The Great Man Effect: Why Your Investment Strategy Is No Match for a Single Leader

In the world of finance and investing, we are trained to believe in systems. We build sophisticated models based on macroeconomic trends, historical data, and fundamental analysis. We trust in the predictable, impersonal forces of the market—supply and demand, inflation, interest rates—to guide our decisions. But what if this entire framework has a colossal blind spot? What if history, and by extension the economy, isn’t just a machine with predictable outputs, but a stage dominated by the unpredictable whims of powerful individuals?

For decades, this idea—known as the “Great Man theory”—was dismissed by academics as a simplistic, outdated view of the past. Yet, the presidency of Donald Trump and the rise of similarly influential figures globally have forced a dramatic reconsideration. His tenure demonstrated, with shocking clarity, how one leader’s personality, rhetoric, and spontaneous decisions can override complex economic models and send shockwaves through the stock market. This isn’t just an academic debate; it’s a fundamental challenge to how we understand risk, plan for the future, and protect our capital in an increasingly volatile world.

This article explores the resurgence of this unfashionable theory, its validation in recent political events, and the critical implications for investors, business leaders, and anyone navigating the modern financial landscape. We will delve into why understanding the “Great Man effect” is no longer optional, but essential for survival.

Deconstructing History: System vs. Individual

To grasp the significance of this shift, we must first understand the historical debate. For over a century, two primary schools of thought have competed to explain how history unfolds. The “Great Man theory,” most famously articulated by the 19th-century historian Thomas Carlyle, posits that history is little more than the biography of great men. In his view, decisive individuals—the Napoleons, the Caesars, the Churchills—possess a unique charisma, intelligence, or will that allows them to bend the arc of history to their vision.

Opposing this view are the structuralists. Thinkers like Karl Marx argued that individuals are merely products of vast, impersonal forces. For Marx, it was all about class struggle and economic determinism. Later, the French Annales school of history focused on long-term geographical and social structures, suggesting that the actions of any single person are but ripples on the surface of a deep, slow-moving ocean of history. As one historian quipped, the ideal subject for this school was one where “man is absent” (source). For most of modern history, structuralism has been the dominant view in academia.

The table below outlines the core differences between these competing perspectives on history and their implications for economic analysis.

For decades, the world of economics and finance has operated almost exclusively within the structuralist paradigm. Our entire system of forecasting, risk management, and asset allocation is built on the assumption that history is broadly predictable and that data, not personality, is king.

The Paradox Principle: Why Success in the Modern Economy Belongs to Those Who Embrace the Grey

The Trump Presidency: A Real-World Stress Test

Then came Donald Trump. His presidency served as a powerful, real-world vindication of Carlyle’s once-maligned theory. The structural forces were all there—globalization, technological disruption, political polarization—but his individual actions repeatedly defied and reshaped them. He demonstrated that a single, powerful individual could, through sheer force of will and a Twitter account, upend decades of established policy and market norms.

Consider the evidence:

• Trade Wars by Tweet: Traditional economic models would predict a slow, negotiated shift in trade policy. Instead, the global stock market and supply chains were thrown into chaos by spontaneous tariff announcements, often delivered via social media. A study by the Bank of England found that his trade-related tweets alone generated significant volatility in financial markets (source).
• Foreign Policy by Personality: Long-standing alliances and geopolitical strategies were re-evaluated not through systematic review, but based on the President’s personal relationships with other world leaders.
• Deregulation by Decree: Environmental and financial regulations were rolled back with an executive speed that bypassed typical legislative and institutional processes.

In each case, the “Great Man”—or, more accurately, the “Great Individual”—proved to be the decisive variable. His actions were not merely a symptom of underlying populist anger; they were the cause of specific, market-moving events. The structuralist view would have predicted a populist backlash, but it could never have predicted the day-to-day chaos and unpredictability that came to define the era’s trading environment.

