponge over the leak, so long as the outside level remains unchanged?” [xvi]

Presumably, Spencer meant no such thing. What he most likely meant was a more conventional claim that, once born, a future genius receives from society nurturing, education, religious training, stable political environment, friendship, love, human intimacy, and much more, all of which contribute to the eventual great man; or, in Spencer’s overstated terms, are what “make him.”

One assumes Spencer does not mean what James ascribes to him: that society—its cultural evolution, educational system, government, and so forth —necessitates, at precisely that moment, the birth of a man with the vigorous brain activity of a Shakespeare; but merely, that once such an individual is born, society trains that brain to cognize, to value, to feel, in specific forms.  James is here guilty of a straw man fallacy.

Aside from the reification already described—and the realization that the education, cultural accomplishments, and so forth, provided the germinating genius proceed from other individuals and institutions founded, run, and supported by individuals—both disputants overlook a cardinal principle necessary to understand the gestation of any person’s thinking and values, including those of a genius: volition. (This is an oversight especially puzzling in the case of James, strong advocate of free will that he is.)

Do Spencer and James differ over no more than variants of determinism, with the former advocating a social—and the latter a biological—version? If so, this writer disagrees.

That a Shakespeare is born with a robust brain (and nervous system) generating rich, diverse, quick, multiple neural firings—or however 21 st century neuro-biology understands such functions—seems clear. Who doubts that the brain of a genius is pre-eminently active?

In a form analogous to how the coordinated muscle structure of an Olympic champion facilitates athletic accomplishments, just so the vigorous brain functioning of a Shakespeare is a necessary condition of  intellectual ones.  A certain type of brain and the neural activity it actuates are, presumably, foundations of the “one percent inspiration” of genius properly invoked by Edison.

Further, if an individual of prodigious cerebral endowment, such as a Shakespeare, is born to a primitive nomadic tribe, which has yet to formulate written language, the education, values, and training afforded by such a society provide scant opportunity for the potential Bard to actualize his surpassing literary gifts. (Although, he might be exactly the individual, in that society, who pioneers written language; the earlier absence of which itself provides opportunity). That the history, culture, education, political system, and so forth, of a given society emphatically affects the germination of a great individual’s intellect and values—on what basis can such a proposition be doubted?

Nevertheless, an individual is not the crafted outcome of what other individuals molded him to be; as many parents have ruefully discovered. He/she is not the sum total of the thoughts, appraisals, beliefs, emotions, and actions of the myriad individuals who have, to greater or lesser degree, impacted him. He is influenced; he is not molded.

If individuals are molded, who or what molded the original molders? (Or, in Spencer’s overstated terms, if society “make[s]” an individual, who makes the makers?) Somewhere in time, the process of molding began; otherwise, no process. Who initiated it? And what were the culture’s determining influence(s) on him (or them)? Or are we to assume that the human race’s progenitors made fundamental choices of which their descendants are incapable? If so, what principle explains the volition possessed by some members of humanity, as distinct and apart from the rest?

In short, the thesis that some individuals “make” an individual, is hopelessly entangled in an infinite regress of causes. For, the individuals that made Napoleon were themselves “made” by antecedent individuals, who, of course, were “made” by individuals prior to them, and so forth, ad infinitum. Positing such an infinite regress of causation is a more egregious logical error even than reification.

Further, does the super-charged brain activity of a Shakespeare necessitate its direction into literature? Was it neither neurologically nor socially possible for a man of such intellectual gifts to spark interest in mathematics or medicine or art? Indeed, was it necessary that he pursue an intellectual career at all? Many a time, honest observers have witnessed the sad spectacle of supremely gifted individuals squandering immense intellectual inheritance, as do some of their unfortunate counterparts regarding material ones.

As a striking example, Shakespeare’s brilliant contemporary, poet/dramatist, Christopher Marlowe, was, aged twenty-nine, stabbed to death under mysterious circumstances that might never be entirely understood.

Nevertheless, tragically, for the claim that Marlowe was as much a genius of low-living as he was of theater arts, there is abundant supporting evidence. An anonymous 16 th century contemporary wrote of him: “Pity it is that wit so ill should dwell, Wit lent from Heaven, but vices sent from hell.”

That a man possesses active brain and brilliant acumen provides no assurance that he values either—that he will doggedly pursue serious intellectual interests, literary or otherwise—or, so  doing, that he will not simultaneously court dissipation or early demise in riotous hedonism, gratuitous violence, or one or another of self-destruction’s myriad seductive forms.

Marlowe manifested a short but brilliant career. How many others, with equally potent brains and similarly powerful vices, manifested careers only short—or non-existent? The graveyards, one sadly suspects, are filled with skeletons of potential geniuses that, for one or another reason, were never heard from.

The truth is that Shakespeare was born with a vibrantly active brain that enabled prodigious intellectual achievement—that he appeared in a 16 th century English culture that prized theater and literature, providing thereby encouragement and opportunity—and that he chose an intellectual career and chose one distinctively in the field of literature.   

Choice, as a real aspect of human life, is known via direct introspective awareness–and the flaws of determinism, in any of its forms, are intellectually fatal.   (See Appendix B: “A Challenge to Determinism.”)

Four: Heroes possess no moral authority to command obedience:  Why do purveyors of the Great Man theory claim that a hero should rightfully possess unlimited political power?

Is it because he/she embodies a will to dominance that forms the core of metaphysical reality, is thereby incarnation of it, and entitled—as, in effect, reality’s certified deputy—to shunt, bestride, or trample lesser men? Or is it because the great individual possesses wisdom and judgment lacking in mere mortals, whose otherwise lost souls call out desperately for his guidance?

Is his/her rule justified by brute power—as, according to the most radical Greek Sophists—force was the final arbiter of right and wrong? [xvii] Or is it sanctioned by paternalism, similar to that of Plato’s vision of a Socrates-like Philosopher King? Is it the great person’s rightful destiny to overthrow societies, and, living “beyond” the conventional moral codes they embody, crush sniveling weaklings strewn athwart his path? Or, under the burden of noblesse oblige, must his/her reign embody not merely a material generosity to those less prosperous but, as well, a spiritual guidance to those less wise?

Clearly, for Nietzsche, the propositions contained in the former questions constitute his reasons; nor is it a matter of guesswork that, for Carlyle, those in the latter.

In his 1849 essay, “Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question,” Carlyle is brutally clear regarding the reasons of paternalism’s rectitude. It is here that Carlyle first applied his now-famous epithet “the dismal science” to economics. What is “dismal” regarding economics? The economists’ commitment to individuals making unfettered choices in free markets, unguided by their intellectual and/or moral superiors.

To be blunt, Carlyle regarded certain human beings—blacks, European serfs, Irishmen, low-born workers—as unqualified for self-governing. The principles of individualism, individual rights, and political-economic liberty cut asunder such persons from a hierarchical society that bestowed upon them a sustaining  guidance from their superiors.  For this reason, Carlyle fervently supported race-based slavery—and excoriated the economists because they did not. [xviii]   In the end, in politics, Carlyle embodies a bastardized version of Platonism.

In truth, however, to the extent that authoritarian rulers are upheld as heroes, and hero worship is held to be unreserved reverence for and unquestioning obedience to them, they are dangerous figures; properly, human beings should be fearful of such beliefs.  In the “Prologue” to her book, Heroes, Saviors, Traitors, and Supermen: A History of Hero Worship, Lucy Hughes Hallett warns against human willingness to “hand over their political rights to a glorious superman.” [xix]    Regarding this aspect of the complex issue, she is quite right.

Why? The answer can be succinctly stated: Rational beings possess the wherewithal, and must accept the responsibility, to govern their own lives. To surrender this right is not merely to threaten political liberty, and enshrine statism, but to undermine the role of the mind in each individual’s life. Did nature endow us with a mind to surrender it to a fatherly despot? When we are children, we need the loving supervision of our parents. Does it follow that, as adults, we yet require such supervision from the state?

Epistemologically, psychologically, morally—despite our years, experience, and wisdom attained—do we perennially remain akin to children? Do the vast majority of persons—healthy, able-bodied, possessing a human brain—require Political Big Daddy or Super Nanny to guide them? “An exaggerated veneration for an exceptional individual poses an insidious temptation. It allows worshippers to abnegate responsibility, looking to great men for salvation or for fulfillment which they more properly should be working to accomplish for themselves.” [xx]

A healthy adult living in a free society can and will deploy his/her intelligence to choose the education he receives, the field of study in which he specializes, the career he pursues, the locale of his residence, and so forth regarding the myriad values of human life.

Could the state, for example,  know for Jenny Smith—better than she could know—what is best for her regarding a single one of these values, much less the totality? By what means? Jenny Smith, let us say, chooses to study biology—but the state deems architecture a field for her better suited. What evidence could the state adduce to support its claim? Since Carlyle (and many others) assumes paternalism, the kinship of a benevolent state to a loving parent, the sought-after outcome must include the well-being of the individual citizen.

By what means could the state know that architecture, rather than biology, will best ensure Ms. Smith’s fulfillment? Will it administer a battery of sophisticated aptitude tests? Will it hire expert psychologists to interview and examine her? Will it coerce her—as a trial run—to spend x amount of time studying architecture?

And what if, after all of the state’s noblest efforts, Ms. Smith persists in obdurate commitment to biology? Will the state coerce her into its preferred field? If so, is it reasonable to expect that, under conditions of forced labor, Ms. Jenny Smith will achieve career fulfillment?

Further, once this aspect of Ms. Smith’s drama is resolved, the state is yet faced with guiding her life regarding other significant human values. Multiply this dilemma by the fifty million citizens (or greater) populating a given society, and the insuperable epistemological difficulties faced by a paternalistic state become manifest.

Or, if it is assumed that the state need concern itself only with the best interest of society as a whole—rather than the fulfillment of individual citizens—how is this achieved? Under individual rights and freedom, individuals pursue their own values. But the impelling premise of paternalism is that the wise political rulers know what is best for each citizen—more ably than he/she can know for himself/herself.

