A brief historical perspective

Old World Leaders (OWLS)

The “Great Man” theory, also known (sometimes, paradoxically) as heroic leadership theory, is one of the oldest and most influential ways of thinking about leadership. It still quietly shapes practice today, even when postmodern leadership language claims otherwise. A deep understanding reveals not just a theory, but a persistent mindset about power, responsibility, and human agency. This does not just sit in our history. Neither is it the property of Western leadership alone or from the origins of antiquity.

Briefly, back to the Future

Today, political leadership is often (if not always) beset with political rivalries. As we comment on a post-2025 world, we see how the oft-called most influential leader across the globe appears to wield great personal power, following his own agenda whilst attempting to bully other leaders deemed indecisive or unwilling. He is surrounded by advisors holding up a mirror to his face, but, seemingly, only those who will advise in a way that matches the reflective mindset in the mirror he holds. Similar ‘mindsets’ are held in other nations to such a degree that we can no longer describe the so-called ‘heroic leadership’ as quietly shaping leadership practice! The heroic leadership decibels are getting stronger.

But this mindset is not new.

Leaders have existed across all cultures throughout history, a point underpinned by an unprecedented GLOBAL study of 62 cultures (House et al., 2004). The practice and philosophy of leadership can be found across diverse traditions and ages, from Homer’s Iliad in the 8th century BC, to the Old and New Testaments, to the teachings of Confucius, and the political writings of Machiavelli (The Prince). As I will shortly argue, even Machiavelli was preceded by Ibn Zafar by some 300 years, whose writing for rulers was less concerned with the pursuit of power and more with how leaders should act, wisely and with restraint, when power is tested by adversity.

Marcus Tullius Cicero (106–43 BC) was an influential figure in the final days of the Roman Republic, renowned as its greatest orator, philosopher, and politician, and a fierce defender of republican values. It is often argued that he succeeded Julius Caesar after Caesar’s assassination in 44 BC. Cicero was not a direct successor, but he emerged as the de facto leader of the Senate and the old Republican dynasty. Fearing that Mark Antony (Caesar’s right-hand man prior to his assassination) would resort to tyranny, Cicero delivered a series of fourteen provocative speeches in the Senate known as the Philippics against Mark Antony, painting him as a "scoundrel," "villain," and enemy of the state.

Cicero was a successful political leader in his day. He filled the vacuum left by Caesar's death as the voice of the Republic; he battled Antony verbally, and that opposition led to his brutal execution ordered by Antony in 44 BC. It was a somewhat brutal assassination, followed by a gruesome public display.

Key Points:

These questions matter if we are to reflect on leadership styles. They help us see leadership for what it is, rather than what it could or should be.

Exploring the Values of Political Advisors

Today’s politicians are surrounded by political advisors (affectionately referred to as ‘SpAds’ in the UK, short for Special Advisers). According to the Institute of Government, special advisers (SpAds) are temporary, politically appointed civil servants in the UK government who support ministers, offering a political dimension to policy development that permanent civil servants cannot provide. Appointed by ministers and approved by the Prime Minister, they work on policy, communications, and manage relations with the party.

With all the recent rows over advisers and high-profile appointments, we could easily have assumed that the acronym had changed to ‘SPAG’ ( ‘Strategic Patronage and Guidance’).

Similarly, the role of the SpAd is not new.

The political writings of Machiavelli (The Prince) were briefly referenced in the introduction. We are all familiar with the emergence of the adjective Machiavellian, often denoting manipulation. This is an early form of a SpAd. Among the many voices that have shaped our understanding of leadership in the modern world, some of the most insightful remain relatively under-recognised. One such figure is Muhammad ibn Zafar al-Siqilli (hereinafter Ibn Zafar), a 12th-century writer whose work belongs to the tradition of political advice literature often described as “mirrors for princes.” Writing 300 years before Machiavelli, in a context of instability and shifting power, Ibn Zafar offered guidance not on how rulers might accumulate power, but on how they might sustain and exercise it wisely, particularly in the face of adversity, resistance, and uncertainty (Kechichian et al., 2003). His emphasis on restraint, judgment, and the careful navigation of human relationships stands in striking contrast to the later, more instrumental accounts of leadership. In many respects, his work anticipates a form of leadership less concerned with dominance and more aligned with responsibility, an idea that resonates strongly with contemporary calls for a more selfless, relational approach to leadership.

As I argued in the Selfless Leader (Brookes, 2016: 9), in particular, Machiavelli’s guidance is for the Prince to ‘heap’ gifts on his advisor to ‘assist’ in aligning the advisor to the prince’s cause. Conversely, ibn Zafar advises his Just Prince:

The king who believes that the minds of princes are superior to those of counselors has fallen into great error. If he acquires the bad habit of contradicting a wise and faithful counselor — without manifest reason — it is certain that he will never prosper (Kechichian et al., 2003)

While Machiavelli’s The Prince is often taken as the starting point for realist leadership thinking, it represents a sharpening and, in some respects, a narrowing of earlier traditions. Where Ibn Zafar emphasised restraint under pressure and the relational fragility of leadership, Machiavelli placed greater weight on the acquisition and maintenance of power in an uncertain world. Over time, this shift contributed to the emergence of more individualised conceptions of leadership, culminating in the so-called “Great Man” theory, in which leadership becomes located in the traits and actions of exceptional individuals. What is lost in this trajectory is the earlier recognition that leadership is as much about judgment, context, and responsibility as it is about authority. It is precisely this lost balance that Leadership3 seeks to restore—reframing leadership not as the property of the individual, but as a dynamic, relational, and purposeful process grounded in the questions of why and how we lead, and to what end.

Although well regarded within Islamic political thought, Ibn Zafar remains relatively under-recognised in mainstream leadership literature. Despite offering profound insights into leadership under pressure, Ibn Zafar is rarely cited in modern leadership discourse, particularly when compared with a more mainstream mindset influenced by Machiavelli.

Against this brief historical canvas, we will now explore the origins and core assumptions underpinning the better-known Great Man/Heroic theories and practice.

Pause and Reflect

Critical Insight

Leadership behaviour influences others behaviour — but behaviour alone is still not enough.

Effective leadership is not simply about who leads. It is about the leaders themselves doing what is needed, in the right way, at the right time, with the right degree of direction, support, and engagement.

Applied Leadership

Leadership3 helps leaders move beyond simplistic style labels and instead develop more intelligent practice. It encourages reflection on what leaders actually do, why they do it, and how their actions shape wider relationships, learning, and outcomes.

Continue Your Learning Journey

To move from insight into application, the full Level 3 content explores: