Introduction
Leadership is important in all organizations and social contexts where people are required to achieve missions, aims, and objectives. It involves influencing, inspiring, and motivating other people to facilitate the achievement of a given goal. Leaders help in planning, managing, directing, and guiding other people towards the attainment of mutual goals. Leadership occurs through the interaction of three major contexts, namely, leaders, followers, and a situation that prompts the deployment of a given leadership strategy. When leading, followers must be involved and hence the reason why there has been substantial scholarly interest in how leaders should associate with their followers to guarantee organizational success. The role of leadership in enhancing organizational outcomes is highly studied in conjunction with various renowned leaders, for instance, Martin Luther King and Winston Churchill, who are regarded as having demonstrated the best headship strategies. Through the comparison of Martin Luther King and Winston Churchill’s leadership styles, this paper evidences that different headship techniques yield different outcomes based on the contexts within which they are applied.
Brief Background
Martin Luther King
Martin Luther King was a key icon in the Negro struggles against racial discrimination. Born in 1929, he was not only a religious leader but also a principal of the civil rights movement that has now redefined the American history, especially in the struggle for the equality of people, despite their race or any other demographic difference. The world remembers him for his nonviolent approaches to transforming racist ideologies that regarded Negroes as inferior to Whites to the extent that they (Negroes) were not allowed to travel by one bus or freely interact in social-environmental settings. In advancing his agenda, Nobel Media (2014) informs that Martin Luther King used tactics such as civil disobedience, which demonstrated his Christianity beliefs concerning nonviolence. Mahatma Gandhi, who is renowned for nonviolent activism, inspired him.
Martin Luther King’s effort in the fight against racial discrimination ultimately led to his winning of the famous and celebrated Nobel Peace Prize in 1964. This accomplishment indicated to him and his followers that his efforts and struggles were appreciated to the extent of receiving support from other people who understood the need for ensuring the impartiality of all folks. Indeed, after securing the Nobel Peace Prize, Martin Luther King announced that a significant portion of the cash prize would go into funding his civil right pursuit (Nobel Media, 2014). In 1965, he participated in the organization of Selma Montgomery peaceful protests. Towards the end of his life, he extended his efforts to the fight against poverty and the inversion of Vietnam. He was assassinated in 1968 in Memphis, Tennessee (Steagall, 2015). However, despite the many challenges that he faced, including several arrests, Martin Luther King stood out as a symbolic leader and a key global icon who had marked a new era in American history where contemporary people in the U.S. can now speak freely on issues of discrimination and oppression.
Winston Churchill
Born in 1874, Winston Churchill was not a great academic performer. He remained at the bottom of his class. He first schooled at St. George School, Ascot, before joining Misses Thomson Preparatory School. Although he did not perform well in school, he discovered his ability to do exemplarily in the military. Consequently, he joined the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst (Steagall, 2015). This move that paved the way for his growth in the military career later led to his emergence as a renowned leader in Britain and across the world. In 1895, Churchill was commissioned to serve as the Second Lieutenant. In this job, he earned so little that he could neither adequately fund his everyday life nor adopt a lifestyle similar to other people who were serving in the same brigade. Consequently, he became interested in taking extra roles such as working as a newspaper correspondence (Steagall, 2015). He knew that growing his military career would require promotions through various military ranks. Hence, he decided to search for any potential military action. To achieve this goal, he used his mother’s and family’s popularity in society to arrange various active campaigns. He assumed a central role in combat while still working as a reporter.
Churchill’s career in war and his writings attracted public attention. His salary grew to levels that allowed him to adopt a comfortable way of life. Indeed, Churchill’s publicity led to his appointment as a war correspondent by various London-based newspapers. He also wrote many books. In 1900, Churchill was elected in the House of Commons as a Member of Parliament (MP) for Oldham. He later served in the same position representing Manchester Northwest between 1906 and 1908. In 1924 to 1964, he was the MP for Dundee and Woodford. From 1906 to 1911, he also served in various government positions, including the War and Air Minister, the Board and Trade head, and an Exchequer chancellor (Steagall, 2015).