If the state “guides,” that is, can coerce a person toward the end it—but not he/she—cherishes, how many members of society will be fulfilled? How many will work conscientiously, as opposed to resentfully and half-heartedly? How many will commit suicide? How is the best interest of society—a composite of millions of individuals—served by the enforced frustration of countless of those individuals?

Thus far, we have discussed only education and career. Throw in the values of friendship, romantic love, marriage, and children, and the prescription for state-dominated misery becomes irresistible.

Related: Nietzsche, in his best moments and moods, recognizes that the greatest individuals or most perfected heroes are not conquerors or kings, but creative artists and intellectual geniuses. About this, he is correct. What of such creative minds under paternalism? Are we to believe the wise rulers those most capable of identifying and nurturing such nascent talent? And what ensues if the germinating genius seeks independence from the state, as do teen-agers from parents, and dares disagree with its edicts and policies?

What occurs if he/she persists in such disagreement into adulthood, using his creative gifts to convey his message to the public? Stripped of the right to govern his/her life by application of his own intelligence, and obligated to—in all matters—accept the state’s superior wisdom, is he inevitably faced with the brutal alternative: Kowtow or die? How thick is the irony when Plato’s politics, embodied, results in the execution of a future Socrates?

Politically, this form of hero worship necessitates state worship. Ironically, in its milder form, it makes life exceedingly difficult for the great creative minds that constitute mankind’s grandest heroes; in its most virulent form, it crushes them.

The great man theory of heroism, as debated in the 19th century, is fatally flawed. Impact on society or on history is not a proper criterion of heroism; nor are many of the individuals hero-worshipped worthy of it. Heroes are “made” by neither genetic inheritance nor social conditioning nor a combination of the two; although these are impactful factors, they do not cover the waterfront; additionally, heroes choose to perform the life-enhancing feats they do, often under great duress and against social opposition; such courageous choices are part of what make them heroes. Heroes, as earlier discussed, are to be worshiped and emulated; not blindly obeyed.

Get your copy of Heroes, Legends, Champions: Why Heroism Matters today!

[i] Thomas Carlyle, On Heroes, Hero-Worship, And The Heroic In History (Middlesex, England: Echo Library, 2007), p. 123.

[ii] Ibid.,  p. 123.

[iii] Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, tr. M. Cowan (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1955), pp. 42-43.

[iv] Ibid. , p. 201.

[v] Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra, in The Portable Nietzsche, ed. Walter Kaufman (New York: Viking, 1954), p. 129.

[vi] W.T. Jones, A History of Western Philosophy, vol. 4, “Kant and the Nineteenth Century” (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1975), p. 257.

[vii] Carlyle, op. cit., p. 21.

[viii] Herbert Spencer, The Study of Sociology (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1896), p. 34.

[ix] William James, “Great Men and their Environment” in The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy (New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1956), pp. 225-26.

[x] Ibid., pp. 234-35.

[xi] Ibid., p. 227.

[xii] Ibid., p. 230.

[xiii] Ward Fearnside and William Holther, Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1959), p. 43.

[xiv] James, op. cit., p. 230.

[xv] Quoted in Will and Ariel Durant, The Story of Civilization, vol. 11, “The Age of Napoleon” (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1975), p. 773.

[xvi] Ibid., p. 235.

[xvii] W.T. Jones, A History of Western Philosophy, Volume One, “The Classical Mind” (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1969), pp. 68-71.

[xviii] Carlyle, “Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question,” www.efm.bris.ac.uk/het/carlyle/occasion.htm . Retrieved July 16, 2016. David Levy, How The Dismal Science Got Its Name (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2001), pp. xiii-xv, 3-28, 41-57, 147, 158-197, and passim. Levy, “150 years and Still Dismal!”  www.fee.org/articles/150-years-and-still-dismal/. Retrieved July 16, 2016.

[xix] Lucy Hughes-Hallett, Heroes, Saviors, Traitors, and Supermen: A History of Hero Worship (New York: Alfred Knopf, 2004), p. 14.

[xx] Ibid., p. 5

Become a patron at Patreon!

Recent Posts

  • Capitalism in One Lesson
  • Course: How to Get More out of Great Movies, Take 2
  • Tolstoy: “The Death of Ivan Ilych”, “The Kreutzer Sonata”, and “Master and Man”
  • Happy Rand’s Day
  • Real Life Heroes
  • Unveiling the Layers: American Racism and the Power of Individualism
  • Evil: An Inquiry Into the Nature of Iniquity

The Bernstein Express

Join Andy's email newsletter!

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Trait vs. Great Man Theory of Leadership

Introduction, the basics of great man theory of leadership, the details of trait theory of leadership, similarities and differences.

Every organization or group of people requires a leader who can motivate, unite, and guide them. Individuals follow various leadership strategies and styles depending on a situation, their personal preferences, the characteristics of their followers, and many others. Every leadership approach has some peculiarities that can determine whether subordinates will be successfully guided. The great man theory of leadership and the trait theory of leadership are similar strategies, but slight differences between them result in the fact that the latter is more appropriate for a social work practitioner.

The great man theory of leadership is one of the oldest attempts to explain how people lead others. This approach stipulates that leaders are born with the required characteristics and qualities (Chow et al., 2017). This statement denotes that not every person can guide and motivate others because it is an inborn skill. Thus, this view of leadership is similar to that of Ancient Greeks and Romans, who believed that their rulers were God’s messengers.

People were instructed that they needed to imitate such historical figures as Napoleon, Alexander the Great, and others, to succeed in the task. Consequently, this theory was beneficial for leaders because they were given almost complete freedom of action, which makes it challenging to comment on some specific components of this approach. However, certain disadvantages contributed to the fact that the theory is not requested today. Firstly, there is no empirical evidence that can support the theoretical assumptions (Hunt & Fedynich, 2019). Secondly, leaders do not draw attention to situational factors and their followers, which results in many management inefficiencies.

The trait theory of leadership is a systemized version of the great man theory. Thus, the trait theory does not stipulate that leadership is an inborn quality, but it mentions that a leader should have a specific set of skills and characteristics. For example, typical components of this approach include self-confidence, intelligence, sociability, and others (Chow et al., 2017). If a person masters these abilities, they will obviously become a successful leader. The trait theory also fails to focus on followers’ features in assessing leadership efforts. This approach is often considered useless because no scientific evidence supports its effectiveness.

The two theories under consideration have both similarities and differences. On the one hand, they are similar because the two suggest that leaders are predetermined (Hunt & Fedynich, 2019). Simultaneously, these approaches can be considered isolated from the real world because they do not stipulate how leaders should behave in different situations (Chow et al., 2017). On the other hand, there is an essential difference because the trait theory specifies that a person should master some, even though predetermined, skills to lead others. Consequently, this approach demonstrates that individuals can invest in becoming leaders.

The great man theory of leadership and the trait theory of leadership can be considered outdated approaches to consider how people lead others. The rationale behind this statement is that the two only focus on leaders’ characteristics and ignore followers’ needs. However, the difference between the two allows for supposing that the trait theory is more suitable for a social work practitioner in a management position. Clients will face some benefits if such a person has particular qualities, including self-confidence, intelligence, and sociability. This scenario offers a higher probability that the leader will address the clients’ needs and requirements, while the social work practitioner’s belief that they are an inborn leader does not imply such chances.

Chow, T. W., Salleh, L. M., & Ismail, I. A. (2017). Lessons from the major leadership theories in comparison to the competency theory for leadership practice. Journal of Business and Social Review in Emerging Economies, 3 (2), 147-156. Web.

Hunt, T., & Fedynich, L. (2019). Leadership: Past, present, and future: An evolution of an idea. Journal of Arts & Humanities, 8 (2), 20-26. Web.

Cite this paper

  • Chicago (N-B)
  • Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2022, October 29). Trait vs. Great Man Theory of Leadership. https://studycorgi.com/trait-vs-great-man-theory-of-leadership/

"Trait vs. Great Man Theory of Leadership." StudyCorgi , 29 Oct. 2022, studycorgi.com/trait-vs-great-man-theory-of-leadership/.

StudyCorgi . (2022) 'Trait vs. Great Man Theory of Leadership'. 29 October.

1. StudyCorgi . "Trait vs. Great Man Theory of Leadership." October 29, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/trait-vs-great-man-theory-of-leadership/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Trait vs. Great Man Theory of Leadership." October 29, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/trait-vs-great-man-theory-of-leadership/.

StudyCorgi . 2022. "Trait vs. Great Man Theory of Leadership." October 29, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/trait-vs-great-man-theory-of-leadership/.

This paper, “Trait vs. Great Man Theory of Leadership”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: November 9, 2023 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

The Great Man Theory Essay Example

The Great Man Theory Essay Example

  • Pages: 2 (478 words)
  • Published: July 21, 2016
  • Type: Essay

The Great Man Theory is associated most often with 19th-century commentator and historian Thomas Carlyle. The Great Man Theory was a popular 19th century idea according to which history can be largely explained by the impact of "great men", or heroes: highly influential individuals who, due to either their personal charisma, intelligence, wisdom, or utilized their power in a way that had a decisive historical impact(Princeton).

The theory was popularized in the 1840s by Scottish writer Thomas Carlyle, and in 1860 Herbert Spencer formulated a counter-argument that has remained influential throughout the 20th century to the present; Spencer said that such great men are the products of their societies, and that their actions would be impossible without the social conditions built before their lifetimes. One of

the most forceful critics of Carlyle's formulation of the Great Man theory was Herbert Spencer, who believed that attributing historical events to the decisions of individuals was a hopelessly primitive, childish, and unscientific position.

(Princeton) To me leadership is more than just the ability to have people follow you and do as you say. Being a great leader is not just something that you can be born with. It has to be learned and attained from those around you or your own inner drive to be a great leader. Being a leader and a good leader means that there are others who are also learning and listening to you when you direct or guide them. Almost like being a great manager being a great leader is crucial to your work environment or organization.