Beyond the White House: The “Great Man” in Business and Tech

This phenomenon isn’t confined to politics. The world of business and technology is filled with its own “Great Men” whose individual visions and personalities shape entire industries. Think of Steve Jobs returning to Apple and single-handedly dictating a product strategy that would make it the most valuable company in the world. Or consider Elon Musk, whose pronouncements on everything from blockchain to artificial intelligence can send asset prices soaring or plummeting in minutes.

These figures challenge the corporate structuralist view that a company is just the sum of its processes, assets, and employees. They demonstrate that a singular founder or CEO can be the organization’s most critical—and most volatile—asset. Their influence raises crucial questions for investors:

• Key-Person Risk: How much of a company’s value is tied directly to its leader? What happens to Tesla’s stock if Elon Musk steps away? What happened to Apple’s innovation pipeline after Jobs?
• Corporate Governance: How can boards provide oversight to a founder-CEO who commands a cult-like following among investors and employees?
• Innovation vs. Stability: The same maverick personality that drives breakthrough innovation in fintech or biotech can also create enormous instability, alienate partners, and attract regulatory scrutiny.

The rise of the celebrity CEO, much like the “Great Man” politician, forces us to analyze businesses not just on their balance sheets, but on the psychology of their leaders. This is a far more qualitative, and therefore more difficult, form of analysis.

Beyond the Passport: Why Revolut's UK Address is a Litmus Test for Britain's Fintech Ambitions

The Investor’s Playbook in an Age of Individuals

So, how should investors, finance professionals, and business leaders adapt to a world where individuals can so profoundly disrupt systems? Relying solely on traditional economic analysis is no longer sufficient. A new, more resilient playbook is required.

1. Price in Political and “Key-Person” Risk: Risk models must evolve. The “political risk premium” is not just for emerging markets anymore; it’s a real factor in developed economies. Similarly, when evaluating a company, the concentration of power and influence in a single leader must be treated as a specific, quantifiable risk factor. Research from institutions like the International Monetary Fund has long shown the connection between political stability and borrowing costs, a lesson now being applied more broadly.

2. Monitor Rhetoric, Not Just Reports: In a “Great Man” era, a leader’s words can be as impactful as a central banking decision or a quarterly earnings report. Monitoring the rhetoric, public statements, and even social media activity of key political and corporate leaders is no longer a niche activity for political junkies; it’s a core component of modern market intelligence.

3. Diversify Against Idiosyncratic Shocks: The primary defense against unpredictable, individual-driven events is diversification. This means not only diversifying across asset classes but also across geopolitical lines and leadership styles. Over-concentration in a market or industry heavily influenced by a single, volatile leader is a recipe for disaster.

4. Value Institutions and Processes: In both nations and companies, strong, independent institutions (courts, central banks, boards of directors) act as a crucial buffer against the whims of any single individual. As Janan Ganesh notes in the original Financial Times article, the ultimate test of a system is whether it can withstand the force of a disruptive individual. Businesses and economies with robust, respected institutions are likely to be more resilient and represent safer long-term investments.

The Great Thaw: Why Europe's IPO Market is Roaring Back to Life in 2024

Conclusion: A New Lens for a New Era

The “Great Man theory” is not a perfect explanation for how the world works. Of course, deep structural forces like technology, demographics, and climate change will continue to shape our future. To ignore them would be foolish. But to ignore the immense, disruptive power of the individual is to be willfully blind to the defining feature of our current political and economic era.

The Trump presidency was not an anomaly; it was a lesson. It taught us that personality can trump policy, that rhetoric can move markets, and that the fate of the global economy can sometimes hinge on the decisions of one person in one room. For those of us in the world of finance, investing, and business, this is a paradigm shift. It demands that we become part-historian, part-psychologist, and part-political scientist, adding a qualitative, human-centric lens to our rigorously quantitative worldview. The future belongs to those who can analyze the system and the individual who seeks to break it.