Great man Theory-Leadership traits Term Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Great military personnelhood Theory-Leadership traits - Term Paper Exampleording to Carlyle, certain people are born with essential qualities that variantiate them from others allowing them to dissemble positions of power and authority (Tulsian 94).In the massive man theory, leadership is something intrinsic, which implies that people are born leaders, scarce not natured to be experience leaders (Johnson 171). The theory regards a leader as a hero who is in that respect to accomplish anything for his followers against all odds. The theory further postulates that persons in power deserve to be at that place ascribable to their peculiar endowment. In addition, the theory argues that distinctive characteristics of leaders remain stable in different groups over a prolonged period. Thus, the theory is of the opinion that all outstanding leaders share interchangeable characteristics regardless of where and when they exercised their leadership skills (David & Frank 173).Fredrick Ad ams timberlands who was an American scholar supported Carlyles work further. Wood studied the historical impact of all the great rulers in Western Europe from the 12th deoxycytidine monophosphate up to the French revolution in the late 18th century (Johnson & Pierce 177). The fact that earlier influential leaders were all men inspired the use of the term great man. In addition, majority of those who researched on leadership were male researchers, which further influenced the use of the term great man. Therefore, the evolution of the great man theory never took into consideration gender issues, which created a notion that only men had the traits of distinguished leaders. However, due to the continued emergence of many distinguished women leaders, the great man theory assumed a bare-ass name of the great person theory (Nance & Timothy 412).There have been several critics who have come forward to question the applicability of the great man theory in determining who is a great lead er and vice Versa (Murugan 337). The main criticism arises as a result of the set traits used to circumscribe a great leader terming them as masculine traits. In