The Great Man Theory Vs. The Big Five Model Of Traits - Case Study Example

Introduction Leadership has been a fascinating topic to sundry throughout history as indicated by the plethora of literature available on this subject today. The main question to answer throughout this paper is what really makes a man or woman to rise above the rest and assume the mantle of leadership? The different answers to this question explain why some people are drawn to the burdens of leadership than others. It also explains why some great leaders were able to stand out from their contemporaries to navigate often uncertain waters and defy the odds at every turn to achieve their goals on their people’s behalf (Hibert $ Klatt, 2000). Some theorists have tried to point to the ‘Great Man Theory’ while others have turned to the “Big Five Model / Contingency theory’ for answers. Background The Great Man Theory The Great Man theory is often backed up by the common saying that ‘Great leaders are God-gifted and not man-made.’ It is a 19th century theory which according to history can be largely explained by the impact made by heroes, influential individuals or great men, who due to their intelligence, wisdom or charisma used their power to make a difference in their societies (J & Says, 2017). Initially, the theory was popularized by Thomas Carlyle in the 1840, but in 1860, Herbert Spencer created a counter-argument that has held its ground throughout the 20th century to date. He indicated that great men are products of their societies and nothing they achieve could have been possible without the social conditions present before they came into existence. It was Carlyle’s statement that ‘the history of the world is just but the biography of great men’ great men and heroes alike have shaped the world’s history through divine inspiration coupled by their personal attributes. In one of his most famous books ‘On Heroes, hero-worship and the heroic in history,’ Carlyle indicated that the study of great men was ‘profitable’ to developing one’s own heroic side and by examining the lives led by heroes such as Shakespeare, Napoleon, Wagner and Luther, one could uncover the some truth about their own lives. Among the earliest research conducted on this topic was based on the lives and times of individuals who had already proven to be great leaders. Mainly, these individuals were from the aristocracy since few individuals from the lower classes were granted the opportunity to lead (Organ, 1996). Therefore, the notion grew that leadership was embedded in the individual’s genetic code. This notion of a Great man also had some religious backing with notions such as great men rising, almost by magic in a time of great need. Examples to this would include individuals such as Eisenhower, Churchill, Jesus, Moses and even the Buddha. At the time of research, many of the leaders were male and in turn creating a golden chance for an androcentric bias in this literature. Understanding this theory would mean acknowledging that; i. Leaders are gifts to mankind from God and leadership is a measure of divinity. ii. Not everyone can aspire to become a leader and succeed. iii. Only the in-born leadership qualities are necessary for a leader to influence his followers and become successful at it. iv. Effectiveness and leadership qualities are independent variables and the demands of the job or the socio-economic environment have little influence over the leader’s emergence. v. Leadership qualities cannot be transferred or impacted through exposure or experience. The Big Five Personality Traits theory Literature on leadership personality has experiences a new wave of resurged attention mainly arguing whether leadership is a learned behavior or whether it is an innate phenomenon. According to this theory, there is no straight up formula for ascension into leadership positions but research shows that there are traits that would make it more likely for an individual to rise to a leadership position either in their institution or the society at large (Courtney, 2017). One such research is the 2002 review by the psychologist Timothy A. Judge. The big five personality traits include: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness and neuroticism. Among these traits, Extroversion is the strongest indicator of leadership while agreeableness is the weakest predictor of leadership. The big five model traits are defined and explained as follows; Extroversion: This trait contains both ends of the spectrum; extroversion and introversion whereby extroverts draw their energy by interacting with others while introverts draw theirs from solitude. Therefore, as a leader, one has to engage with individuals who require their attention and could quite possible have different opinions. Conscientiousness: well, this trait involves the ability to control impulses, thus responding in socially acceptable ways. That promote goal-directed behavior. Such individuals have the capacity to excel in their ability, work within the stipulated rules and organize and plan effectively for the achievement of set goals. Agreeableness: This trait involves how best people get along. Extroverts thrive on the sources of energy and the ability to form new connections while agreeable people are more concerned with their interaction with others. Neuroticism: This trait is more concerned with how comfortable people feel under their own skin as it encompasses the individual’s general temper or emotional stability. Openness to experience: Individuals with this trait are among those likely to rise to leadership positions due to their abilities to think outside the proverbial box as well as entertain new ideas. Openness is likened to universalism which mainly involve seeing people as equally deserving, promoting peace and justice within the society as a whole. Openness has also been likened to broad intellectual knowledge and skills which tends to increase with age. Are leaders born or made? How we perceive the leaders around us is determined by the how we perceive leadership. For example, if a leaders is expected to be a hero, then a person who takes charge and saves the day is the most likely option as compared to one who asks for peoples’ opinion (Hogan & Hogan, 1994). On the other hand, having a leader who ensures