Great man theory

Folks like Edison, Mr. Lightbulb, were called out historically as being very jerky and as awful people.

I don't think we have historical records on the personality of Gutenberg, the guy who developed a movable type and the ability to start printing multiple versions of something, but maybe, who knows? Then there's that whole great man theory, right? That history is made by this small subset of naturally selected so-called great men, men of course, who held certain traits that made, that turned them into history makers like courage or intellect, but probably lots of narcissism.

In fact, most of the folks in our history books are narcissistic, but Where does this leave us? Is the only place to get something like a smartphone from a narcissistic person? Listen, every time I use my iPhone, I'm still astonished that we once turned to an encyclopedia or the library, and it would take quite a long time to get a factoid that I can pull from my phone in one second while I'm waiting in line to pick up the groceries I pre-ordered using that same phone that will ultimately navigate me to my destination.

it is absolutely extraordinary what has happened with all these innovations whether we like it or not is extraordinary but it raises a different issue human beings are naturally oriented towards this kind of innovation.

And this fella said to me, "I can't tell what's you and what's Sir Alex." I said, "Precisely."

[laughs] Do you believe in the great man theory of history? I'm asking this question because I'm very interested by institutions that endure and what you've learned about how the ones that have endured have pulled that off, like Sequoia.

And I'm also pulled to people, of course, like Elon, who you were an early backer and partner to in X.com, how they shape history.

And it seems like we might have a few world historic figures alive and operating today.

Now, how do I tie the two things together? Well, the subtitle of the book is When Do Leaders Matter? Leaders matter in this case, in the case of Osama bin Laden.

The question that Jared Diamond is asking in that book, his new book, is the great man theory.

In other words, Is history just basically like a river going downstream and it's going to go there whether individuals jump on it or not? In other words, would have World War II happen no matter what, whether or not Hitler was there or not? Does George Washington matter? Does Steve Jobs matter? Do coaches for basketball teams make really that much of a difference? Would UCLA been a powerhouse in volleyball and basketball a few decades ago, whether or not it had its coaches? Things like that.

Would religious figures make a big difference? Does Jesus or Muhammad really make a big difference? Or would somebody like Jesus or Muhammad was destined to appear at some point? So this is the questions of his book.

So if you're sensible, you set out to follow a trail blazed by someone who is truly great, someone really worth imitating, so that even if you're not on the same level yourself, at least you'll reflect a little of his brilliance.

Thomas Carlyle thought the same, and his theory of history, the great man theory, posited that history was shaped by the few, not the many.

World history was but the biography of great men.

But he believed all of us can benefit from their study.

that are family and all on the exact same page from a mission, vision, core value standpoint on what we're trying to do and all there to support each other.

Do you think part of the challenge of why maybe more people don't do that, and I think sometimes the challenge of the GM role is through history, we've been taught what's generally called the great man theory, where history shows us that this one person, whether it's Winston Churchill or Thomas Edison, apparently this one person magically did all these things.

Whereas the reality when you dig deeper is Thomas Edison had a few hundred people working for him doing his experiments and Winston Churchill had amazing people around him.

And that's not the narrative that gets told.

Caesar idolized Alexander the Great, and Alexander imagined himself as the next Achilles.

This is the great man theory of history.

It's a controversial idea proposed by historian Thomas Carlyle, who argued that the history of the world is but the biography of great men.

Carlyle believed that history isn't shaped by the masses, but by the will of heroes, elite figures who should be followed and revered for their inherent genius.

But this isn't simply a history lesson.

If Carlyle is right, it means your choice of who to follow is the single most important factor in who you will become.

So let's uncover the secrets of the great man theory, how you can use it to unlock your full potential, and also why you've probably never been taught it in your school's history class.

So first, who is the man behind this galvanizing view of history? Thomas Carlyle was a 19th century Scottish essayist, historian, and philosopher who gave a series of lectures on heroism in 1840.

So Alison, today we're gonna be tackling an age-old question.

Are successful leaders people who are uniquely qualified to handle their opportunity, or do the context and circumstances they're in largely dictate how they'll perform? We're essentially renewing the Great Man theory versus the idea that history rises from below.

Yes, great men or great women.

I do like that topic, especially in an era when boards are rewarding CEOs with astronomically large contracts.

Diamond is perhaps best known for his nineteen ninety-seven book, Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, and his new book on leadership is called Prophets, Profits, Coaches, and Kings: When Do Leaders Matter? He spoke with me about the secret sauce that makes political, business, and sports leaders succeed, and what can and can't be attributed to the individuals in charge.

Here's our conversation.

So in this new book of yours, you've reopened the debate about how critical individual leaders are in the unfolding events, right? So there's the Great Man theory of history, where we credit individual leaders in business, in politics, in religion, in sports for uniquely affecting historical developments.

And then there's an opposing view, which is that leaders are constrained by the context and the circumstances they're in and have little influence on events.

So we can talk about where it comes from and maybe that'll help us understand a little bit about why people think this.

As far as I could find, the roots of this are probably based out of the 19th century great man theory.

The idea that history is shaped by exceptional individuals who possess qualities the rest of us just simply don't.

There's definitely a lot of people who believe that, that all the exceptional individuals from history are...

And with that, if you have that belief, then, well, how can someone who's not an aristocrat or comes from a good family, how could they be a great leader when all great leaders come from, you know, from bloodlines that are great kind of a thing? So I think that a lot of that history and that baggage from the past has kind of carried forward and it maps so cleanly onto history.

You know, back then it mapped very cleanly onto political and social structures of the time and made it sticky and it's just kind of carried forward to today.

And even though great man theory is largely discredited today, there is a lot of cultural residue that has still carried over.

If you think about how people talk about CEOs or how we cast leaders in film, how we describe athletic coaches, there's still a lot of language about natural gifts.