The core and common goal in this environment is that w

are all a group working towards the same goal. So in conclusion whether you can be born or made a great leader; and whether leadership is an art or science. These questions or statements cannot be mutually similar alternatives. Leadership can be more of an art; it requires a lot of the everyday application of special skills and techniques learned. Even with the statement of being born with great leadership skills, even then these natural talents need daily encouragement and consistent development. A person is not born with a natural way of being confident.

Confidence is attained and developed with the way you are raised or if it is an inner drive to be like that. Same goes with integrity and being honest because these are matters of personal choice. Then you have to motivate to lead and it comes from within your own self being; then the want and need for the knowledge of the trade can be attained. Even though cognitive abilities have their own origin partly in genes, it still needs to be developed and made aware of the trait given. None of these traits are given they are made with how their environment was growing up or what was seen in the workforce.

  • The Concepts of Classical Management Theories Essay Example
  • Psycho Educational and Social-Ecological models of Social Cognitive Theory Essay Example
  • Senior Leadership Team Essay Example
  • Should teachers encourage students to question everything Essay Example
  • What Are the Advantages & Essay Example
  • Market Segment Targeted of Avon's Essay Example
  • Books Essay Example
  • The Self Efficiency Theory Education Essay Example
  • A Concern For Consciousness Education Essay Example
  • Share Your Ideas Of Taking Essay Example
  • Theories of social science and race Essay Example
  • Alfred Adler's theoretical concepts of social interest Essay Example
  • Leadership in Action: the Cosmetic Queen and the Software King Essay Example
  • PEEL paragraph Strategy Makes Writing More Advanced Essay Example
  • Nursing Theories and Profesionalism Essay Example
  • Academia essays
  • Higher Education essays
  • Language Learning essays
  • Studying Business essays
  • Education System essays
  • Study essays
  • First Day of School essays
  • Scholarship essays
  • Pedagogy essays
  • Curriculum essays
  • Coursework essays
  • Studying Abroad essays
  • Philosophy of Education essays
  • Purpose of Education essays
  • Brainstorming essays
  • Educational Goals essays
  • Importance Of College Education essays
  • Brown V Board of Education essays
  • The Importance Of Higher Education essays
  • Online Education Vs Traditional Education essays
  • Academic And Career Goals essays
  • Academic Integrity essays
  • Brown Vs Board Of Education essays
  • Distance learning essays
  • Technology in Education essays
  • Vocabulary essays
  • Writing Experience essays
  • Importance of Education essays
  • Early Childhood Education essays
  • Academic Degree essays
  • Academic Dishonesty essays
  • School Uniform essays
  • Academic writing essays
  • Cheating essays
  • Bachelor's Degree essays
  • College Life essays
  • Grade essays
  • Diploma essays
  • Phonology essays
  • Sentence essays
  • Filipino Language essays
  • Pragmatics essays
  • Millennium Development Goals essays
  • History Of Education essays
  • Graduate School essays
  • Middle School essays
  • School essays
  • Special Education essays
  • University essays

Haven't found what you were looking for?

Search for samples, answers to your questions and flashcards.

  • Enter your topic/question
  • Receive an explanation
  • Ask one question at a time
  • Enter a specific assignment topic
  • Aim at least 500 characters
  • a topic sentence that states the main or controlling idea
  • supporting sentences to explain and develop the point you’re making
  • evidence from your reading or an example from the subject area that supports your point
  • analysis of the implication/significance/impact of the evidence finished off with a critical conclusion you have drawn from the evidence.

Unfortunately copying the content is not possible

Tell us your email address and we’ll send this sample there..

By continuing, you agree to our Terms and Conditions .

Logo

Essay on A Great Man

Students are often asked to write an essay on A Great Man in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on A Great Man

Introduction.

A great man is someone who makes significant contributions to society. They inspire others with their actions, ideas, and achievements.

Qualities of a Great Man

A great man possesses qualities like honesty, courage, and humility. They show respect to all, irrespective of their status.

Impact on Society

Great men leave a lasting impact on society. They set examples for others to follow, shaping the world in a positive way.

In conclusion, a great man is not just about personal success, but also about making a difference in the lives of others.

250 Words Essay on A Great Man

The essence of greatness.

The term “great man” often evokes images of illustrious leaders, influential thinkers, or individuals who’ve achieved extraordinary feats. However, the essence of greatness lies not merely in achievements, but the qualities that underpin them.

Characteristics of a Great Man

A great man is one who possesses integrity. He stands by his principles, even in the face of adversity, demonstrating courage and resilience. He is self-aware, understanding his strengths and weaknesses, and strives for self-improvement.

A great man influences society positively. He inspires others through his actions and words, fostering growth and progress. He doesn’t shy away from taking responsibility and often spearheads change, proving instrumental in shaping societal norms and values.

Humility: A Key Trait

Humility is a distinguishing trait of a great man. Despite his accomplishments, he remains grounded, acknowledging the contributions of others to his success. He treats everyone with respect, regardless of their social standing, embodying empathy and compassion.

Endurance and Perseverance

Endurance and perseverance are hallmarks of a great man. He confronts challenges head-on, turning obstacles into opportunities for growth. His unwavering commitment to his goals, coupled with his tenacity, sets him apart.

In conclusion, a great man is defined not by his status or achievements, but by his character, influence, humility, and perseverance. He is a beacon of inspiration, driving societal progress and embodying the virtues that make humanity admirable.

500 Words Essay on A Great Man

Introduction: the concept of greatness.

Greatness is a subjective concept that varies across cultures, societies, and individuals. It is often associated with achievements, power, and influence. However, the essence of a great man transcends these traditional markers. A great man is one who leaves a lasting impact on the world, not only through his accomplishments but also through his character, values, and the way he treats others.

The Power of Character

The character of a great man is often defined by his integrity, courage, and resilience. These are not qualities that one acquires overnight; they are honed through a lifetime of experiences, trials, and tribulations. A great man stands by his principles, even when faced with adversity. He is not afraid to stand alone if it means upholding his values.

The Role of Empathy

Empathy is another critical attribute of a great man. The ability to understand and share the feelings of others allows a great man to connect with people on a deeper level. This emotional intelligence enables him to influence and inspire others, fostering a sense of unity and mutual respect.

The Importance of Humility

Despite his achievements and stature, a great man remains humble. He acknowledges that he does not have all the answers and is open to learning from others. This humility keeps him grounded and prevents him from becoming arrogant or complacent.

The impact of a great man on society is profound. Through his actions and words, he sets an example for others to follow. He contributes to societal progress, not just through his professional achievements, but also through his personal conduct. He champions causes that promote equality, justice, and human rights, and uses his influence to bring about positive change.

The Legacy of a Great Man

The legacy of a great man is enduring. Long after he is gone, his ideals, principles, and contributions continue to inspire and guide future generations. His life serves as a testament to the power of character, empathy, and humility, proving that greatness is not just about achieving success, but also about making a positive difference in the world.

Conclusion: Redefining Greatness

In conclusion, the concept of a great man extends beyond mere achievements and power. It encompasses qualities such as integrity, empathy, humility, and the ability to influence and inspire others. A great man is one who leaves a lasting impact, not just through his accomplishments, but also through his character and values. As we move forward, it is crucial that we redefine greatness to include these qualities, recognizing that true greatness lies not in what we achieve, but in who we become in the process.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

  • Essay on Funny Incident in My Childhood
  • Essay on A Funny Incident in School
  • Essay on My Favourite Game Football

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

  • Books of Autobiography
  • Books of Biography
  • Books of Composition
  • Books of Essay
  • Books of Linguistics
  • Books of Literary Criticism
  • Books of Poetry
  • Books of Short Story
  • Books of Science & Tech
  • Books of Theory
  • Books of History
  • Books for Children
  • Books Variety
  • Linguistics
  • Thoughtpansion
  • Short Story
  • Novel Criticism
  • Drama Criticism
  • Essay Criticism
  • S Story Criticism
  • Poetry Criticism
  • Literary Article
  • Literary Theory
  • Agriculture
  • Communication

great man essay

Mahatma Gandhi Essay | Life of a Great Man

Mahatma Gandhi

Mahatma Gandhi Essay

Mahatma Gandhi Essay  

Life of a Great Man

A man is called great when he contributes something to the cause of human peace, unity, happiness, brotherhood or fellow-feeling. There is no dearth of great men who have contributed to the growth and prosperity of human civilization. But among them, I have chosen Mahatma Gandhi as my ideal great man.

Mahatma Gandhi’s original name was Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. He was born in Rajkot in Gujarat on the 2nd October 1869. His father Karamchand Gandhi was the Prime Minister of Rajkot. His mother Putlibhai was a saintly lady.

He took his early education in Rajkot and after passing the Entrance Examination; he went to England and became a lawyer.  Gandhi practised law in the Bombay High Court. Then he went to South Africa and joined the bar. 

In 1915 he returned to India and took the leadership of the Indian National Congress and started several movements against the British. At last under his leadership, India got independence from the British on 15th August 1947. 

I admire him the most. It is because he sacrificed his life for the cause of our nation. Besides this, he tried his best to unite Hindus and Muslims.

He was a great social worker also. He tried to banish untouchability and communalism from India. He gave much importance to the development of the cottage industry in India. He introduced Basic Education in India. He was a writer also. His autobiography My Experience with Truth is praised by millions of readers. He was assassinated by a fanatic Hindu named Nathuram Godse on 30th January 1948. 

We should follow the great ideals of Mahatma Gandhi. 0 0 0

Note: This article ‘ Mahatma Gandhi | Life of a Great Man ‘ originally belongs to the book ‘ School Essays Part-I ‘ by Menonim Menonimus.