that the decisions arise from a collaborative effort, then an individual who is more aggressive or direct could be viewed a tyrant. Comparing the two theories (Great man theory and the big five model theory) essentially boils down to whether leaders are born or made. The Great Man theory suggests that leaders are born equipped with the tools necessary for leadership (Organ, 1996) while the Big Five model suggests that leaders can be made based on the settings of their society’s influence (Stippler, 2011). It is a common saying that ‘it is not what a man does, but how he or she does it’ that affects leadership potential and performance. In this respect, personality or charisma is considered a strong predictor of leadership potential and performance. Perhaps the reason why personality and charisma are key ingredients for leadership potential is because they are considered acceptable behavior for the desired job. If this comes naturally or is acquired through circumstances, it still qualifies the individual for leadership positions. In this respect, the Great Man Theory and the Big Five Model theory have a similarity. The Big Five Model is therefore a comprehensive method of exploring personalities from a global perspective; where researchers have agreed that personality inventories revolve around the five broad dimensions. As I studied leadership in a bid to understand what makes them, I had the prior belief that leadership is achieved through collaborative activity as this had been most effective, in my experience. As stated earlier, previous research on leadership focused on the aristocrats as the middle and lower classes rarely receive any opportunity to serve, hence the notion that genetics had something to do with leadership capabilities. Napoleon, for example said on numerous occasions that he was born to lead and one famous quote of his was that he ‘would rather have an army of rabbits led by a lion than an army of lions led by a rabbit’ (Bass, 1990). A fault of the Great Man Theory was that both the subjects and the researchers were both male, thus bringing forth an androcentric bias to the available literature of the time. This early research suggested and emphasized that leaders often inherit several vital traits or characteristics needed for their assumption of the leadership roles. The traits were studied to determine whether individuals with such traits but born outside leadership circles could also amount to worthwhile leaders. One such trait was identified as empowerment whereby it was determined that a people’s capacity to achieve is often likened to their leader’s abilities to empower them at different levels. The study revealed that ‘lowly’ born individuals can also exhibit similar traits which in turn gives merit to the Big Five Model. Because the Great Man Theory dates back to the earliest studies, it is understandable that some of the current information and literature of the subject has its roots from the Great Man Theory (Crant & Bateman, 2000). Due to the bias evident in early searches, women leaders were hard to come by yet in recent times, women have proven to be just as much talented and gifted in leadership as their male counterparts. Carol Gillian (1982) was among the pioneers in female leadership where she challenged Kohlberg’s assumptions on the moral development stages by including that no woman was included in the research. Leaders, both in the ancient and modern world are expected to behave in a manner designed by the society and as appropriate for their role such as King, prophet or prince. As a result, they are perceived to be inspirational and also endowed with some special leadership abilities that only captures the subjects’ imagination. The effect was so powerful that according to Woods (1913) who researched on the evolution of leadership over a 14 century period in 14 nations concluded that the great-men leaders shaped their world in accordance with their abilities. The Great Man Theory and the Big Five Model clashed during the industrial era where organizational theories took over in terms of leadership potential and performance. Individuals were chosen and trained to be supervisors, managers and other leadership positions without necessarily having being nobly born (The ‘Big 5’, n.d). These theories allowed the growth of procedures for managing personnel so as to achieve the desired results or products. The personnel would consist of a homogenous group of individuals who were familiar with each other and worked within a few miles of their homes. The chosen leaders at times would articulate the grievances of the workers who would in turn perceive and praise him as their hero. One answer to whether leaders are born or made is that leaders can be born, but they can still be made. As this is not a definitive answer, we have to dig a bit deeper to find an irrefutable answer to this. In the modern corporate society, for instance, there is blend of born and made leaders. However, there is little difference in how they feel about the availability of opportunities for self-development and learning among their staff (Novikova, 2013). Learning from experience and acting accordingly is a quality present in both made and born leaders, showing another similarity between the Great Man Theory and the Big Five Model. The difference, however is in the level of focus. Born leaders are likely to argue that institutions should be weary of those they select for developmental opportunities and that they should be offered only to the most deserving as they can benefit most. The Great Model Theory suggests that leaders are supposed to be assertive and authority-focused while the Big Five Model suggests that leaders are more into influencing for certain actions to be taken. It is important to dissect whether authority-focused born leaders or influence-focused made leaders still agree on what they think makes good leaders. In this case, the Great Man Theory would suggest that leaders are more effective when they are authority-oriented hence formality is important to them. The Big Five Model, on the other hand suggests that a worthwhile leader should be open to ideas and strive to make a world a better place as a collaborative effort (Judge & Bono, 2000). Research on modern leadership, according to Skidmore