Contemporary surveys of leadership scholarship will occasionally mention the Great Man theory before moving on to more rigorous academic categories. Less a theory than a statement of faith, the Great Man theory does not fit into the rigorous scholarly theory and research that makes up the contemporary canon of leadership discourse. My goal in this article is to treat the Great Man theory seriously and to present a fuller notion of the theory. My intent is not to offer a defense of the theory or to ''redeem'' Thomas Carlyle as a leadership theorist. Rather, I will add a hitherto unacknowledged dimension: the element of Freudian psychology. In Freud's case, the Great Man was articulated not a moral proscription for how to act, but rather an analytic description of the elemental forces that lead people to seek heroes. The article suggests that the Great Man theory is worth considering because of its contemporary relevance. To consider the theory in full, however, Freud's work on leadership needs to be examined alongside that of Carlyle. It is Freud's description of the impulses that drive us toward authority figures, more than Carlyle's proselytizing for hero worship that can, and should offer valuable insights into how we-scholars, observers, and participants in the business world-react to corporate saviors. KeywordsGreat Man theory, Thomas Carlyle, Sigmund Freud, CEOs, intellectual historyIn leadership discourse, the Great Man theory-an assertion that certain individuals, certain men, are gifts from God placed on earth to provide the lightening needed to uplift human existence-is associated mainly with Thomas Carlyle. For good reason. In the spring of 1840, Carlyle delivered a series of six public lectures on the role played by heroes in shaping the arc of history. The following year, those lectures were brought together in a single Leadership 0(0) 1-12 ! The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
Get-go-noun: slang, the very beginning. AbstractTransformational leadership has undergone a critical reassessment. Rather than examining the state of the science or the conceptual confusion and contradictions inherent in the ongoing stream of transformational leadership research, this article adopts an historical perspective, looking back on the founding era of this influential concept. In particular, the article evaluates the use of Lee Iacocca, who became the personification of the transformational leadership ideal. While placing Iacocca's appeal into a particular socio-historical context, the article offers a critical weighing of that devise. This use of Iacocca as a personification and embodiment of the transformational leadership construct was, at best, a highly romanticized take on an individual. At worse, the use of Iacocca was misleading and disingenuous. The article concludes that two core flaws of transformational leadership-over-attribution and romanticizing traditional leadership behaviors-were present from the inception.
The failure rate of TQM interventions exceeds 75 per cent. Contends that it is missteps in the implementation of TQM – and other associated change efforts such as process re‐engineering – that undermine the likelihood that the intervention will contribute in a significant and lasting way to the competitive effectiveness of the organization. Using three case examples of TQM efforts, suggests that the implementation process must succeed in unhooking the organization from its traditional hierarchical and functional moorings and reattach it to horizontal, cross‐functional processes. To do this, the intervention process must address six distinct but interconnected stages of unhooking and reattachment and do so in a logical, sequential way.
Both business executives and management scholars have, in recent years, focused a great deal of attention on the theme of corporate social responsibility (CSR). Calls for business leaders to expend resources on behalf of “social good” tend to downplay, if not ignore, what is fundamentally an ideological question: just what is a “good” society and who defines “goodness”? The ideological underpinnings of social responsibility and its relationship to the “good” society can be explored through an historical perspective. The roots of the CSR movement trace back to the early years of the Cold War. Led by Donald K David, Dean of the Harvard Business School and supported by other academics and executives given voice on the pages of the Harvard Business Review, advocates urged expanded business social responsibility as a means of aligning business interests with the defense of free-market capitalism against what was depicted as the clear-and-present danger of Soviet Communism. Today's enthusiastic calls for business to “do well by doing good” could benefit from a similar critical analysis not just of the goals of CSR but also the ideological assumptions, often unacknowledged, that underlie those goals.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.