Who leads? This is perhaps the oldest and most enduring question in leadership. For centuries, leadership has been understood through the lens of the individual — the idea that leaders are somehow born, not made.

This perspective remains intuitively appealing. We are drawn to individuals who appear exceptional, decisive, and influential. But is leadership really about who someone is, or is there more beneath the surface?

The Rise of the Individual Leader

Early leadership thinking focused almost exclusively on the individual. The Great Man Theory, associated with Thomas Carlyle, proposed that history is shaped by extraordinary individuals — leaders who possess inherent qualities that set them apart.

“Only those who can walk on water need apply”

Grint, K. (2005) Leadership: Limits and Possibilities, Palgrave Macmillan, (p.34)

This perspective led to the search for leadership traits — characteristics such as authority, intelligence, and moral strength — believed to define effective leaders. Yet, despite extensive research, no definitive list of traits has ever been agreed.

Power, Pragmatism, and the Nature of Leadership

During the Renaissance, Niccolò Machiavelli offered a more pragmatic — and controversial — view of leadership. In The Prince, leadership was framed as the exercise of power, where maintaining authority and order could justify the use of manipulation, deception, and force.

This perspective has shaped what we now describe as Machiavellian leadership — a model often associated with expediency over morality.

An Earlier Voice: Leadership Through Wisdom

Yet, Machiavelli was not the first to write about leadership. Some 300 years earlier, Muhammad ibn Zafar al-Siqilli offered a very different perspective.

“The king who believes that the minds of princes are superior to those of counselors has fallen into great error.”

Here, leadership is not about dominance, but humility — the willingness to listen, to seek counsel, and to recognise the limits of one’s own judgement.

This contrast reveals an enduring tension in leadership: between control and collaboration, between authority and wisdom.

Beyond the Individual: The Role of Context

Modern leadership thinking challenges the idea that leadership can be understood purely in terms of individual traits. Scholars such as Keith Grint argue that leadership cannot be separated from the context in which it is exercised.

Leadership, in this sense, is not simply about who the leader is, but how leadership is constructed through relationships, situations, and shared meaning.

The Dark Side of Leadership

Psychologist Philip Zimbardo reminds us that focusing solely on individual traits can be dangerously misleading.

When we attribute leadership success or failure purely to personal characteristics, we overlook the powerful influence of context — and the uncomfortable reality that under certain conditions, anyone is capable of both good and harmful behaviour.

From Theory to Practice

In practice, the focus on “who leads” can lead to the replication of leadership types — selecting individuals who resemble existing leaders rather than those who may offer new perspectives.

This can reinforce existing assumptions and limit innovation, particularly in complex and changing environments.