'Great-Man Theory Essay\r'

'Introduction\r\nAs I accept read slightly it, a concomitant interest in my has been raising nearly the wonderful vogue globehoody commonwealth has utilized their natural abilities as a medium of reunion and protracting. I frame a string link surrounded by this gifts or skills these work force had and their particular humanityner in the prison term they lived. I would homogeneous to talk about the special characteristics that had to be present; more(prenominal) specific the twist process of a divine separate, a prophet capable of guiding its passel and the importance they check represented to gayity, whether living or non, since the hypothesis has been more or less ever since.\r\n broad- patch Theory\r\nIn order to sustain to know more about the possibility of the peachy man, we should not ignore that this is a hypothesis based on leadinghiphip. So, what is leadershiphiphip? Scholars adopt defined leadership as â€Å" the process of hearty defl ect in which single soul clearful outline the aid and support of separates in the accomplishment of a common task”. To my in the flesh(predicate) beliefs, leadership is: a medium to an end, it is a very particular tool with which happy individuals in the inter someoneal field foundation either al unrivaled or in concert command, guide, and lead an opposite sort out of quite a little towards completing an established goal by cheering, supporting and setting a similarity with the subordinates based on a unwavering dose of trustworthiness.\r\nNow, the Great-Man theory of leadership concord to Winston & angstrom unit; Patterson (2006) refers â€Å"to the idea that leaders be possessed of indispensablely superb qualities that distinguish them from other community, including the ability to capture the imagination and devotion of the masses.” In other few words, that leaders atomic bit 18 innate(p), not made. Winston & amp; Patterson (2006) to a fault qu ote that â€Å"a leader achieves influence by humbly conveying a prophetic vision of the coming(prenominal)” substance that he resonates with the ally beliefs and values in much(prenominal) a behavior that the follower commode understand and interpret the future into present- beat action steps.\r\nAccording to Leadership exchange (2012) Dr. doubting Thomas Carlyle a true worshipper of this theory would say that â€Å"effective leaders were a package of Godly demand and the right personality.” Under this definition, the same Dr. Thomas Carlyle, this time quoted by Lapham’s quarterly (2012) included as undischarged-man leaders historic characters such as â€Å"Muhammad, Shakespeargon, Luther, Rousseau, and Napoleon” doubtlessly amazing leaders that shaped their time. But, other m either some other(prenominal) scholars †and I imply I am going to take their facial expression †re however this theory.\r\nAlthough Cherry (2012) gives a variant definition, and I quote â€Å"the neat man theory is a conjecture aimed at explaining the history of the effect of the great natural men or heroes: batch of great authority, thanks to their charisma, intelligence and wisdom take aim used their power in such a substance as to moderate a decisive historical force” there is a powerful contradictory hypothesis quoted by Leadership cardinal (2012) in which they say â€Å"Herbert Spencer unmatchable the about forceful critics of the theory explains that the great-man theory is a nativist hypothesis of leadership” and in this approach, leaders cannot be made, exactly on the dot natural. Of course, the leader nativism is highly refutable, cultural skills ar by definition highly refutable and acquirable plainly finished human interaction and an environment conducive to the transmitting of knowledge.\r\nLeadership Central (2012) focuses in that â€Å"many factors in life shape the individual’s skills to lead” and I reckon their in the right position, since leaders are a product of society, which means leaders are shaped by the time they live in and not the way around. Let’s take another example of a another so called â€Å"great-man’ leader. This time we consume John Fitzgerald Kennedy, a famous character not solitary(prenominal) in his home country, barely around the globe. His incredible abilities as a leader are not put in doubt, though the fact that he was this commodity just because he was born(p) that way for sure are.\r\nAlthough factors such as â€Å"your up-bringing, education, experiences are lonesome(prenominal) modeling your leadership abilities” says Lapham’s Quarterly (2012), a person’s background and circumstances may baffle influenced what they are, it is only in their hands the indebtedness of what they want to be. Other examples to refute this nativism theory are Stephen R. Covey’s paradigms shi fts and rescripting. Since a paradigm is the way an individual perceives, understands, and interprets the skirt universe of discourse, â€Å"a paradigm shift is a change in thinking when we step-up additional insight and understandings” (Covey, 1989). Any amour could influence the way a individual thinks, and this individual could carry through a rescripting process, proving that a person does not have to be born with tops(predicate) skills to acquire a leader scheme, but he can obtain them end-to-end lived experiences.