Comparing Martin Luther King and Winston Churchill’s Leadership Styles
Charismatic, transformational, participative or democratic, autocratic, and bureaucratic approaches are some of the leadership styles that leaders use to guide, lead, and/or control their followers. Irrespective of the leadership style deployed, leaders are the vision carriers. Hence, they must influence others in a particular way of thinking. Spisak, O’Brien, Nicholson, and van Vugt (2015) contend with this assertion by arguing, “Leadership involves influencing people to get things done to a standard and quality above their norm in a willing way” (p. 293). Therefore, leadership entails complex processes often characterized by influential mechanisms, the interaction of various actors (followers and leaders), and a range of possible anticipated outcomes (Sakiru, D’silva, Othman, Silong, & Busayo, 2013). Leaders play a variety of roles, including serving as sources of inspiration, inducing organizational change, and acting as the main sources of organizational power and visions. It is crucial to note, “People change when they are emotionally engaged and committed” (Basri, Rusdi, & Sulaeman, 2014, p. 63). Since one of the noble responsibilities of leaders, as evidenced by the cases of Martin Luther King and Winston Churchill, entails bringing about change, leaders achieve good results if they are emotionally intelligent and/or always ready to meet and resolve new challenges. However, a comparison of the two leaders suggests that these concerns are achieved through different leadership styles.
Martin Luther King transformed the conservative racial discriminatory perceptions that depicted the Negroes as mediocre compared to the White race. Here, he may be viewed as a transformational leader. Such leaders have the ability to eliminate all volatile situations, which hinder the collective progress of all people. A transformational leader seeks to ensure the “achievement of good outcomes or have the ability to meet the set targets and objectives” (Spisak et al., 2015, p. 294). Martin Luther King not only understood but also had a well-defined aim and mission for his leadership. He endeavored to eliminate all sorts of discrimination that was targeted to the Negroes.
Successful transformational leaders motivate and inspire other people. Martin Luther King had a huge following that he inspired to fight for a common cause. Indeed, another leader, Mahatma Gandhi, also inspired his (Martin Luther King) strategy for peaceful protests and nonviolent civil disobedience (Nobel Media, 2014). Through this approach, Martin Luther King turned his weakness into a strength that ensured the success of his civil movement. He was weak politically, but through his influencing capability, he kept those who fought for the ending of Negroes’ discrimination joined together by the objectives and aims of the civil movement against racism. Without such leadership, the movement could have suffered from blurred vision, the lack of a clear focus on the desired direction with reference to the envisioned future of a nondiscriminatory American society.
Martin Luther King’s followers trusted him to deliver the desired leadership that would guarantee equality for all. Transformational leadership encourages trust coupled with building confidence in a leader. Quoting the leadership theory, Basri et al. (2014) assert that it emphasizes the need to change internal values and structures to build faith among people. The deployment of transformational leadership theory to change the internal structures of society may foster the fair distribution of resources and public goods. Indeed, through Martin Luther King’s struggles, Negroes began to ride on the same buses with Whites. This accomplishment followed a declaration by the Supreme Court that counterproductive laws that prohibited Negroes from freely interacting with Whites were unconstitutional. Arriving at such a declaration could be linked to 1955 when Martin Luther King led the popular Montgomery Bus Boycott. He co-founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) in 1957 and ultimately became its initial president. Although SCLC was unsuccessful, he boldly led the Albany, Georgia, struggle for anti-segregation of Negroes later in 1962 (Nobel Media, 2014).
Martin Luther King evidences transformational leadership through his possession of the capacity to set visions and inspirations that served the best interest of his followers. He could assess situations in the society he lived in with the view of facilitating the formulation of strategies for increasing positive outcomes. Such skills are important in enabling leaders to guarantee adequate and effective communication of success strategies and visions to all their followers. Communication is critical in building good relationships. Indeed, from 1957 to 1968, Martin Luther King had traveled more than 6,000,000 miles delivering speeches in 2,500 times (Waldschmidt-Nelson, 2012). He also wrote many articles and books with the objective of disseminating information on his vision, mission, and objectives geared towards a society of equals. This achievement evidences his appreciation that the transformation of the American society could not occur without clear and precise communication. In fact, his communication theme was always well articulated. He spoke on issues related to injustice and discrimination during protests and civil disobedience actions.
