In the early 1900s, a few theorists studied European kings and members of royal families who ruled several centuries ago, and suggested that great (i.e., wealthy, high status) men become leaders. Such individuals, they suggested, possess superior traits that foster their emergence into leadership positions. Those born to privilege, to private tutelage, to great wealth, and in countries espousing the divine rights of kings emerge as leaders or at least heads of countries. However, as we have discussed, headship is not leadership holding a position and leading people toward mutually desirable goals are two very different activities. This great men as leaders theory failed to take into account the rise of the educated masses and the movement of nonaristocrats, as well as women, into leadership positions. (It is interesting to note that despite the great influence on nations by women such as Joan of Arc, Queen Elizabeth I, and Catherine the Great, the reigns or influence of women were not studied.) Such was the case as the effects of the Industrial Revolution were being felt, and upward mobility in organizations, such as factories, was not based on social position but on ability and hard work. The focus on the great man theories is only on the leader, not on interaction with others; indeed, not on any dimension relating to followers. As scholars pondered the notion of great men as leaders, some began to realize that leadership existed in places other than castles, especially in those democratic societies that were becoming increasingly influential in the socioeconomic/political map of the world. (Witherspoon, pp. 10-11) The primary thesis of the passage is that A) scholars have come to realize that leadership has existed in places other than castles and among the privileged. B) the leaders of the Industrial Revolution were more competent than European kings. C) only great men, wealthy with high status, have been great leaders.