Juke Box Heroes

There was a summer a long time ago when by some strange stroke of luck I was able to purchase front-row tickets to a Night Ranger concert (the stroke of luck was the fact that I paid only about $5 more per ticket than their actual cost).  The opening act was a band called The Outfield.  I thought "The Outfield" was a decent band, but at the time I really liked Night Ranger (and had probably seen them live two or three times before that concert).  You would think that I had a really great time - seeing one of my favorite bands from the front row.  It was definitely one of those "once in a lifetime" opportunities, but surprisingly I was really disappointed!

Both bands played a great set, and the weather was perfect.  But I was still disappointed.  There was just something about being so close to these "Juke Box Heroes" that didn't sit right with me at the time.  It was almost, as if, the proximity to these musicians changed my entire perspective.  The fact that they were so close to me reminded me of all the times I watched some of my high school friends play in their rock band.  The fact that they were so close took some of the magic away.  They were no longer "rock-n-roll superstars" - they were just a few guys playing in a rock band.

Our society tends to glorify celebrities.  It doesn't matter whether they are musicians, athletes, or movie stars.  We revere them and place them on a pedestal.  The truth is that these individuals have a unique skill - maybe even a special skill.  But we shouldn't worship them or think that they are something that they are not. 

We sometimes do the same thing with leaders too.  There's even a theory that explains how some leaders just seem to have a unique and special gift, whether superior intellect, extraordinary courage, or divine inspiration that at the right time and place create history.  It's called the "Great man theory", and it was developed in the 19th century by the Scottish philosopher, Thomas Carlyle (there were - and are - great women too, but this was how Carlyle chose to name his theory).  Carlyle wrote in his book, On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and The Heroic in History: "The history of the world is but the biography of great men."

Carlyle's "Great man theory" makes two key assumptions.  First, every individual destined for greatness is already born with the innate characteristics, traits, and attributes necessary for his or her greatness.  Second, there has to be a need for these individuals to "do their thing" - a crisis or otherwise moment in history that requires these individuals to step forward and lead. 

Carlyle wasn't alone in his view of the world.  Similar ideas have been proposed and/or defended by notable figures throughout history, including the ancient Greek writer, Plutarch (see his work, Parallel Lives), the psychologist, William James, the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (see, for example, his concept of Ubermensch), and the philosopher and essayist, Ralph Waldo Emerson (see his lectures on "Representative Men").  All of these works share the same theme that history is created by a few great men with special, unique skills and characteristics that make them great.  In other words, great leaders are born not made (nature triumphs over nurture again).

So, why then should we read about the great leaders of the past?  If nature is more important than nurture, and we don't inherit those "leadership genes" from our parents, why should we go to the trouble of reading Plutarch's Lives or Emerson's lectures on "Representative Men" (as individuals throughout history have done)?   

I don't think I fully subscribe to the "Great man theory" - in truth, the theory has largely fallen out of favor.  And the most compelling evidence that we have is that leadership - even great leadership - can be taught.  Even great leaders like retired U.S. Army General Colin Powell believe that leadership can be taught!  So, enough with the whole nature vs. nurture leadership argument.  As it turns out, a study of twins suggested if your biological parents held positions of leadership, then you have a 24% likelihood of being a leader too (not necessarily a ringing endorsement for the nature side). 

But I'm not here to debate whether leaders are born with the ability to lead or not.  Well, not really.  Bringing it all back to my personal "Juke Box Hero" story - I think that by putting our leaders up on the proverbial pedestal - we help foster the perception, indeed a false one, that you have to be a so-called "great man" or "great woman" in order to be a "great leader."  It's simply not true.  We can all be leaders - these days we need all of the leaders that we can get.  Even us mere mortals can learn to be leaders - or improve upon the leadership skills that we already have.  This is where I think we can spend time reading about leaders throughout history - whether "great men and women" or not, other leaders have something to teach us. 

I will end this post with a quote, as I frequently do.  The American futurist Jacque Fresco said, "I don't believe in the great man theory of science or history.  There are no great men, just men standing on the shoulders of other men and what they have done."  So, I invite all of you to stand on the shoulders of the great leaders of the past - read about them.  And learn.