Books of Composition by M. Menonimus:

  • Advertisement Writing

Amplification Writing

  • Note Making
  • Paragraph Writing
  • Notice Writing
  • Passage Comprehension
  • The Art of Poster Writing
  • The Art of Letter Writing
  • Report Writing
  • Story Writing
  • Substance Writing
  • School Essays Part-I
  • School Essays Part-II
  • School English Grammar Part-I
  • School English Grammar Part-II ..

Related Search:

  • Essay on Mahatma Gandhi
  • Mahatma Gandhi

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

Courses and curricula in the madaris, discovery of automobile, mahatma gandhi and his basic education, leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Recent Posts

From sunrise to moonrise: syncing moments with the time calculator, achievement | achievement meaning example explanation, awareness | awareness meaning example explanation, institution | institution meaning example explanation, anthem | anthem meaning example explanation.

great man essay

Welcome to A Good Man Is Hard to Find Essay Samples page prepared by our editorial team! Here you’ll find a heap of excellent ideas for A Good Man Is Hard to Find essay. Absolutely free research papers and essay samples on the short story are collected here, on one page.

📝 A Good Man Is Hard to Find: Essay Samples List

  • Themes & Motifs in A Good Man Is Hard to Find Genre: Essay Words: 1665 Focused on: A Good Man Is Hard to Find: themes Characters mentioned: the Grandmother, the Misfit, Bailey, the children’s mother. June Star, John Wesley
  • Dialogues in O’Connor’s A Good Man is Hard to Find Genre: Essay Words: 643 Focused on: A Good Man Is Hard to Find: literary analysis Characters mentioned: the Grandmother, the Misfit
  • Qualities in A Good Man is Hard to Find by O’Connor Genre: Essay Words: 616 Focused on: A Good Man Is Hard to Find: themes Characters mentioned: the Grandmother, the Misfit
  • A Rose for Emily and A Good Man is Hard to Find Genre: Essay Words: 1126 Focused on: A Good Man Is Hard to Find: compare & contrast Characters mentioned: the Grandmother, the Misfit
  • The Grandmother in A Good Man Is Hard to Find Genre: Essay Words: 606 Focused on: A Good Man Is Hard to Find: characters Characters mentioned: the Grandmother, the Misfit
  • Religion in A Good Man Is Hard to Find Genre: Essay Words: 950 Focused on: A Good Man Is Hard to Find: themes Characters mentioned: The Grandmother, Bailey, John Wesley, June Star, Red Sam
  • The Old Age Concept in O’Connor’s A good man is hard to find Genre: Essay Words: 678 Focused on: A Good Man Is Hard to Find: characters Characters mentioned: Bailey, Bobby Lee, The Grandmother, Hiram, John Wesley, June Star, The Misfit
  • Themes in A Good Man Is Hard to Find Genre: Essay Words: 1047 Focused on: A Good Man Is Hard to Find: themes Characters mentioned: The Grandmother, The Misfit
  • The Message of Flannery O’Connor’s A Good Man Is Hard To Find Genre: Essay Words: 899 Focused on: A Good Man Is Hard to Find: themes Characters mentioned: The Grandmother, The Misfit, Red Sam
  • Psychoanalytical Analysis of A Good Man Is Hard to Find and Revelation Genre: Essay Words: 1382 Focused on: A Good Man Is Hard to Find: compare & contrast Characters mentioned: The Grandmother, The Misfit
  • A Good Man is Hard to Find: the Grandmother Genre: Essay Words: 617 Focused on: A Good Man Is Hard to Find: characters Characters mentioned: The Grandmother, The Misfit, Bailey, Red Sam
  • Violence in A Good Man Is Hard To Find Genre: Essay Words: 822 Focused on: A Good Man Is Hard to Find: themes Characters mentioned: The Grandmother, The Misfit, Bailey, John Wesley
  • A Good Man Is Hard to Find: Characterization Genre: Essay Words: 700 Focused on: A Good Man Is Hard to Find: themes Characters mentioned: The Grandmother, The Misfit, Bailey
  • Flannery O’Connor’s A Good Man Is Hard To Find: Themes Genre: Essay Words: 826 Focused on: A Good Man Is Hard to Find: themes Characters mentioned: The Grandmother, The Misfit, Red Sam, Bailey
  • A good man is hard to find: the Grandmother as a Character Genre: Essay Words: 681 Focused on: A Good Man Is Hard to Find: characters Characters mentioned: The Grandmother, The Misfit, Bailey
  • Representation of Family in A Good Man is Hard to Find Genre: Essay Words: 561 Focused on: A Good Man Is Hard to Find: themes Characters mentioned: The Grandmother, The Misfit, Bailey
  • A Good Man is Hard to Find: Literary Analysis Genre: Critical writing Words: 1106 Focused on: A Good Man Is Hard to Find: analysis Characters mentioned: The Grandmother, The Misfit, Bailey
  • A Good Man Is Hard to Find vs Good Country People: Themes & Characters Analysis Genre: Research paper Words: 2321 Focused on: A Good Man Is Hard to Find: compare & contrast Characters mentioned: The Grandmother

Looking for an essay topic A Good Man Is Hard to Find? Take a look at our topic collection ! And don’t hesitate to use our topic generator if you need any help while formulating your essay title.

  • Share to Facebook
  • Share to Twitter
  • Share to LinkedIn
  • Share to email

Study Guide Menu

  • Short Summary
  • Summary & Analysis
  • Essay Examples
  • Essay Topics
  • Flannery O’Connor: Biography
  • Questions & Answers
  • Chicago (A-D)
  • Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, August 13). A Good Man Is Hard to Find: Essay Examples. https://ivypanda.com/lit/a-good-man-is-hard-to-find-study-guide/essay-examples/

"A Good Man Is Hard to Find: Essay Examples." IvyPanda , 13 Aug. 2023, ivypanda.com/lit/a-good-man-is-hard-to-find-study-guide/essay-examples/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'A Good Man Is Hard to Find: Essay Examples'. 13 August.

IvyPanda . 2023. "A Good Man Is Hard to Find: Essay Examples." August 13, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/lit/a-good-man-is-hard-to-find-study-guide/essay-examples/.

1. IvyPanda . "A Good Man Is Hard to Find: Essay Examples." August 13, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/lit/a-good-man-is-hard-to-find-study-guide/essay-examples/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "A Good Man Is Hard to Find: Essay Examples." August 13, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/lit/a-good-man-is-hard-to-find-study-guide/essay-examples/.

Sample details

Julius Caesar

  • Words: 1821

Related Topics

  • Domestication
  • Treaty of Versailles
  • Nationalism
  • Roman Empire
  • Cuban Missile Crisis
  • Mahatma Gandhi
  • Black Death
  • Dehumanization
  • Ancient Rome
  • Salem Witch Trials
  • Primary source
  • Native American
  • Spanish Inquisition

Great Man Theory Analysis Julius Caesar

Great Man Theory Analysis Julius Caesar

Julius Caesar was doubtless a adult male who changed history. His life and its narrative have inspired coevalss of awe and scrupulous survey. Many would reason he is the most influential adult male in recorded history. However, can the great Caesar genuinely be declared a event-making adult male, harmonizing to the standards of the Great Man Theory? Did he genuinely act upon the class of history through his ain extraordinary Acts of the Apostless of will and leading? Or was he merely a fortunate adult male who appeared in the right topographic point at the right clip, being merely the pawn of a greater strategy? By following and researching the political ideals and abilities of Caesar, every bit good as his military ability and art, this essay hopes to clearly show that he was so a great event-making adult male, possessed of exceeding aspiration, unbelievable intelligence, singular craft, and excessive courage.

In order to properly evaluate Caesar as a Great Man, we must foremost set up the standards by which he is to be judged, the standards of the Great Man Theory. Harmonizing to Russell Hooks, writer of an essay on the Great Man Theory, a Great Man is an event-making adult male. A individual who, through witting will and extraordinary shows of leading accomplishments and intelligence, influences the flow of history. An event-making adult male does non do events to go on by opportunity, such as through heritage. He intentionally alters the flow of history vastly from that which it would hold been without his existence1. On the reverse, an eventful adult male is one who besides alters the flow of history, yet did so through no unbelievable shows of his ain endowment. He is non alone in any manner, and any other adult male would hold done the same in his stead2. This is the difference between an event-making adult male, and a simply eventful adult male. So was Julius Caesar a genuinely great event-making adult male? Did he possess intelligence, craft, and aspiration beyond that of normal work forces? Did he, throughout his life, make witting determinations to foster his ain illustriousness and alteration history? Yes, Caesar was so a great adult male, and was alone in many facets.

ready to help you now

Without paying upfront

In the political universe of Rome, Caesar was a regular giant, yet non merely did he hold power, but an disingenuous intelligence. No affair what his place, he exhibited marks of true leading. He was patient, cognizing that he would one twenty-four hours be the swayer of Rome. He was ruthless, making whatever it would take to foster his ain success. He was corrupt when necessary, corrupting and mounting quickly in the political domain of Rome. From his birth in 99 BCE, on the 11th twenty-four hours of the month Quinctilus, which would subsequently be renamed after him to July, he was an ambitious and surpassing adult male. It should be noted besides, that he was non born into a household of unbelievable prestigiousness, nor was he heir to any peculiar place of great importance. He was a member of the aristocracy, yet no more. All that he gained, he did so through his ain Acts of the Apostless of will and aspiration. At an early age, he attempted to derive political power by talking in the public Forum. This action resulted in failure for the clip being, yet this licking inspired him to analyze under the great Apollonius, in order to increase his fluency of address. Caesar instantly recognized the importance of address, and what function it would play in his fate. In the hereafter, Caesar would give many addresss to the people, and derive their fondness by using great sums of wealth in big banquets and parties. As his popularity grew, he rose in rank and distinction every bit good.