Transformational leadership builds on theoretical paradigms that emphasize the role of Emotional Intelligence (EI) in enhancing leadership. For example, according to Mitrabinda, Hii, and Goo (2012), EI can prompt leaders to deploy transformational behaviors. However, only leaders who possess a high degree of emotional intelligence can accurately perceive and evaluate the extent of achieving their subordinates or followers’ anticipations. Arguably, this goal is achieved through the transformational motivation leadership sub-component. In fact, Martin Luther King motivated his followers to participate in civil disobedience and other nonviolent activism as the key vehicle for attracting global attention on issues concerning oppression, injustices, and racism. The respect for his call of 250,000 people to engage in a match to Washington, DC, after delivering his ‘I have a dream’ speech evidences Martin Luther King’s possession of transformational motivation. In the speech, he envisioned an American society that accommodated all people without any form of isolation, prejudice, or ethnic disparities. He foresaw a situation where Negroes would have equal political participation and inclusion in all occupations. In 1963, he demonstrated this transformation dream when he led the Birmingham diplomatic protests.
Comparable to Martin Luther King, Winston Churchill inspired his followers, right from his early career as a war correspondent to his political calling as a member of the national assembly, and later as a Prime Minister. Churchill went to Cuba in 1895 to capture the Cuban struggle for independence through its war with Spain (Steagall, 2015). He served in Bombay, India, in the rank of a Calvary Officer between 1896 and 1897. In 1898, he received a transfer where he was sent to Egypt. Here, he directly fought in the Omdurman war in Sudan. However, in 1899, he officially resigned from the military career. Nevertheless, he participated in the Boer War as a journalist reporting to the London Morning Post in 1900 (Read, 2016). During the war, he encountered considerable adventures. His courageous and captivating escape rendered him popular. Upon coming back home in 1900, he was considered a hero, a situation that marked the beginning of his political career path.
In fact, the two leaders were energetic in ensuring that other people (followers) achieved the expected outcomes. However, unlike Martin Luther King, Winston Churchill believed in himself as opposed to his followers. For example, Winston Churchill did not want to take the usual military career path, which would have involved his promotion in various ranks in preparation for future leadership roles (Steagall, 2015). Martin Luther King had a rich academic background and a career profile as a Baptist religious leader. Mahatma Gandhi inspired his strategy of peaceful protests and civil disobedience. Hence, he did not specifically believe in his abilities. Instead, he looked upon others for success. This strategy contradicted Winston Churchill’s leadership technique, despite both possessing high emotional intelligence and the ability to build strong interest among their followers. To this extent, Winston Churchill’s leadership differed from the transformational leadership approach adopted by Martin Luther King. Arguably, Winston Churchill was a charismatic leader.
Charismatic leaders depend entirely on their convictions coupled with the commitment to advance their administrative paths. Even though the two exhibit similar qualities to transformational leaders, charismatic leaders support the status quo (Spisak et al., 2015). Indeed, while Martin Luther King was transformational akin to his struggle to orient his audience and followers to his vision of an equal society, he exhibited some charismatic straits. He deployed his oratory skills or effective communication ability to drive change in American society. The persuasive ability of charismatic leadership came into play, despite his focus on the transformation of Negroes’ lives. However, Winston Churchill supported the status quo.
