History hasn't completely moved beyond the 'great men' narrative, but you're right in thinking that structural and post-structural history both emphasize the processes behind action. To some, people have no agency. Others, like de Certeau, argue that people 'improvise' on patterns that exist. They are impossible to understand without context, but not possible to explain away.

This is a pretty important backdrop to your question. History certainly used to be very much about 'Great Men'. Nowadays there are far more histories of ordinary people, of groups, and of the structures behind the beliefs and actions of 'great men' and the structures that allow some people to be so powerful. Personally I'm more interested in this than ascribing too much power and agency to a single person. Trump wouldn't have nearly so much effect if he didn't tap into undercurrents (political, economic, social etc.)- but his existence and how he chooses to use these are incredibly powerful.

Popular history is still very much about great men, I think. Bookshops are full of biographies- and it is a great way of centering a narrative. But I think one of the reasons that we've moved away a little from this, particularly in academic history, is that so many histories of great men have been written already. There are plenty of lesser men (and women!). There is also far greater and more varied source material about the modern era, about which history is increasingly written (as it becomes history), which allows for histories for which source material isn't entirely about the most powerful.

I'm not sure that this makes a lot of sense. But I don't think that historians have abandoned the 'great men' narrative entirely. It's persuasive, and lots of what historians do, to my eyes, is contextualising work around the individuals that everybody knows already.

The Great Man theory of history is not that individuals mattered but that the big trends in history were due to the actions and beliefs of individuals. Which is to say, to say that individuals sometimes matter a lot does not mean one is advocating a Great Man theory of history. A more balanced view would suggest that structural developments create environments into which powerful individuals sometimes do hold a lot of sway, and sometimes they do not.

We had a thread that dealt with a lot of these issues recently. Rather than re-write more or less what I read before I will just link it here. The long and short of it is that while you can believe that Caesar or Khan were important, you still have to take into account many other broader structure of history to explain their successes and influence. This does not negate the importance of looking at individuals. It just means that powerful individuals gained power due to a world that allowed for its possibility, and explaining how that happens means taking into account broader forces than the individuals themselves. It is very easy to do this with, say, an individual like Adolf Hitler — great tomes have been written about the conditions that allowed him to become powerful. To say this is not to imply that Hitler, the individual, could have been replaced with anyone else and had the same result. Historical changes are an interplay between these macro- and micro- forces. Great Man history is one extreme of the scale; some forms of "history from below" are at the other extreme. A full account requires both. The reason we speak so strongly against the Great Man approach is because it has traditionally been a means of ignoring everything but the individuals in question.