Great man theory and Contingency theory

 Great man theory and Contingency theory

 Different leadership theories exist to explain the reasons as to why specific individuals become leaders, and others do not. Over the past decade, a plethora of leadership theories have surfaced to define leadership and what precisely makes a great leader. Amongst these leadership theories are the Great man theory and Contingency theory. The great man theory proposes that influential leaders are naturally born to lead others (Cherry & Morin, 2019). Unlike other approaches, this individual theory holds the belief that great leaders are not made, but they are born. This particular model of leadership depicts influential leaders as being mythic, heroic, and bound to be leaders in times of need. On its part, the Contingency theory puts attention on several variables that correlate to the environment, and that might potentially define the individual style of leadership that is most suitable for the circumstance. This theory of leadership holds on to the fact that there exists no form of leadership style that is best in all situations.

Analysis of Scholarly Works on both Theories

As Boerma et al. (2017) explains, the concept of whether influential leaders are made or born has been discussed for years. In the history of leadership, there have been several prominent figures that rose to leadership naturally, while others cultivated their skills of leadership by experience and tenacity. The authors argue that to understand the entire concept of leadership effectively, environmental influences and the individual genetic make-up ought to be considered. The articles by Boerma et al. appear to refute the claim by the great man theory that leaders are born with intrinsic characteristics of leadership. The authors emphasize the argument that great leaders can either be born with characteristics of leadership or can develop such attributes of leadership from training that they receive. By several studies conducted, the authors contrast with the argument that influential leaders are only born and settle for the fact that influential leaders are both made and born with characteristics of leadership.

Vidal et al. (2017) give us more insight on the contingency theory of leadership by stating that leadership takes into account a process of influence in a bid to realize goals. The authors argue that the contingency theory of leadership is substantially prevalent, and most often, it represents a mediation point. The authors argue for the fact that the characteristics of excellent and influential leaders are considerably dependent on and are portrayed during a variety of contextual factors. This article elaborates on the significance of situational variables when it comes to the making of a leader. The authors express the individual requirement of leaders to change their leadership traits and behaviors based on their comprehension of the situation that surrounds them. Depending on the surroundings and other related circumstances, influential leaders ought to assume an individual leadership style that is ideal for a particular occasion (Vidal et al., 2017).

Unlike other theories, the great man theory of leadership mainly studies an individual leader or leaders rather than considering the entire concept of leadership (Ahmed, Khan & Nawez, 2016). The founder of the great man theory mostly inclined on the individual idea of the leader as an individual that is bestowed with particular qualities rather than capturing the overall imagination of the masses. The author support the idea that on a majority of cases, leaders are shaped depending on the situation or circumstances that surrounds them. The article clearly illustrates that in organizational setting variables such as the company’s culture and the individual tasks that are carried out in the organization are what forms and shapes a leader (Suleiman, Yahaya, & Abba, 2018). As such, in accordance to the contingency theory of leadership, the effectiveness of any leader depends on various external and internal factors of their surroundings. This individual idea greatly contrasts with the great man leadership theory that proposes the idea that an influential leader is born with an innate characteristic of leadership.

Criticism of both Great Man and Contingency Theories of Leadership

One of the major weaknesses that the great man theory has had in relation to leadership is the absurd idea that individuals become influential leaders with no respect to their environmental circumstances (Tsolka, 2020). This particular tenet made a majority of contemporary theorists and influential leaders to reject the theory and all that it stands for. The idea that a majority of world leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi and Abraham Lincoln could have become great leaders anyway as a result of them being born in a lineage of leaders has received criticism from many. A lot of theorists argue that this individual theory advocates for the idea that leaders have the divine role and rights over their citizens on a continuous hereditary basis. Most importantly, this individual theory does not in any way provide any verifiable or scientific explanation of how and why various leaders arise and become effective. The theory fails to show why one leader becomes effective and the other one fails.

On the other hand, the contingency theory of leadership has also received its fair share of criticism. Theorists argue that the contingency theory fails to substantiate the model that is developed empirically. This model of leadership significantly fails to give reasons for the effectiveness of leadership in different situations. Another significant limitation of this theory is inadequate literature. This theory has less or limited materials to support its tenets and arguments. For this reason, a majority of theorists consider it to be less substantiated and ineffective. A huge number of critics have also argued that the contingency theory of leadership has a rather difficult empirical testing. This means that as a result of being complex in nature, the contingency model has a number of issues when it comes to testing the various percepts of the theory (Suleiman, Yahaya, & Abba, 2018). The involvement of too many factors in this theory makes testing rather complex.

Gaps in Literature

The article by Boerma et al only refutes the claim that great leaders are born and not made but it does not substantiate the arguments that it provides. The authors of this article do not provide a rationale as to why the argument the theory makes might indeed be correct. The same gap in literature applies in the article by Vidal et al. the authors of this article only argue for the fact that an influential leader is made out of circumstances that surround them but fail to make a counter-argument against this specific claim. Ahmed, Khan and Nawez (2016) balance both the argument supporting the theory and make a counter-argument against the theories. This makes an analysis of both theories thus it is clear to understand all the theories presented. Both Boerma et al and Vidal et al ought to consider both sides of an argument in future when refuting or supporting claims made by any theory.

A Comparison and Contrast of Different Perspectives on both Theories

            There exist various thoughts on the great man theory. Different individuals support the tenets of this theory while a number of scholars and theorists refute the tenets of the same theory. Citing from the leadership style of influential leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, a school of thought argues that great leaders are simply born to lead others. This school of thought argues that influential leaders have the characteristics of being intelligent, charismatic and have traits of social skills that are inherent. However, for a different school of thought, this argument does not seem to hold water. This school of thought argues that the great man theory is mostly a speculative piece of idea. The individuals that refute the tenets of this theory argue that there exist nothing inherent or divine about leadership and that born leaders are just but imaginary characters (Suleiman, Yahaya, & Abba, 2018). The group argues that the proclaimed ‘born leaders’ often tend to be misfits in the contemporary and rapid changing conditions.

The Contingency theory of leadership is one that has a variety of perspectives to it. Many individuals support the theory claiming that an influential leader is defined by the circumstance that surrounds them. According to the subscribers of this theory, there is not a single leadership style that is best suited for all the scenarios and circumstances that one finds themselves in. researchers of this theory argue that effective leadership goes beyond qualities of leadership and extends to an individual context, behaviors and needs. On the other end of the spectrum, there exist a group of individuals that refute the claims this theory proposes. This school of thought argues that the contingency theory fails to give the particular reasons for the effectiveness of leadership in different situations. Lastly, this group of individuals argues that the contingency theory of leadership is not a leadership development process and that it does not fit well with the career growth of leaders.

Own Perspectives on both Leadership Theories

The great man theory presents a greater argument about the nature of great leaders. Despite the argument that this theory puts forth I do not identify with the theory since I hold that great leaders are molded to become who they are rather than being born leaders. Depending on the situation that different persons have found themselves in, they have learned and adopted to become efficient leaders that guide others in achieving goals and meeting objectives. The argument presented by the contingency theory of leadership is sound since it propagates the idea that a leader is made and defined by the situations that surround them. The arguments of this theory are rather practical given that it advocates for the fact that a leader is defined by the particular role that they assume in any given circumstance or scenario.