Introduction
The Great Man Theory, prominently articulated by Thomas Carlyle in the 19th century, remains a foundational concept in the study of leadership within the field of education. Carlyle posited two central assumptions: first, that leaders are born, not made, suggesting an inherent, innate capacity for leadership; and second, that great leaders will emerge in times of societal need, implying a deterministic relationship between historical context and leadership emergence. This essay critically evaluates these assumptions from an educational perspective, exploring their relevance, limitations, and implications for contemporary understandings of leadership development. By examining historical interpretations and modern critiques, I aim to assess whether Carlyle’s views align with current theories in education and leadership studies. The discussion will be structured into two main sections addressing each assumption individually, supported by relevant academic sources, before concluding with a synthesis of key arguments and their broader significance.
Assumption 1: Leaders Are Born, Not Made
Carlyle’s first assumption, that leaders are born with inherent traits and not shaped by environment or education, reflects a deterministic view of leadership capacity. This perspective suggests that certain individuals possess innate qualities—such as charisma, intelligence, or decisiveness—that predispose them to leadership roles, irrespective of external influences. Historically, this idea resonated with the 19th-century fascination with heroism and individuality, often exemplified by figures like Napoleon Bonaparte, whom Carlyle himself admired (Carlyle, 1841). From an educational standpoint, this assumption raises questions about the role of training and development in fostering leadership skills. If leadership is purely innate, as Carlyle suggests, then educational interventions designed to cultivate such skills would arguably be futile.
However, contemporary research in leadership studies challenges this deterministic stance. Scholars like Bass (1990) argue that while certain traits may predispose individuals to leadership, environmental factors, education, and experiential learning play significant roles in shaping effective leaders. For instance, leadership development programs in educational settings often focus on nurturing skills such as emotional intelligence and critical thinking, which can be taught and refined over time. This suggests that leadership is not solely an inborn trait but a complex interplay of nature and nurture. Indeed, the transformative learning theory, which emphasises personal growth through education, further undermines Carlyle’s view by highlighting how reflective practices can cultivate leadership potential in diverse individuals (Mezirow, 1991).
Nevertheless, it is worth acknowledging that some genetic or personality factors may contribute to leadership propensity, lending partial credence to Carlyle’s assumption. For example, studies in behavioral genetics indicate that traits like extraversion, often associated with leadership, have a hereditary component (Bouchard, 1994). Yet, even if such traits provide a foundation, their expression and effectiveness in leadership contexts are typically contingent on education and socialisation. Therefore, while Carlyle’s assertion captures a historical perspective on leadership, it appears overly rigid when viewed through the lens of modern educational theory, which prioritises the development of skills over innate determinism.
Assumption 2: Great Leaders Will Arise When There Is a Need
Carlyle’s second assumption posits that great leaders emerge in response to societal or historical needs, suggesting a symbiotic relationship between context and leadership. This idea implies that crises or pivotal moments in history naturally call forth individuals capable of addressing them, as seen in Carlyle’s own writings on historical figures who shaped their eras (Carlyle, 1841). From an educational perspective, this assumption invites reflection on how environments—whether societal, institutional, or academic—can influence the emergence of leadership. It also prompts consideration of whether educational systems should focus on preparing individuals to respond to such needs.
There is some merit in this assumption, particularly when examining historical examples. Leaders like Winston Churchill, who rose to prominence during World War II, arguably exemplify Carlyle’s view, as their leadership was galvanised by the urgent needs of their time. Indeed, situational leadership theories support this notion to an extent, suggesting that effective leadership often depends on aligning individual capabilities with contextual demands (Hersey & Blanchard, 1982). In educational contexts, this might translate to fostering adaptive leadership skills that enable students to address emerging challenges, such as technological disruptions or social inequalities.
However, Carlyle’s assumption has significant limitations. It assumes a somewhat passive emergence of leaders, neglecting the role of proactive development and systemic barriers that may prevent capable individuals from rising to leadership positions. For instance, educational research highlights how socio-economic factors, institutional biases, and access to opportunities can hinder potential leaders from marginalised groups, regardless of societal need (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990). Furthermore, the assumption risks oversimplifying complex historical dynamics by attributing societal progress solely to individual leaders, ignoring collective efforts and structural changes. From an educational perspective, this suggests a need for systems that actively identify and nurture leadership potential rather than relying on spontaneous emergence during crises. While Carlyle’s idea captures the dramatic appeal of history’s turning points, it lacks the nuance required to address leadership development in structured, inclusive educational environments.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Thomas Carlyle’s assumptions within the Great Man Theory—that leaders are born not made, and that great leaders arise in times of need—offer a historical lens through which to view leadership, but they fall short of accommodating modern educational insights. The first assumption, rooted in biological determinism, overlooks the transformative potential of education and experiential learning, as evidenced by contemporary leadership theories that advocate for skill development. The second assumption, while partially supported by situational leadership models, underestimates the role of systemic factors and proactive cultivation of leadership within educational settings. Together, these critiques suggest that while Carlyle’s ideas were influential in shaping early discourse on leadership, they require significant reevaluation in light of current understandings. The implications for education are clear: rather than relying on innate traits or historical inevitability, educational systems must prioritise inclusive, skill-based leadership development to prepare individuals for diverse challenges. This critical examination not only highlights the limitations of historical theories but also underscores the evolving nature of leadership studies within the educational sphere, urging a more dynamic and equitable approach to fostering future leaders.
References
- Bass, B. M. (1990) Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications. 3rd ed. Free Press.
- Bouchard, T. J. (1994) ‘Genes, Environment, and Personality’, Science, 264(5166), pp. 1700-1701.
- Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J. C. (1990) Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. 2nd ed. Sage Publications.
- Carlyle, T. (1841) On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History. James Fraser.
- Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K. H. (1982) Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources. 4th ed. Prentice Hall.
- Mezirow, J. (1991) Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. Jossey-Bass.
(Word count: 1042, including references)
