Great Man Theory and Behavioural Theory

The Trait Theory had a problem. It looked back at successful leaders and listed their traits, but it could not predict who would become a leader in the future. The most extreme version of Trait Theory, the Great Man Theory, took an even harder position: leaders are born to lead, and the rest of us cannot become leaders by any amount of effort. This view was dominant in early leadership thinking. The Behavioural Theory eventually displaced it by asking a different question: what do leaders actually do, and can the rest of us learn to do it?

The Great Man Theory

The Great Man Theory is the strongest form of Trait Theory. It claims that leaders are born, and that great leaders arise when great situations demand them.

Leaders are born and not made. Great leaders will arise when there is a great need.

This is a romantic view of leadership. Great moments produce great people. The American Revolution produced Washington. The Second World War produced Churchill. The Indian independence movement produced Gandhi. The view explains history through the lives of a few exceptional individuals.

Where the view came from

The handout names the historical reason the view became dominant.

Early research on leadership was based on the study of people who were already great leaders. These people were often from the aristocracy, as few from lower classes had the opportunity to lead. This contributed to the notion that leadership had something to do with breeding.

The argument is sociological. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, leadership opportunities were concentrated in the aristocracy. Researchers who studied “great leaders” were studying aristocrats. They found aristocratic traits. They concluded leadership was an aristocratic trait. The conclusion was a sampling artefact, not a deep truth about leadership.

Why the view does not hold up

Three problems with Great Man Theory.

1. Selection bias. It studies only successful leaders, never the failures. A trait that 90 percent of failed leaders also have cannot be the cause of leadership.
2. Survivorship bias. It looks backwards. By the time someone is recognised as a “great leader”, many other factors have contributed to her success.
3. Class bias. It mistakes opportunity for ability. People who never got the chance to lead were excluded from the dataset.

Modern leadership research has largely abandoned the Great Man framing. The view persists in popular biography and in some boardrooms, but the research has moved on.

Why the view still matters

Even though Great Man Theory is largely discredited, the underlying intuition (that some people seem natural at leadership) is not entirely wrong. Personality differences are real. Some people are more comfortable with leadership demands than others. The error is treating this as inheritance rather than as something developable.

For a school, the practical lesson is to look for leadership potential beyond the obvious candidates. The aristocratic son of a school owner may have the title; the quiet senior teacher with no family connections may have the actual leadership ability. A school that hires only the visible candidates loses the others.

The Behavioural Theory

By the 1940s, researchers were frustrated with trait-focused work that could not predict who would lead. They asked a different question: instead of looking at the qualities of leaders, what if we looked at their behaviours? Behaviours are observable, measurable, and trainable.

Given the flaws of early trait studies, researchers turned to examining the actions, behaviours that separated effective leaders from ineffective leaders. Behavioural theories are considered as being universally applicable. Leaders can be made rather than being born. Successful leadership is based in definable, learnable behaviour.

The shift was philosophical and practical at the same time. If leadership is what leaders do, then anyone can learn to do those behaviours. Schools can teach leadership. Training programmes can develop leaders. The leader’s identity is not the question; her actions are.

The core claim

Behavioural theories of leadership do not seek inborn traits; they look at what leaders actually do. They imply that leaders can be trained. Specific behaviours differentiate leaders from non-leaders. Focus is on the way of doing things.

Three operational consequences.

1. Observation replaces personality testing. A research team watches what leaders actually do across many situations.
2. Training becomes possible. If leadership is behaviour, a behaviour can be taught.
3. The pool of potential leaders expands. Any person willing to practise the behaviours becomes a candidate.

This was a major democratisation of leadership thinking. Where Great Man Theory said only certain people could lead, Behavioural Theory said most people could be trained to lead if they were willing to do the work.

Two clusters of leadership behaviour

Early behavioural research, particularly the work done at Ohio State University and the University of Michigan in the 1940s and 1950s, found that most leadership behaviours fell into two broad clusters.

Task-oriented behaviour

A task-oriented leader focuses on getting the work done. Examples in a school:

1. Sets clear expectations.
2. Defines roles and responsibilities precisely.
3. Plans the work in detail.
4. Monitors progress.
5. Holds people accountable for results.

This is sometimes called “initiating structure”. The leader provides the structure that makes the work possible.

Relationship-oriented behaviour

A relationship-oriented leader focuses on supporting the people doing the work. Examples in a school:

1. Listens to staff concerns.
2. Develops people through coaching and feedback.
3. Builds trust through honesty and follow-through.
4. Notices and acknowledges good work.
5. Resolves conflict among staff.

This is sometimes called “consideration”. The leader considers the people, not just the task.

A leader strong in one and weak in the other produces a recognisable pattern. The task-oriented leader produces results and resentment. The relationship-oriented leader produces warmth and missed deadlines. The strong leader produces both.

Why the two clusters matter for schools

A new principal can ask herself: which cluster is my natural default? Most leaders lean towards one. The leaning is not a problem; the failure to develop the other is.

A school can also use the framework when hiring. A school in a turnaround needs more task-oriented leadership at the top; the work has to get done. A school in steady-state can use a more relationship-oriented principal; the work is mostly running well and the focus should be on developing people.

Structured behavioural theories

The handout mentions a useful distinction:

Structured-based behavioural theories focus on the development and maintenance of relationships, process oriented employee needs and concerns (consideration).

Some theorists focused on the task structure side of behaviour. Others focused on the relationship and consideration side. The richest behavioural theories looked at both.

What Behavioural Theory gives a school

Three takeaways from the Behavioural Theory tradition.

1. Leadership is a set of behaviours that can be observed and trained. A school can run leadership training programmes for emerging leaders.
2. The two-cluster framework is a useful self-check. A leader who knows her natural cluster can work on the other.
3. Hiring and promotion should look at behaviour, not just credentials. What does a candidate actually do when given a leadership role? Past behaviour predicts future leadership better than personality tests do.

The limit of the Behavioural Theory, like the Trait Theory before it, is its universality claim. The Behavioural theorists believed the right behaviours worked everywhere. Contingency theorists later pushed back on this, arguing that the right behaviours depend on the situation.

Flashcard

What is the central difference between Great Man Theory and Behavioural Theory?

Tap to reveal

Answer

Great Man Theory says leaders are born. Behavioural Theory says leaders are made through learnable behaviours.

1. Great Man Theory. Leaders are born with certain qualities. Great moments produce great people. The rest of us cannot become leaders.

2. Behavioural Theory. Leadership is what leaders do, not who they are. Behaviours can be observed, measured, and trained. Anyone willing to practise the behaviours can be a candidate.

Behavioural Theory democratised leadership. It also expanded the practical toolkit: schools can run training programmes, develop emerging leaders, and assess candidates on what they do rather than on inherited qualities.