Through these witting determinations, Caesar was easy plotting the overthrow of the Republic, and saw these little triumphs as the foundation of his hereafter greatness3. As his calling advanced, Caesar passed through many progressively of import places of power in the authorities, such as 2nd speechmaker, and Praetor of Rome ( the head civil magistrate ) . In Cadiz, a metropolis in Spain, Caesar encountered a statue of Alexander at the Great in the temple of Hercules. He reportedly sighed to a great extent, disappointed in his deficiency of power at the same age at which Alexander had about conquered the known universe. However, Caesar knew that forbearance and cautiousness were necessary. Slowly but certainly, he gained increasing favor with the people, and increasing celebrity for his speedy humor and ambitious actions. He took every chance to talk in public, and to affect the public with his fluency. He bribed his manner to places where even his intelligence and repute would non acquire him. It should be apparent that Julius Caesar was no ordinary adult male, and his political art was unmatched. The events go arounding around the political domain of Rome during this clip were unmistakably directed by Caesar s craft patterns. Soon after, Caesar reached the tallness of his popularity. After deriving multiple military triumphs against the Gauls, Caesar ceased power from the opposing Senate, accepting the rubric of Dictator for Life from the Roman people, who welcomed him as their leader. Caesar introduced many superb economic and societal reforms4, bettering the general life conditions of Rome. He reduced the figure of people on public assistance by half. Caesar built new market topographic points, planned new settlements, and improved the general beauty and wealth of Rome on the whole.

Though Caesar was finally assassin

ated on the forenoon of March 15,

44 BCE by covetous political enemies, he left behind a singular trail of leading, courage, intelligence, and political mastermind. His ability to rock work forces to his side in arguments, and to confuse many great talkers with his speedy humor, indicates his intelligence and dare. Politically, Caesar succeeded in his pursuit for power. He did so with virtually no fortune or opportunity, and through merely his ain successes. In this, he demonstrated that in political relations, Julius Caesar was so a great event-making adult male.

During Caesar s celebrated military calling, Caesar showed unbelievable finding and inventiveness when confronting any opposition. He won conflicts under impossible odds, and shocked and delighted Romans with his triumphs wherever he went. When others doubted him, he proved them incorrect. Doubt would oftentimes even promote him, and he scoffed at those who fought against him. He was by no agencies an ordinary military leader. Of peculiar note was the combination of his courage, his inventiveness, and possibly most of import, his finding. Some may name it stupidity or ignorance, yet Caesar s involuntariness to lose would win him many celebrated and esteemed conflicts. His conflicts in Gaul and in Britain brought significant glorification to his name, and gained considerable land for the Roman Empire which he would shortly govern. For nine old ages he fought runs in all of Britain, and after nine long old ages he had brought all of Britain into the Roman state. There were more frequent and longer jubilations in Rome for his triumphs than for any former general. Caesar was non merely clever in his triumphs of these runs, but he besides saw their significance elsewhere. They added immense amounts to his already significant wealth, in the signifier of one-year grosss from annexed lands. They besides increased his celebrity and popularity, and he was revered about as a God.

As aforementioned, Caesar was alone because of his courage, inventiveness, and of extreme importance, his determination5. When faced with a hard state of affairs, Caesar would laugh and scorn. For illustration, a conflict at Alexandria fought between Caesar and Achillas was described by the ancient historian Suetonius as one of great trouble for Caesar, with every disadvantage of clip, topographic point, and littleness of his force. The conflict was about lost when Achillas cut off the Roman s H2O supply. His ground forces ready to withdraw, Caesar rapidly ordered the excavation of deep Wellss which more than compensated for the old deficiency of H2O. Caesar narrowly escaped with his life, but because of his continuity, supports shortly arrived, winning the conflict. He besides won many great conflicts against his celebrated rival Pompey, and in most instances Pompey had the advantage of Numberss. Merely through his ain inventiveness, through his inspiration of his military personnels, and through his effectual usage of all resources available to him, was Caesar finally able to get the better of Pompey, clip and clip once more.

Over the class of his life, Caesar took eight 100 metropoliss, conquered three 100 states, commanded over three million work forces, took more than a million captives, and killed yet another million on the field. Such efforts could by no agencies have come out of pure opportunity! Caesar had outdone wholly old great Roman generals before him. Compared with Scipios, Sulla, Pompey, and others, he excelled them all, by get the better ofing greater troubles, by suppressing more land with less soldiers, and by get the better ofing more barbarous enemies6. Julius Caesar was a determined speedy mind. He was able to accommodate to any state of affairs at one time upon meeting it. He was besides an intelligent talker, and inspired his military personnels, non merely with his fluency of address, but by honoring them in surplus of what normal generals would pay. He was barbarous yet cagey, demoing his enemies mercy when it would profit him, and butchering them when it would non.

As a military leader, Caesar was virtually unflawed. He understood good the basicss of conflict, and besides possessed many traits which made him alone. He was perfectly determined and would non accept licking. He drove his soldiers non with arms, but with his ain will and counsel. He subdued his enemies, and accepted their aid where he saw tantrum. His inventiveness lead him to utilize his soldiers and other resources in ways ne’er antecedently thought of. Certainly no other adult male would hold done the same in Caesar s position. Truly, he, in the regard of military ability, displayed extraordinary expertness and capableness. Leaving behind him a bequest of military triumphs and trampled enemies, Julius Caesar one time once more demonstrated he was a true event-making adult male.

Today, Julius Caesar is fastidiously studied and discussed in many historical texts. Many of these plants hail his victory, and declare him one of the most outstanding work forces to of all time walk this Earth. Throughout this essay, it has been shown that Caesar became a turning-point in history, non through opportunity or fortune, but through his ain witting actions, and his ain ambitious finding. By ownership of extraordinary endowment in many Fieldss, Caesar rose to go a true great event-maker. Here was a adult male who so entered history but with one intent in head, to go forth a permanent bequest of his ain victory.

Cite this page

https://graduateway.com/great-man-theory-analysis-julius-caesar-essay/

You can get a custom paper by one of our expert writers

  • Weimar Republic
  • Quality Assurance
  • Historiography
  • Bubonic plague
  • Trail of Tears
  • Spanish Empire

Alexander The Great

  • Printing press
  • Colonialism
  • King Arthur

Check more samples on your topics

A question of loyalty in julius caesar julius caes.

Mark Antony

In the play Julius Caesar, loyalty is defined as the faithfulness one has towards their friends, country, ideals, and so on. However, when these loyalties clash with each other, a decision must be made that can either strengthen or destroy an individual. From my perspective, this choice shattered the lives of multiple characters. The line

Julius Caesar – Honorable Man

In Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, Brutus, who is the main conspirator known for the murder of Caesar, was characterized as an honorable man. Despite having to make a choice between loyalty to his friend Caesar and loyalty to Rome, Brutus demonstrated his honor by assassinating his friend out of a deep love for the greater good

A Study on Hunter and Gatherer, Alexander the Great, Architecture, and Julius Caesar

The Hunter and Gatherer era triggered the use of gender roles in our society today. This is because when the Hunter and Gatherer society first developed it created the power of gender roles; symbolizing that men have more power than woman. This was a negative effect on our world today because this has carried throughout

Julius Caesar – Brutus Character Analysis

Character Analysis

William Shakespeare’s play, The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, centers on the assassination of Julius Caesar. Interestingly, the one responsible for this act is Marcus Brutus, who is not only a servant but also a close friend to Caesar. One may wonder why someone would kill a person they are so close to. By examining Brutus’

Why was Julius Caesar assassinated and who participated in the act?

               1. On 15th march, 44 BC, Julius Caesar was assassinated by roman senators because they perceived him to be a dictator and they wanted to restore their republican liberties. An alternative explanation presented in the book, ‘The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A Peoples History of Ancient Rome’ claims that Caesar was assassinated by the

Julius Caesar and Mean Girls

The modern version of Julius Caesar can be seen in Mean Girls, which has numerous connections with the classic play. High school effectively portrays the themes of jealousy, backstabbing, and betrayal present in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. In Mean Girls, Regina George takes on the role of Julius Caesar as she holds leadership and is both

Julius Caesar: Speech Comparisson

When examining the speeches by Brutus and Antony in Act 3, Scene 2 of Shakespeare's play, we find various literary devices. On page 129, lines 30 to 34, Brutus employs rhetorical questions. He inquires, "Who is here so base that would be a bondman?", "Who is here so rude that would not be a Roman?",

Contrasting Friendships: “Julius Caesar” William Shakespeare

William Shakespeare extensively delves into the theme of friendship in his play, Julius Caesar, which is set in Rome during 44 B.C. The character Brutus, who was initially a friend to both Cassius and Caesar, eventually becomes entangled in a plot with Cassius to murder Caesar.After the assassination, a civil war breaks out between the

Julius Caesar His Political Career and Military Success

Julius Caesar had a profound impact on the Roman Empire, permanently altering the course of the Greco-Roman world. His bravery and power allowed him to establish a formidable empire. To comprehend how he became a powerful ruler of Rome, it is essential to examine his early political career and the formation of the first triumvirate.

great man essay

Hi, my name is Amy 👋

In case you can't find a relevant example, our professional writers are ready to help you write a unique paper. Just talk to our smart assistant Amy and she'll connect you with the best match.

Transfer and Postings

Life Of A Great Man Essay 100 Words: A Story Of Hard Work And Perseverance

Life Of A Great Man Essay 100 Words: A Story Of Hard Work And Perseverance

Life Of A Great Man Essay 100 Words: A great man is someone who has achieved remarkable things in his life, and whose legacy lives on long after he is gone. From historical figures like Albert Einstein and Mahatma Gandhi, to modern-day heroes like Bill Gates and Elon Musk, the world is filled with great men who have made significant contributions to society. In this essay, we will explore the life of a great man in 100 words, covering his early life, education and career, personal life, and legacy.

Table of Contents

Life Of A Great Man Essay 100 Words

In this blog Life Of A Great Man Essay 100 Words, we include About Life Of A Great Man Essay, in 100, 200, 250, and 300 words. Also cover Life Of A Great Man Essay 100 Words for classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and up to the 12th class and also for kids, children, and students. You can read more  Essay Writing in 10 lines about sports, events, occasions, festivals, etc… Life Of A Great Man Essay 100 Words is also available in different languages. In this Life Of A Great Man Essay 100 Words, the following features are explained in the given manner.