suggests that effective leaders must have a strong drive for responsibility, persistence in their pursuit of goals, task oriented, problem solving skills, personal identity, self-confidence and the capacity to influence other people. Although this does not guarantee success once in leadership positions, they increase the probability of succeeding as they enable the individual to cope with the different circumstances more effectively. For example, individuals who are often indecisive do not make good leaders. From another perspective, high and consistent achievement may compensate for the lack of tolerance and objectivity. History has it that leaders are self-made as compared to the common notion that they are products of their genetics. Leadership, in my opinion is a reflection of who you are and the level of change you want to make in society and the world at large which would call for a deeper understanding of oneself. Warren Dennis once wrote that ‘only when we know what it is we are made of and what we want to make of it can we begin our lives’ (2009). Again, the contest between the Great Man Theory and the Big Five Model lies in the question; Are leaders born or made? The answer to this is that leadership is mostly made, but there are some inborn characteristics (raw materials) that predispose individuals to become successful leaders (‘Big Five Model’). Extroversion is one attribute that has strong ties to leadership effectiveness. Evidence exists that there is need to individuals to become assertive or risk takers as it has proven successful for many leaders. Wisdom is a leadership trait that should be present in order to better analyze situations and forge courses of action (The ‘Big Five’ n.d). Intelligence, not generally a high IQ is therefore an essential quality of leadership as one is able to understand the social dynamics and processes. The leader should be able to determine what their followers want and also what prevents them from getting that which they want. In this respect, leaders can be developed as a result of their society’s needs and having a leader self-development plan should be an added advantage to the in-born traits present in every individual (Hiebert & Klatt, 2000). Leadership, like all other skills require to be developed through deliberate practice which involves taking risks, stretching oneself and working hard. Although natural born leaders have the capacity to be visionaries, hard work and consistency go a long way towards the success of their leadership roles. The notion that leaders are born and not made is an ancient theory that has no scientific data to back up as evidence. When individuals believe that their leadership skills are a result of their genetics, then they are less likely to take initiative to commit to their own personal development (Hogan & Hogan, 1994). Whether an individual is successful in a leadership role is dependent on the situation and the personality that is brought to the job by the leader. However, a leader can achieve more success if they can adjust their leadership style to the demands of the management situation. Shortcomings The great Man Theory contains no scientific bias or any empirical validity as it is a more speculative piece of notion. However, the theory’s greatest weakness not only lies in its improbable inherent traits but the notion that people can become successful leaders without considering their environmental situations, hence many modern theorists and leaders alike have rejected it. The Big Five Model’s shortcomings include the fact that it is impossible to isolate set traits of leadership and test them across a wide range of situations. The theory fails to relate particular traits to performance and the effectiveness of leaders. Additionally, an individual’s traits do not make up the totality of a leader’s personality or reveal much information about his ambitions or aspirations. Conclusion The Great Man Theory and the Big Five Model have both similarities and differences yet the resounding truth is that leaders can be made. Perhaps the actual issues are that only few individuals take the tome to seek out their purpose and vision for their existence or that few individuals commit to learning how to best use their abilities or that few individuals are willing to pay the price necessary to become successful leaders. Leadership is not something that lurks in one’s DNA as it only comes when one is able to connect their unique strengths and purpose with a deeper aspiration to change the world. References Big Five Model of Personality. (2014). Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research, 394-394. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_100285 Courtney Ackerman, C. (2017, June 26). The Big Five Personality Theory: The 5 Factor Model Explained ( PDF). Retrieved September 05, 2017, from https://positivepsychologyprogram.com/big-five-personality-theory/ Crant, J. M., & Bateman, T. S. (2000). Charismatic leadership viewed from above: The impact of proactive personality. Journal of organizational Behavior, 63-75. Hiebert, M., & Klatt, B. (2001). The encyclopedia of leadership: a practical guide to popular leadership theories and techniques. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: Effectiveness and personality. American psychologist, 49(6), 493. J., & Says, J. R. (2017, August 29). Home. Retrieved September 04, 2017, from http://sites.psu.edu/leadership/2017/08/29/the-great-man-theory-and-the-culture-of-gender/ Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of applied psychology, 85(5), 751. Novikova, I. A. (2013). Big Five (The Five-Factor Model and The Five-Factor Theory). The Encyclopedia of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 136-138. doi:10.1002/9781118339893.wbeccp054 Organ, D. W. (1996). Leadership: The great man theory revisited. Skidmore, M. S. (n.d.). Great Man Theory. Encyclopedia of Educational Leadership and Administration. doi:10.4135/9781412939584.n254 Stippler, M. (2011). Leadership: approaches, developments, trends. Gütersloh, Germany: Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung. The 'Big 5' Aspects of Personality. (n.d.). Retrieved September 05, 2017, from http://www.psychometric-success.com/personality-tests/personality-tests-big-5-aspects.htm Read More