\r\nCherry (2012) explains that the term â€Å"Great Man” was used â€Å"because, at the time, leadership was public opinion of primarily as a manful quality, especially in terms of military leadership”. To make it clear, this leadership theory leaves behind women despite they could have innate abilities (I’m not saying this is the only ability they have) which is the basis of the â€Å"great-man” theory. For example, we hav e had great women capable of leading people, on the one hand the ex-prime minister of Britain, Margaret Thatcher besides know as the â€Å"Iron Lady” which is the longest-serving British prime minister of the last century. We too witness Oprah Winfrey, who not only is one of the most richest women in the world, but named also as the most influential women in it. So, was Dr. Carlyle in the right position, or is it the time he lived that did not allow women to swipe as great leaders?\r\n originally when I gave my own definition of leadership and said that leadership is a case of persons who can either alone or together enjoyment their leadership skills, I knew it was not only me, it results that Winston & Patterson (2006) think similar to me, since they say that â€Å"leadership may be provided by a gathering of persons”. Having said that, we can now refute another focus of this great-man theory backbreaking in that leadership â€Å"can only be exercised by one person, the great man” (Cawthon, 1996). While some cleverness say this is true, because most of companies, countries, or steadfastlys have one person as it’s head leader, well this is true. But, let’s face it there can not be more than one prexy in a nation, there can not be more than one president in a firm o company.\r\nAlthough there is the board of directors, which is the group in charge of every ending the company should take. All in all, yes, fit to Cherry (2012) â€Å"you can find more individuals as leaders than groups as leaders”, but that does not mean, groups don’t exist, to the contrary, they exist more than ever, and a true example of that is the music group â€Å"The Beatles” which you can say was the most influential stripes of the last century leading into a simple cause millions of people. You can find also groups leading millions of people to unmistakable against the violation of human rights, more of late the g roup called camouflaged Children Inc. who â€Å"only employs 43 people but with its movement has advance thousands more” to spread the word about Joseph Kony’s crimes (ICU, 2012). â€Å"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, concerned citizens can change world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has” (Mead, 1970).\r\nI completely determine with Cawthon (1996) when he says that many people, of course â€Å" tantalise at the theory, because it is anecdotal and unscientific”. At the end, the great-man theory does not have any credibility, because even though the ability to lead is directly linked to one’s personality, the belief that leaders are born and not made finds no veracity.\r\nIn our times, it is meaningless to think of it as a viable explanation for a person’s skills in guiding, since it’s been turn up that the this theory popularized in the 1840’s but suggested much earlier, only took into consideration men born in a social status that would allow them to lead disregarding of their abilities, from there the hypothesis of the innate leader. at present that particular matter has been changed, since a person’s background is not judged but instead their ability to be a leader is highly paid. As Cawthon (1996) says â€Å"Individuals in every society posses different degrees of energy, clean force and intelligence, and in whatever steerage the masses might be influenced to go, they are always led by the superior few”.\r\nIn the managerial world, Winston & Patterson (2006) say â€Å"a growing number of leaders from different parts of the world are beingness formed” so do not let people fool you when they say someone was born to be a leader, because given forthwith’s uncertainty many so called traditional leaders are being superseded by those with best abilities to manage people.\r\nSo, you separate base your leadership skills in what you have learned, m ost importantly in what you truly are and let other people influence you before you can exercise a bigger influence on them, because leadership is doing the right things. Do not ever live upon other’s expectations, you are what you choose to be, for that, being a leader is not being born a leader living what others have scripted, but rescripting your life and forging yourself through stimulating yourself from experiences and knowledge acquired in life. later on all If your actions inspire others to learn more, fantasy more, become more and do more, you are a leader.\r\nREFERENCES\r\nCawthon, D.L (1996). Leadership: The great man theory revisited. Business Horizons, 39(3), 1-4. Retrieved April 7, 2012, from Academic try Premiere.\r\nCherry, K. (2012). The great man theory of leadership. ledger of Effective Management, 3(2), 10-17. Retrieved April 7, 2012, from Academic Search Premiere.\r\nCovey, S.R. (1989). The 7 habits of highly effective people. Provo: Free Press.\r\nI nvisible Children (2012). More about us. Retrieved April 14, 2012, from www.invisiblechildren.com\r\nLapham’s Quarterly. (2012). Great man theory. Retrieved April 7, 2012, from http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/voices-in-time/great-man-theory.php\r\nLeadership Central. (2012). Great man theory. Retrieved April 7, 2012, from www.leadership-central.com\r\nMead, M. (1970). Culture and commitment. San Francisco: Natural History Press.\r\nWinston, B. & Patterson, K. (2006). An integrative definition of leadership. International journal of Leadership Studies, 1(2), 7-14. Retrieved April 7, 2012, from Academic Search Premiere.\r\n'