Leaders and History
Having a leadership position and being a leader are not the same thing, even though many people believe it is. Being appointed to a leadership role is entirely dependent upon circumstances; being a leader is an innate quality that moves beyond the tactical and into the strategic, allows those with greatness to rise to the occasion, and often results in drastic changes in society and culture. We can ask, though, about the traits of leaders that make them successful. There is scholarly evidence, in fact, that shows there are personality traits in leaders that are more developed than non-leaders. When combined with certain historical circumstances, these traits become dominant and the "Great Man" theory of leadership is fulfilled. This view says that leaders are born, not made -- that there is some sort of genetic configuration that allows certain people to move beyond even their own wildest expectations....
This view was very popular in the 19th century when scholars tried to understand how personalities shaped history. In the 20th century, Thomas Carlyle used something called "social profiling" to identify talents and skills that he believed defined leadership. This theory says that leaders are larger than life and extend leadership traits (Carlyle and Tenneyson, 2000). This may be a bit simplistic in the modern world, because leaders often rise to the occasion based on stressful situations, "In fact, leadership is highly situational and contextual. A special chemistry develops between leaders and followers and it is usually context specific" (Wren, 1995, p. 30).
When we look critically at eight individuals, Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, Harriet Tubman, Andrew Young, Napoleon Bonaparte, Ross Perot, Pope John XXIII, and King David, we might, at first wonder what commonalities they share. After all, King David…