Our great man was born in a small town in rural America. He came from humble beginnings and was raised in a working-class family. Despite the challenges he faced, he was determined to make something of himself and worked hard to achieve his goals. From an early age, he demonstrated a natural curiosity and a love of learning, which would serve him well throughout his life.

Education And Career

After completing high school, our great man went on to pursue higher education. He studied hard and eventually graduated with a degree in engineering. He then went on to work for a large tech company, where he quickly rose through the ranks due to his talent and dedication. Over the years, he made significant contributions to the field of technology, and his innovations helped to shape the way we live our lives today.

Personal Life

Despite his busy career, our great man always made time for his family and loved ones. He was a devoted husband and father, and he worked hard to provide for his family. In his free time, he enjoyed pursuing hobbies like reading and playing sports. He also gave back to his community by volunteering and donating to charitable causes.

Personal Life

Today, our great man is remembered for his many achievements and contributions to society. His innovations and inventions have revolutionized the tech industry, and his legacy continues to inspire new generations of innovators and entrepreneurs. He is a role model to many, and his life serves as a reminder of what is possible when one sets their mind to something and works hard to achieve it.

Conclusion On Life Of A Great Man Essay 100 Words

In conclusion, the life of a great man is a fascinating and inspiring story that deserves to be told. From humble beginnings to worldwide fame, our great man’s journey is a testament to the power of hard work, dedication, and perseverance. His legacy continues to inspire us all, and we can all learn valuable lessons from his life. Whether we are striving to achieve greatness in our own lives, or simply looking for inspiration and motivation, the life of a great man is a story that we can all learn from and be inspired by.

Read More: Any Great Leader Essay 150 Words

FAQ’s On Life Of A Great Man Essay 100 Words

Question 1. Who is the great man of India?

Answer: It’s difficult to pinpoint just one great man of India, As the country has produced many leaders, thinkers, and saints of high renown. From Mahatma Gandhi, who led the movement for Indian independence, To Rabindranath Tagore, a Nobel laureate who enriched literature and art with his contributions.

Question 2. Who is great personality in India?

Answer: India has many great personalities, both past and present, From leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Patel, and Indira Gandhi, To contemporary figures like Narendra Modi, Sachin Tendulkar, and A.R. Rahman, Each contributing their unique talents and accomplishments to Indian society and culture.

Question 3. Who is known as the great man?

Answer: There have been many figures throughout history who have been called “the great man,” From military leaders like Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar, To philosophers and statesmen like Aristotle and Winston Churchill, Each known for their exceptional talents and contributions to their respective fields.

Question 4. Which personality type is most rare in India?

Answer: It is difficult to determine the rarest personality type in India. As there is no definitive data on the distribution of personality types. However, some studies suggest that the INFJ (Introverted-Intuitive-Feeling-Judging) type may be rarer in India. As it is considered to be one of the rarest types globally, making up only about 1-2% of the population.

Question 5. What are the five great personalities?

  • Mahatma Gandhi, the Indian independence leader and advocate for nonviolent resistance.
  • Mother Teresa, a Catholic nun who dedicated her life to serving the poor and sick in India.
  • Martin Luther King Jr., an American civil rights leader who fought for racial equality and justice.
  • Albert Einstein, a German physicist who revolutionized modern science with his theories.
  • William Shakespeare, an English playwright who created some of the greatest literary works in the English language.

Read More Essays

  • Essay On Rabindranath Tagore
  • Essay On Guru Teg Bahadur Ji In English 500 Words
  • Mahatma Gandhi Essay In English 150 Words
  • Essay On New Education Policy
  • Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav Essay In English
  • Science In Everyday Life Essay
  • My Holiday Essay In English
  • Advantages And Disadvantages Of Mobile Phones Essay 250 Words
  • Paragraph On Taj Mahal
  • Independence Day Paragraph

Share this:

Leave a comment cancel reply.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Happier Human

21 Qualities of a Good Man You Should Look For

There might be affiliate links on this page, which means we get a small commission of anything you buy. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Please do your own research before making any online purchase.

Women outnumber men in all but 10 states in the US. Not only are you competing to find a man, but also one of good caliber. I don't mean to sound like a party pooper, but I know you know from experience that a good man is hard to find . You'll probably encounter a lot of toxic guys before meeting a high-quality man.

Finding a man who exhibits the traits you're looking for in a partner is like hitting the relationship jackpot . You'll enjoy a type of healthy and supportive romantic relationship or marriage that promotes happiness and well-being.

Today, I'm going to discuss having dating standards and prepare you to recognize 21 qualities of a good man when he crosses your path.

Table of Contents

Can Men Be Taught Good Qualities?

Yes and no . According to scientists, an individual's core personality is set by the time they reach first grade. Their adult behaviors can be predicted relatively accurately at this stage of development. However, humans have the capacity to reshape their thinking and develop new habits, even though it's not that easy .

While it's possible for men to improve themselves, they have to have a certain level of emotional maturity and self-awareness as well as a desire to change .

Should You Try to Fix a Man?

Women are nurturers by nature and have a tendency to try and fix their significant other. Your boyfriend might rebel, become resentful, or reject you for trying to make him change. You'll feel hurt and try even harder, but he'll relentlessly resist. This may lead to lowered self-esteem, codependency , and resentment on your part.

Even if your man tries, he'll quickly relapse into his old behavioral patterns . Behavioral changes take time and cognitive work such as mindfulness, positive affirmations , and cognitive therapy.

Ask yourself if you're looking for a man who got it together or one you have to teach to be a man . According to Bolde , he’s a grown man. You can’t fix him and you shouldn’t have to. You'll only stress yourself out trying to change him .

As a woman of standards and self-respect, you know it's not your job to groom a man. If he needs fixing, he needs to do it on his own or with the help of a behavioral therapist.

You're better off with someone who exhibits the qualities of a good man, someone who's by nature a good partner, father, and friend. 

Instead of having to teach him how to treat you, you can focus on helping him to become a better version of himself. Both of you and the relationship will benefit as a whole.

The Importance of Dating with High Standards

High-quality women have high standards and choose partners wisely . In dating, standards refer to having a list of things or ideal traits in a potential partner that you're not willing to compromise on .

Call them your non-negotiables . I'm referring to qualities that have nothing to do with his looks, career, financial status, or social connections. It's all about his behavior, values, and belief system .

Your dating-with-standards list can range from refusing to settle for a guy who is emotionally unavailable to one who is avoidant . These are big red flags you shouldn't ignore as he will be unable to meet your emotional needs in a relationship.

A guy with an avoidant personality struggles to communicate his needs and shies away from problem-solving. Instead, he will shut down, withdraw, or stonewall, leaving you unheard, frustrated, or feeling undeserving of his love and attention.

Using your personal dating standards as a guide will help you find someone with the qualities of a good man and who is husband material.  Creating boundaries  also helps you to establish a healthy, supportive relationship instead of one filled with drama.

21 Qualities of a Good Man You Should Look for

Physical attraction and chemistry may help a guy get one foot in the door when he's dealing with you, a woman who knows she deserves the best guy out there. However, he still needs to prove he's worthy of your time, attention, love, and your… everything .

You're more interested in the man within . Of course, you're not expecting him to be perfect, but he should at least demonstrate the following qualities of a good man. 

1. Emotionally Available

You're looking for someone who will provide you with a steady stream of love and affection . If he goes back and forth from hot to cold, that's a sign of emotional unavailability. What you will get is a little love and attention for a few days before he pushes you away.

10 qualities of a good man | 20 qualities of a good man | qualities of a good man to marry

Emotional availability means your partner is comfortable talking about his personal life , family, childhood, and past romantic relationships. He won't seem closed off, avoid conversations about commitment, or display other signs of emotional unavailability .

There was a guy who tried to engage me in a push-pull, let-us-see-where-this-goes relationship. I called him out on his BS and assured him that I knew I deserved better. Looking back, he had zero of these 21 qualities of a good man.

2. Vulnerable

Many men are of the view that showing feelings or vulnerability is a sign of weakness, but it's mostly about protecting their ego. A man of essence is capable of putting his ego aside. You'll recognize he's comfortable having conversations about his thoughts, feelings, weaknesses, and mistakes .

I once met a guy who claimed he wanted to settle down but had difficulties opening up and letting me see who he was at the core. It appeared as if he was hiding things from me and I hated how suspicious and anxious that made me feel.

He was 40 years old, claimed he was never in love, and wanted to experience it. You should see how he clammed up whenever I mentioned the word “love.”

Following that experience, I run as far away as I can from guys who struggle to open up. Don't waste your time trying to break down the emotional walls of a man who's incapable of loving you. 

3. Commitment-minded

Another one of the qualities of a good man is leaning towards commitment. He's not the type to string you along . In fact, he'll show and tell you earlier on in the dating phase that he's interested in exclusivity and a future with you.

Don't worry, it's easy to spot a commitment-phobic. He doesn't like to make plans ahead of time, cancels at the last minute, and has a track record of short-term relationships . You'll soon start to feel like you're at the bottom of his priority list. Things won't change much unless he wants to work on being a better boyfriend.

4. Respectful

Disrespect in any form doesn't spell well for a healthy relationship. Once it starts, it tends to get worse with time. A high-quality man respects himself and others. Respect is shown in many ways.

For example, valuing your opinions even if he disagrees and allowing you to maintain a life outside of the relationship.

A respectful guy will treat you, everyone connected to you, and even strangers well . He's not going to call you out your name, ever, even when he's angry.

On the other hand, a toxic, immature guy will resort to calling you a “bitch” and other defamatory names. Women with low dating standards and low self-worth are the ones who usually put up with that type of guy.

As a high-quality woman, you'd kick him to the curb the moment he thinks of disrespecting you.

