This weeks readings were about Charisma. What I found interesting in these readings were that there are multiple different ways in defining charisma but, in the end they all have something that connects them to one another. In the one reading, it was talking about all the theories of charisma. While it talks about all the different theories, in the end it says how they all have the common themes of attracting attention, to communicate, and to effect followers at an emotional level. To me, I feel as though communication is a key part to being a charismatic leader. If you cannot communicate well with others, you do not have a chance to be a good effective leader, in my opinion.
What I also found interesting was the controversy over if charisma is something one learns or is born with. I feel as though they make a good compelling case for each of these. To me, I find it hard to choose one because I see both sides. I feel as though you can be born with the ability to be able to communicate well, can connect on an emotional level and have good vision of that too. But, that can also be taught. They mentioned a number of different leaders and one was MLK. Now, from what people see is that yes, he is a very charismatic person and carries all of those traits and it seems to be natural. But, just as we discussed in class we do not know for sure if he grew up like that or he had to be taught it. That for me messes with my mind because I see it both ways and they have good evidence to back each case up.
The nature vs nurture aspect to these readings is something that peaked my interest as well. With MLK for example, your point is valid when saying that we do not know if he was born with charismatic tendencies or raised that way which we can apply to many leaders throughout history and today.