The Great Man Theory of Entrepreneurship
One of the most popular nineteenth century theories of entrepreneurship is the "Great Man Theory." The theory's popularity is primarily owed to the historian Thomas Carlyle's essay in 1841.
Great man theories are often heard in historical tales of WW2, with figures like Churchill, Eisenhower, and Roosevelt leading the way. In the business world, this narrative pits Bill Gates against Steve Jobs in the battle for the PC, often ignoring the thousands of others involved.
Definition of Great Man Theory
The Great Man Theory holds that most of the important decisions about how the economic and political world works today were made by just a handful of people. These gifted individuals are viewed as the heroes and heroines of every age.
The Assumption: Born, Not Made
A core assumption of this theory is that great people are born, not made. They are born with a special gift or power that allows them to ascend above others and assume positions of influence.
The Great Man Theory suggests that history’s pivotal moments—including the achievements of entrepreneurs—are driven by rare, extraordinary individuals possessing unique qualities. While this theory was highly popular in the past, it has since been largely decomposed by scholars, though it remains culturally impactful today.
The Appeal of the Founder-Hero narratives remain alluring, even to those who oppose Great Man explanations, primarily because they simplify complex realities. By casting a founder as the protagonist, the chaotic story of a startup becomes easier to tell. These narratives act as shortcuts for evaluating uncertainty; when evidence is scarce, a founder’s "signal" serves as a proxy for quality. Because new projects require legitimacy before they have results, founders often adopt a heroic identity to secure resources. This aligns with existing research on entrepreneurial hype, where enthusiasm and storytelling generate the expectations and legitimacy needed before a venture produces substantial evidence.
Structural Realities and Hidden Biases
Despite its narrative charm, current research highlights significant flaws in the Great Man lens. Venture outcomes are actually determined by a web of teams, networks, institutions, resources, timing, and ecosystems. Relying on this lens creates a bias that over-attributes success to a visible leader while undervaluing collective efforts. Furthermore, critics argue that treating entrepreneurship as a "universal fix" can mask structural injustices and the political factors that dictate who actually gets the chance to grow an enterprise. Hype research confirms that while media coverage and social endorsement can fuel cycles of high expectations, they do not guarantee sustainable performance.
A Formula for Venture Success
A more accurate explanation of entrepreneurship can be expressed through a holistic model:
Venture Outcomes = Individual Action + Team Capability + Networks + Resources + Institutions + Timing + Market Dynamics
This shifts the fundamental question from "Who is the genius?" to more rigorous inquiries: What resources were mobilized? Which relationships enabled access? What institutional advantages shaped execution? And finally, what evidence supports performance beyond mere storytelling and attention?
Putting it into Practice
To apply this more balanced perspective, one should begin by mapping the entire venture system, including co-founders, early hires, suppliers, and regulators. It is essential to ask whether the venture can function without its "star" person to identify risks of fragility. In this framework, narrative momentum is treated as a signal to investigate further, rather than as proof of success. Finally, when entrepreneurship is framed as a universal solution, it is vital to test for remaining structural constraints and identify who is being excluded from the narrative
This assumption is problematic because it implies that most people must accept their "low lots" in life. There is an elitism built into the theory—that a few should be great and others not. If greatness cannot be learned, then why try? Perhaps that is the point of such a myth: to keep the average person from trying.
Example: Henry Ford and the Automobile Revolution
Henry Ford is often celebrated as the singular genius who “invented” the modern automobile industry. Popular narratives credit Ford with transforming transportation through the Model T and pioneering assembly-line production. This framing fits perfectly into the Great Man Theory: Ford as the visionary who single-handedly changed the world.
However, the reality is far more complex. Ford did not invent the automobile—Karl Benz and others had already developed cars decades earlier. Nor did he invent the assembly line; that concept evolved from practices in meatpacking and other industries. Ford’s success was built on a vast network of engineers, managers, and workers who refined processes, solved technical challenges, and scaled production. Moreover, societal factors—such as rising urbanization, cheap steel, and expanding road infrastructure—created conditions for Ford’s ideas to thrive.
The Great Man narrative oversimplifies this history by ignoring these systemic contributions. It suggests that Ford’s innate genius alone drove progress, when in fact innovation was a collective effort shaped by economic, technological, and cultural forces.
Here is a video about the great man theory:
A special thank-you to Sheikh Mumtaz for improving this post!
Source:
entrepreneurial settings. Journal of Business Venturing, 41(2), 106559.
solution! Confronting the panacea myth of entrepreneurship with structural
injustice. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 21, e00440.
Related Theories
Innovation is a collective achievement. These frameworks replace the myth of the "Lone Genius" with a more accurate look at networks, ecosystems, and environmental selection:
1. Collective Systems
- Systems Theory: Moving beyond the individual to see the venture as an interrelated outcome.
- Network Theory: Why the "Great Man" is actually a node in a much larger social web.
2. Learned Capability
- Human Capital: Proving that greatness is "made" through investment in skills and education.
- Knowledge Spillover: Debunking the "Garage Myth" by tracking the source of new ideas.