5. Kind and Loving

He's a keeper if he is kind by nature and wired for love. Kindness and authentic love usually go together and are non-negotiable qualities of a good man. Ensure you do a kindness and compassion test on him. By that, I mean observing how he treats everyone else.

qualities of a good man to marry in islam | qualities of a good man to date | qualities of a good man in islam

Does he talk down to people he thinks are inferior to him, e.g, the wait staff at restaurants? He's a wolf in sheep's clothing if he shows you a nice face, but is mean to others, including kids, or cruel to animals.

6. Emotionally Intelligent

It's a game-changer when you find a man who can put himself in your shoes and understand how you feel. It's called empathy and is a big sign of emotional intelligence (EQ) . It's easier for a man to mistreat you if he cannot see or is unwilling to acknowledge how his behaviors affect you.

You'll know the guy you have your eyes on is emotionally intelligent if he is kind and supportive when you're in distress. He has the ability to perceive, understand, use, and manage negative emotions in positive ways .

Even though he's authentic and straightforward, he's mindful of his words , so as not to offend or hurt you. Other signs of EQ include being honest, humble, forgiving, and able to self-reflect and apologize.

7. Good Communicator

Couples complain all the time that a lack of communication is chipping away at their relationship. There's going to be a lot of passive-aggressive behaviors like pouting and refusal to speak if you're dating someone with an avoidant attachment style or narcissistic traits.

Thank your lucky stars if you're seeing a guy who actively listens to you, makes eye contact, doesn't interrupt, and doesn't dismiss your opinions. As a good communicator, he will respond after choosing the right words and provide validation. His attentiveness is a sign that he's connected and values you, your thoughts, as well as your feelings.

8. Trustworthiness

You struck gold if you found a trustworthy guy. Trustworthiness is at the top of my list of qualities of a good man, particularly because it encompasses so many traits that speak to a man's honesty and overall moral integrity .

qualities of a good man essay | perfect man qualities list | qualities of a good man in a relationship

Characteristics of a trustworthy man include being consistent, reliable, dependable, willing to compromise, and respectful of boundaries. The need to have a man with these standards becomes greater if you're bringing kids into the relationship. You must be fully confident that he will respect and treat them well .

9. Secure-attachment Style

According to John Bowlby's Attachment Theory , individuals with a secure attachment style make better romantic partners. Compared to the anxious and avoidant styles, a secure man won't overbear you with his feelings or push you away. He's emotionally and mentally balanced, well-grounded, and has healthy self-esteem and self-confidence.

He is honest, trusting, trustworthy, and comfortable showing his vulnerable side. This guy is calm and self-assured. Being with him feels like “home . ” You won't have to chase after him because he's not the one to play mind games. Instead, he'll state his romantic intentions upfront , treat you like a priority, and make you feel safe, secure, and protected .

Sounds too good to be true, right? Well, you're in luck.  Over 50% of the population is secure attachment types. I've had the good fortune of marrying a secure man. They're not perfect but come with a long list of amazing qualities that overshadow their shortcomings.

If you find a guy like this, cherish him. Secure attachment style men feel the most committed to their romantic relationships  and usually don't remain on the market for long .

10. Accountable

Toxic men shirk their responsibilities and are unwilling to own up to their problematic behaviors. Not only are they emotionally immature, but they also shift blame and play the victim even when they're the ones causing the chaos.

A good man is confident in himself and will acknowledge his mistakes, instead of lying, denying, defending, or blaming you . People with narcissistic tendencies are known for pathological lying and blame-shifting to avoid accountability. They use gas lighting tactics to abuse you emotionally and make you question your own reality.

Narcissist or not, it's impossible to enjoy a healthy, loving, respecting, and supportive relationship with anyone who is unable to man up.

11. Emotionally Stable

You can enjoy a loving, happy, and healthy relationship with a man who has stable emotions and is able to self-regulate when things go wrong. As women, we need to be 100% honest with ourselves and stop giving men an easy pass because they're cute or financially stable. What about emotional stability or anger problems?

Emotional instability is an instant deal breaker for me, along with lies, game-playing, and disrespect. Unstable emotions are usually a sign of mental illness, such as mood disorder, borderline personality disorder (BPD) , or bipolar disorder. Beware!

| perfect man qualities | dream man qualities | Personality Traits | ideal man qualities list | infographic | infographics

You're signing up for a rollercoaster relationship if you choose a guy who “looks good on paper” but cannot control his anger or self-regulate negative emotions . And, please, don't try to become his therapist, savior, or fixer.

Stand in your truth knowing you're deserving of love and a happy relationship or marriage . Show empathy and compassion for his struggles, but don't feel guilty if you have to quit him. You'll probably save yourself from physical or emotional abuse if you leave before the guy starts lashing out or becomes unhinged. 

12.  Faithful

A faithful man is a man whose loyalty doesn't waver toward you.   In the good or the bad, a good man makes choices with your best interest in mind .  He considers how his decisions affect you and how others will view you because of his choices. 

For example, Aaron works in an office with many single men and women.  His co-workers know he has a loving and caring wife at home to whom he is devoted and faithful.  Everyone who knows him well is very aware of it.  

One morning, after a disagreement with his wife, Aaron went to work, and his co-workers noticed he didn't seem like himself. 

One of the single ladies in the office (who was attracted to Aaron) tried to get him to open up about the issue that was bothering him, even offering to hug him and treat him to lunch. 

Knowing how it would look to others, Aaron declined to talk about the issue and turned down the offer for lunch, especially if others from the office didn't join them.

He not only wanted to avoid putting himself in a situation that tempted him to be unfaithful, but because of his loyalty toward his wife, he sought to avoid the appearance of unfaithfulness.

13.  Dependable

A good man is a dependable man that you can rely on to do what he says when he says he will do it. No one wants to make a date with a guy who doesn't show up because he forgot or simply didn't make you a priority. 

For instance, Dana really liked Jeffrey, and they both tried dating for a while.  But he lacked dependability, and that was a red flag to her.  They would schedule dates, and she would eagerly show up. 

Still, he either wouldn't show, or he didn't prioritize the date and later talked about rescheduling.  His behavior could have opened the door for Dana to feel insecure had she not been strong enough to walk away. 

14.  Sense of humor

A good man is not just a man who makes you laugh but finds great joy in making you smile when you don't feel like it.   For example, he is witty enough to put on music and sing with a hideous voice just to improve your mood.  

A good sense of humor can brighten a dark day and diffuse tension in a room , like a fresh breeze on a hot summer day.   Being around a man who doesn’t take life too seriously all the time is refreshing. 

For instance, Derrick and Megan have been dating for over 6 months.  They just moved in together a few weeks ago.  The two of them work stressful jobs, often bringing the stress and tension home. 

qualities of a good manager and leader pdf | qualities of a good manager pdf | qualities of a good manager ppt

However, Derrick, devoted to making the home a safe space and peaceful environment, uses his humor to make Megan laugh and relieve much of her stress from the day.  After good laughs, the two talk about their day calmly and reasonably. 

Derrick's humor has helped Megan navigate difficult family moments and personal crises.  As a result, not only has she begun to lean on him, but they rely on each other for advice and comfort after a rough day.  This allows them to move past the stress to enjoy being home and away from the chaos of the outside world.

15.  Romantic

Like being kind and loving, a good man tends to be very romantic.  He consistently thinks of ways to express himself in a relationship that shows the magnitude of his affection for his partner.  

When we hear the word romantic, we often think of physical intimacy, but it goes way beyond that.  Instead, it's loving, serving, and offering kind gestures that outwardly express what is felt on the inside.  

For instance, Kal had deep feelings for his girlfriend, Taylor.  So, each week he made it his priority to do things, aside from going on a date, to let Taylor know she was special to him. 

So, Kal had flowers sent to her office at work, left sweet notes around her house when he visited, and cleaned ice and snow from her car and driveway in inclement weather.  He did those things because her well-being was important to him, and he wanted her to know it.    

16.  Generous

A good man is a generous and giving one.  He always thinks of blessing others , and in many circumstances, he makes others' needs a priority.  For example, Eric is a single guy who makes a good living as a carpenter. 

He is known as a charitable man in the community.  Not only does he give of his money, but he also volunteers much of his time helping the elderly in his city with small projects around their houses.  If he didn't do it, there is no way they could afford to pay someone. 

A generous man believes in leaving people better than he found them.

17.  Cooks and Cleans

A man can be good and not good at cooking or cleaning.  Still, according to psychology , women find that trait in a man irresistible.   Still, if he prioritizes cleanliness and is a good cook, you’ve got a good man on your hands.  

In relationships, we see where one partner (usually the wife) prioritizes cooking, cleaning, and overall home organization. 

But a man willing to cook and clean usually understands the value of partnership to make things go smoothly in the home. He recognizes that it shouldn't fall on one person's shoulders in the relationship.

18.  Confident

Confident men aren’t trying to be something they are not.  Instead, they are comfortable in their own skin and are less likely to be fickle.  When most of you think of a confident man, you may think of a guy who is overconfident and abrasive . 

But a good man can keep that in balance.  He knows who he is and lives life from that perspective .  This means you won't get down the road and discover unsavory things he was afraid to discuss with you because he “didn't want to lose you.” 

Moreover, a confident man believes that his mistakes and shortcoming made him into the strong and bold man he is today.

19.  Moral Integrity (as a Standard of Faith)

Good men have a moral standard they seek to uphold, no matter the circumstances.   You also know a man is good when he will carefully uphold the standards of his faith and treat you, his family, and others well. 

His dedication to God (who is loving, forgiving, and compassionate) should reflect how he treats others and views life as a whole.  Lastly, as a result, he is always looking to grow in integrity and be a better version of himself every day.  

