Bass (1990) states that “the study of history has been the study of leaders – what they did and why they did it” (p. 3). From the instruction of Ptahhotep in 2300 B.C., to Confucius, to Plato, to Machiavelli, and to Collins, the scholars of leadership study have focused on influence (Bass, 1990). Leadership theories (great man theory, trait theory, situational leadership, contingency theory, transactional leadership, transformational leadership, moral leadership, and spiritual leadership), definitions, and processes of influence will be discussed in the coming weeks in an effort better to understand the complex nature of leadership and leadership implications for effective leadership, specifically leadership in the local church.
Great Man Theory
The great man theory of leadership became popular as great men were observed throughout history that rose to the position of leadership and led in spite of challenging and difficult circumstances. Proponents of this theory drew attention to leaders such as Martin Luther King, Lee Iacocca, and others who Collins (2001) described as individual leaders who build greatness through a blend of personal humility and professional will. The great man theory contained a position that leaders differ from followers because of hereditary influences (Bass, 1990). Simply stated, leaders are born and not made (Cawthorn, 1996).
Prior to the mid-twentieth century, the great man theory was the predominant theory for understanding leadership. With the rise of the behavioral sciences, the great man theory has been replaced with the notion that leadership is a science, and can be learned. From this perspective, leadership has little to do with hereditary or natural forces.
Cawthorn (1996) suggested that while the concept of nurturing leadership traits among anyone aspiring to positions of leadership is attractive, this concept denies the reality that not all individuals are born with equal talents and abilities. Contemporary theorists supported the great man theory by demonstrating the influence of the seratonin levels of the brain on an individual’s ability to lead others. There appeared to be an impact of individual’s personality on their ability to lead others (Cawthorn, 1996).
Proponents of the great man theory may assert that the reason for the large number of plateaued and declining churches in the United States is that there are not enough natural born leaders serving as pastors in local churches.
References:
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stodgill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Cawthorn, D. L. (1996). Leadership: The Great Man Theory revisited. Business Horizons, 39(3), 1-4.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap . . . and others don’t. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Dr McGinn, Excellent idea having a blog. The more people leaders like YOU can connect with the better off we will be. Question: The level of seratonin – would you say that an individual is born with it or is it somehow learned or produced at a higher level because of circumstances/environment. Or, perhaps, could it be both? I think more than just local churches are being “hurt” by the lack of real leaders in society. However, since I am a born skeptic I think that “real” leaders can also end up being really bad in the long run.
Looking forward to your other posts on Leadership Theory. Wondering if you are considering looking at what Positive Psychology is discovering about developing Leadership. There has been a lot of great work looking at the effectiveness of leading from one’s strengths.
Dr. McGinn,
Thank you for the opportunity to interact with your writing.
In my experience I have seen the benefit of having Great Man leadership in the local church, but those benefits seem to be temporary at best. The costs, at times seem to me greater.
I’m more challenged when I think of the description of Jesus being the head of the church and we are only body. I’d like to spend the rest of my life in that framework, instead of one that is pandering for a king, like all of the other institutions.