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.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 158 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.