quis and Huston (2009) this theory was a base to other theories until 1940s, it also confirms that equally as some individuals are born to lead others, some are simply born to be led. In order to establish and understand traits of great leaders the study of the most followed leaders, both in historical and current context, needs to be carried out. Carlyle in his work ‘On heroes, hero worship and the heroic in history’ (1888) links great men such as Mahomet, Shakespeare or Napoleon to concept of hero. What is more, he produces that history of the world is nothing else than ‘biography of great men’. Stogdill R. & Bass B (1990) add John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King to the great leaders list. According to Daft R. (2007) great leaders has always been thought of as men and were in possession of ‘natural abilities of power and influence’. A great man was often found in organisations, military, governments or social movements and visualised as a person who had the ability to influence others to follow him/her. It is recommended that great men have high level of intuition, judgment skills, charisma and personality which cannot be learnt from books or training (Tulsian C., 2009).

According to Tulsian the greatest criticisms of the Great Man Theory include that it has not been scientifically proven and is nothing more than a speculation. Another criticism is that the theory should not be gender defined therefore, as explained by Karen O’Connor in 2010, a Great Woman Theory was created as a counter -response to the issue. It is explained further that women expose higher level of ‘emotional intelligence’ than men which is understood as ability to use and control emotions in an effective manner, which could, in turn, contribute to higher suitability of women as successful leaders. The above argument may therefore contribute to the discussion of the relevance of the Great man Theory in modern organisations as it depends on a number of factors. A theory created nearly 150 years ago would most definitely require adjustments as it the society changes with time. The main criticism is that the theory is outdated and lacks sufficient examination. It is agreed that certain individuals are naturally better suited than others, however, it cannot be stated with certainty that they were born with set of skills therefore it is possible that the influence of their life experiences, personal development or training would have shaped their personality and therefore contributed to the image of great leader. In the times of the theory evolving it was more of a relevance to political or ideological leaders rather than managers in organisations.

Another early leadership theory, the trait theory, focuses more on certain physical, personal and appearance qualities of leaders rather than on their greatness itself. Different researches were carried out to identify those characteristics. Martin & Cashel (2006) produce a set of traits that were seen as attributes of a good leader. Amongst them are assertiveness, keeping right posture, confidence and ability to speak distinctly. Richard Daft (2007) adds that in 1940s and 1950s series of psychological tests were used to explore the concept further and provide specific list of characteristics of effective leader. The results showed that age, levels of energy, flow of speech, ability