20.  Goal Oriented

A good man sets goals.  It shows that he is willing to improve upon himself and the situations surrounding his life.  It also demonstrates that he doesn’t take life lying down and accepts every situation that befalls him or his family.   He sees better (in his mind) and plans to bring it to pass. 

list qualities of a good man | qualities of a good manager | qualities of a good manager and leader

So, a goal-oriented man is a man who is “going places in life” because he has vision.  And a man with vision later becomes a man who is accomplished.  And an accomplished man is certainly one you will be proud of.  

21.  Humble

Good men are humble.  They aren’t pushovers , but they understand their limitations and don’t mind giving credit where credit is due .  Additionally, a good man will step back to let others shine while playing to their strengths . 

Furthermore, he is not self-absorbed because it doesn't matter who gets the credit as long as everyone wins.  For instance, Chris' wife received a promotion on her job and now makes more money than him.  Naturally, his close friends found out and teased him about it. 

However, Chris expressed to them how proud he was of her and that she worked hard to get where she is.  Furthermore, he has no issues with her bringing home the bigger salary if their goals as a couple and family are accomplished.

Final Thoughts on Qualities of a Good Man

Connecting with a fine gentleman is easier when you know exactly what it is you're looking for . You're able to see through the BS almost immediately and quickly filter out men who are into game playing.

Don't bother trying to love a guy into emotional submission , mold him to suit your taste, compromise your standards or settle.

You deserve someone who is physically, mentally, and emotionally ready to pursue a healthy relationship and marriage. Continue to keep your standards high by repeating  70 Affirmations for Self-Worth and Love Yourself More .

Finally, if you want to identify YOUR personality type, then take one of these 11 personality tests to better understand what makes you tick .

qualities of a good man | what are 5 qualities of a good man | 100 qualities of a good man

IMAGES

  1. Life Of A Great Man Essay 100 Words: A Story Of Hard Work And

    great man essay

  2. A Good Man is Hard to Find Essay

    great man essay

  3. Informative Essay on A Good Man Is Hard to Find by Flannery O`Connor

    great man essay

  4. An Essay on Man

    great man essay

  5. The Great Man Theory.pptx

    great man essay

  6. Was napoleon a great man? essay sample

    great man essay

VIDEO

  1. The Great Man Theory of Leadership

  2. Easy Essay Of (A Great Man Of India)

  3. A Great Man's Return

  4. Great man #vijayakanth #youtubeshorts #shortsfeed #love

  5. Great man 😎 capitan Vijaykanth 🦁🙏🏼😎😞😭🥹

  6. The Company Man V1

COMMENTS

  1. Great Man Theory of Leadership: Definition and Examples

    The great man theory of leadership is an example of using 'nature' to explain human behavior. The nature vs. nurture debate in psychology suggests that some skills are innate while others are acquired through learning and experience. In this case, great man theory suggests that nature plays the dominant role in leadership ability.

  2. A literary perspective on the limits of leadership: Tolstoy's critique

    The Great Man theory of leadership, in the form it was first codified by Carlyle (1841) in On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History, maddens the modern mind (Spector, 2016: 250-251).Any contemporary intellectual who categorically insisted that "the history of the world is but the biography of great men" (Carlyle, 1841: 47) would surely be promptly accused, and probably ...

  3. Great man theory

    The great man theory is an approach to the study of history popularised in the 19th century according to which history ... Mark Twain suggests in his essay "The United States of Lyncherdom" that "moral cowardice" is "the commanding feature of the make-up of 9,999 men in the 10,000" and that "from the beginning of the world no revolt against ...

  4. Uses of Great Men

    Summary of the essay Uses of Great Men by Ralph Waldo Emerson: "Uses of Great Men" is an essay by Ralph Waldo Emerson that was first published in 1841. In this work, Emerson reflects on the role of great men in society and the impact they have on the world. He argues that great men serve as examples of what is possible for the rest of humanity ...

  5. The Great Man Theory of Leadership Explained

    The Great Man Theory of Leadership espouses that great leaders are born, not made. These individuals come into the world possessing certain characteristics and traits not found in all people. These abilities enable them to lead while shaping the very pages of history. Under great man theory, prominent leaders throughout the course of history ...

  6. Great Man Theory of Leadership: Examples, Pros and Cons

    The Great Man Theory of leadership postulates that great leaders are born, not made. Some people are just born with the personality characteristics that. ... Cite this Article in your Essay (APA Style) Drew, C. (July 15, 2023). Great Man Theory of Leadership: Examples, Pros and Cons. Helpful Professor.

  7. Essay on Life of a Great Man

    Students are often asked to write an essay on Life of a Great Man in their schools and colleges. And if you're also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic. Let's take a look… 100 Words Essay on Life of a Great Man Introduction. A great man is one who leaves a lasting impact on society.

  8. The Great Man Theory of History

    The Great Man Theory. The essence of the hypothesis is that certain great men or heroes, by virtue of their genius, charisma, and/or military-political acumen, are the primary causal agents of historic events. Society does not shape great individuals; rather, great individuals shape society. Napoleon—who, in accordance with this speculation ...

  9. 02. Great Man Theory

    Great man theory is essentially when a leader is recognized as "great" by their. followers, however, the reason they are recognized as a leader is undefined. For example, if you were to see a firefighter saving a family, you would think "hey, that's a leader". 2.

  10. Great man and theory of leadership

    The main idea behind Great Man theory is that leaders cannot be made, for they are born leaders (Great Man Theory, Assumptions, n.d.). The supporters of the great man theory concentrated mainly on well known historical political and military leaders (Leadership Theories, The Great Man Theory, ¶1). They also claimed that unexpected events, like ...

  11. Great Man Theory of Leadership

    The great man theory proposes that leadership is an inborn quality. The perspective asserts that great leaders in society are not made; instead, they are born. The concept holds that such qualities as intelligence, charm, courage, judgment, persuasiveness, action orientation, commanding personality, aggressiveness, and charm cannot be learned ...

  12. Great Man theory Essays

    Great Man Approach To Leadership Theory Essay 827 Words | 4 Pages. descriptive in nature as well as their relative emphasis on behavioural styles (den Hartog & Koopman, 1999). Due to this, various leadership theories have emerged leading to different approaches of studying leadership, namely, Great man, trait, behavioural and relationships.

  13. Trait vs. Great Man Theory of Leadership

    The great man theory of leadership is one of the oldest attempts to explain how people lead others. This approach stipulates that leaders are born with the required characteristics and qualities (Chow et al., 2017). This statement denotes that not every person can guide and motivate others because it is an inborn skill.

  14. Great Man Theory And Situational Theory: What Makes A Good Leader

    According to Howell and Costle (2001, p.4) leadership is a process used by an individual to influence group's members towards the achievement of group goals, where the group members view the influence as legitimate. The leadership theories that this assessment will compare and contrast are the Great Man theory (1840), the Trait theory (1974 ...

  15. The Great Man Theory Essay Example

    The Great Man Theory Essay Example. The Great Man Theory is associated most often with 19th-century commentator and historian Thomas Carlyle. The Great Man Theory was a popular 19th century idea according to which history can be largely explained by the impact of "great men", or heroes: highly influential individuals who, due to either their ...

  16. Essay on A Great Man

    500 Words Essay on A Great Man Introduction: The Concept of Greatness. Greatness is a subjective concept that varies across cultures, societies, and individuals. It is often associated with achievements, power, and influence. However, the essence of a great man transcends these traditional markers. A great man is one who leaves a lasting impact ...

  17. ⇉The Great Man Theory Essay Essay Example

    The basic idea of the theory is that leaders are born and not made. Thomas Carlyle, a historian in nineteenth century presented his ideas on leadership, named "The Great Man Theory.". Carlyle focused on the influence great men had on historical events. Like great people such as Mohammad, Shakespeare, and Napoleon among others (Goleman).

  18. Mahatma Gandhi Essay

    Mahatma Gandhi Essay Or . Life of a Great Man. A man is called great when he contributes something to the cause of human peace, unity, happiness, brotherhood or fellow-feeling. There is no dearth of great men who have contributed to the growth and prosperity of human civilization. But among them, I have chosen Mahatma Gandhi as my ideal great man.

  19. Essence of the Great Man Theory: Analytical Essay

    The Great Man theory assumes that the traits of leadership are intrinsic. That simply means that great leaders are born. they are not made. This theory sees great leaders as those who are destined by birth to become a leader. Furthermore, the belief was that great leaders will rise when confronted with the appropriate situation.

  20. A Good Man Is Hard to Find: Essay Examples

    The Old Age Concept in O'Connor's A good man is hard to find. Genre: Essay. Words: 678. Focused on: A Good Man Is Hard to Find: characters. Characters mentioned: Bailey, Bobby Lee, The Grandmother, Hiram, John Wesley, June Star, The Misfit. Themes in A Good Man Is Hard to Find. Genre: Essay.

  21. ⇉Great Man Theory Analysis Julius Caesar Essay Example

    Harmonizing to Russell Hooks, writer of an essay on the Great Man Theory, a Great Man is an event-making adult male. A individual who, through witting will and extraordinary shows of leading accomplishments and intelligence, influences the flow of history. An event-making adult male does non do events to go on by opportunity, such as through ...

  22. Life Of A Great Man Essay 100 Words: A Story Of Hard Work And

    December 10, 2023 by Prasanna. Life Of A Great Man Essay 100 Words: A great man is someone who has achieved remarkable things in his life, and whose legacy lives on long after he is gone. From historical figures like Albert Einstein and Mahatma Gandhi, to modern-day heroes like Bill Gates and Elon Musk, the world is filled with great men who ...

  23. 21 Qualities of a Good Man You Should Look For

    3. Commitment-minded. Another one of the qualities of a good man is leaning towards commitment. He's not the type to string you along. In fact, he'll show and tell you earlier on in the dating phase that he's interested in exclusivity and a future with you. Don't worry, it's easy to spot a commitment-phobic.

  24. Amherst women's club names essay contest winner

    The Amherst Women's Club Middle School Book Essay contest winner for 2024, Monelison Middle School student Jasmine Ferguson, recently was awarded the honor.