Carlyle, Freud, and the Great Man Theory more fully considered

Abstract

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

Rethinking Leadership Theories

“…Different leaders will succeed in different leadership context by emphasizing different aspects of the six leadership domains. (Carlyle, 1841, Spector, 2016.…”

Academic library leaders’ conceptions of library leadership in Pakistan

“…In this theory, leaders are considered as great 'men' possessing heroic personalities, intelligence, and wisdom (Harrison 2018;Rost 1991). Nevertheless, this theory is criticized due to its gender biased and masculine nature (Spector 2016;Wart 2003). The Great Men theory resulted into some certain traits for a leader (Wright 1996).…”

The Archaeology of Heroes: Carlyle, Foucault and the Pedagogy of Interdisciplinary Narrative Discourse

“…Some analysts focus on his conception of history as being enacted by key individuals, contrasting this with alternative views (Stambler, ), while some position Carlyle's thinking firmly within Romanticism (Harrold, ) seeing it as an extension of the prevailing cultural discourse of the time of writing. A number focus on issues of leadership and governance, where the characteristics of the individuals he looks at are considered in the light of modern ideas about charismatic, informed, confident leaders with vision, while others consider how Carlyle's ideas diverge from modern political ideals of identity and autonomy (Bossche, ; Spector, ; Steinweis, ), challenging the idea that a few individuals should be allowed to take responsibility in the collective imagination for the grand sweep of history. Some simply see Carlyle's position as substanceless propagandist bluster, antithetical to the Modernist agenda of subjective selfhood (Shields, ), while others argue for a different viewpoint, seeing Carlyle's work on the hero poet as a precursor to Modernism's cultural heroism (Noel‐Tod, ).…”

“…The richness of the data Carlyle mines has an instructive value insofar as it creates and promotes links and lineages that are broad, dynamic, affirmative, convincing and therefore have the potential to be pedagogically powerful. His contemporaries were effusive in their praise of this influence on their thinking, recognising it as culture‐forming and founded on an impressive knowledge base (Emig, ; Spector, ; Stambler, ). Consequently, a re‐evaluation of Carlyle's role in helping us consider how to structure learning about the past from within our own moment in history may be timely.…”