Western Europe was under German attacks in 1940. The then Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, decided to resign. King George VI requested Churchill to become the Prime Minister in such a trying and challenging moment (Steagall, 2015). In respect to the status quo of the need for the region to have no power and leadership vacuum, he accepted the request. Indeed, he wanted to accommodate all people in power, a situation that compelled him to establish a coalition government with conservative, labor, and liberal political formations. This way, Churchill focused on ensuring that Britain did not suffer internal wrangles while also being attacked externally. The ultimate goal was to enhance peace as the status quo. For instance, despite the many challenges and struggles in his political career, Churchill is renowned for his role as the Prime Minister during the Second World War. After WWII, he campaigned for peaceful coexistence among the warring people. Although he had been defeated in the elections by the Labor Party in 1945, Churchill was later reelected as the Prime Minister in 1951 before retiring in 1955.
Winston Churchill respected the decision of the majority as the current status quo. This strategy evidenced his charismatic leadership. Indeed, after leading as the Prime Minister when Western Europe was under attack, people elected the Labor Party, thereby defeating the conservative political realm. He respected the electorate’s decision by stepping down to take the position of the opposition leader. However, in 1951, he was re-elected as the Prime Minister through the conservative political formation. His followers depended heavily on him to set the direction and shape their future. Hence, his charismatic leadership involved the direct connection between him and his followers. Consequently, charismatic leadership calls for leaders to carry a massive responsibility, which involves a long-term commitment.
Winston Churchill’s respect for the status quo was tested when he recognized that Russia posed a major threat to European peace through the possibility of nuclear warfare. However, through his charismatic leadership, he called for a summit that brought together the Russian leadership. Nevertheless, this effort demonstrated that charismatic leadership could effectively promote outcomes that benefitted followers. Churchill was hopeful and confident in his leadership style. He cared for others. Hence, he set a good example for his followers. Although Churchill’s charismatic leadership successfully enabled him to lead effectively, Spisak et al. (2015) demonstrate that this approach is not necessarily a requirement for leading through change. Therefore, the much-needed change to create a society that supports the equality of all people regardless of their racial profile or background requires a transformational leader such as Martin Luther King.
Conclusion
As evidenced by the case of Martin Luther King, a transformational leadership approach is most appropriate where change is necessary. In such a situation, followers should have strong attachments to the concerns of a change. In this case, the Negroes were concerned about the prevailing racial discrimination where laws had been established prohibiting them from using the same means of transport as the Whites. Believing in the spirit of equality, Martin Luther King effectively inspired, motivated, and influenced his followers to fight for change through peaceful protests and nonviolent civil disobedience. Although he was assassinated, Martin Luther King died after having led his fellow Negroes successfully through a process of transformation. Winston Churchill’s leadership style had some commonalities with Martin Luther King’s transformational headship. However, Winston Churchill’s approach was principally charismatic. He believed in his abilities to lead as opposed to using people to achieve his leadership goals. As evidenced by his struggle for a peaceful Europe, Winston Churchill’s leadership style was enigmatic to the extent that it focused on maintaining the status quo.
References
Basri, D., Rusdi, M., & Sulaeman, S. (2014). The effects of transformational leadership on the teacher performance at senior high school, Maros Regency. International Journal of Academic Research, 6(5), 61-66.
Mitrabinda, S., Hii, L., & Goo, L. (2012). Evaluating the correlation between emotional intelligence (EI) and effective leadership (EL) among managers in Miri Shipbuilding Industry. Business and Marketing Management, 29(7), 122-128.
Nobel Media. (2014). Martin Luther King Jr. biography. Web.
Read, S. (2016). Winston Churchill reporting. Military History, 32(5), 74-74.
Sakiru, O., & D’silva, J., Othman, J., Silong, A., & Busayo, A. (2013). Leadership styles and job satisfaction among employees in small and medium enterprises. International Journal of Business and Management, 8(13), 34-41.
Spisak, B., O’Brien, M., Nicholson, N., & van Vugt, M. (2015). Niche construction and the evolution of leadership. Academy of Management Review, 40(2), 291-306.
Steagall, J. (2015). Winston Churchill reporting: Adventures of a young war correspondent. Library Journal, 140(15), 94-94.
Waldschmidt-Nelson, B. (2012). Dreams and nightmares: Martin Luther King Jr. Malcolm X, and the struggle for black equality. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.