After reading the two readings about MLK and his charisma, the idea that charismatic leaders do not fit one specific mold was really solidified for me. Although there are clear indicators from the six characteristics associated with charisma from the Riggio reading, MLK does not perfectly fit into the mold described. Obviously, King’s strong suit was his public speaking and ability to emotionally inspire a crowd, but he was not particularly self-confident. I think that King is mostly considered to be charismatic due to his relationship with his followers. He met them with the respect that they deserved and treated them as equals. His main goal was to inspire people rather than manipulate them into blindly believing what he was saying. MLK prided himself on being able to teach people so they could ‘resocialize’ as a result of his preaching’s, therefore making them able to participate in the movement on their own. He was also concerned about how his actions would impact his followers and future leaders, which is why I think that so many people look to MLK’s leadership style.
I also found that Carson’s article was very interesting in the way that he described how MLK was not fond of the idea that he was considered charismatic. This made me think back to what we discussed in class, talking about all of the negative connotations that come with some of the characteristics of charismatic people. King did not want people to idolize him and think that he was the miracle that everyone was waiting for, and he especially did not want to manipulate people. I really liked the point made about how MLK was more of a role model and people had protests and sit ins on their own, not relating at all to MLK. I found this to be very interesting because King’s leadership in the Civil Rights Movement seems to be very circumstantial at this point, because Carson discussed how the social movement would have occurred without MLK, which is something that someone would never hear in the commonly told history of MLK.
This is a very interesting perspective. As I was reading the MLK reading I did notice that the way he lead was different, but I did not go further to make the conclusion that he does not perfectly fit the criteria of being a charismatic leader due to his lack of self-confidence.
I agree with you, this is all interesting. Having focused on charism being an important characteristic for leaders we have to remember that it isn’t the only factor. There are so many other characteristics that goes into being a good leader even if you are lacking in any of the six characteristics of being a charismatic leader, as was MLK.
I agree with your ideas on charisma, especially the idea that MLK was in no way trying to negatively manipulate his followers. I noticed that he was a very hands on leader, and his main goal was to educate people and teach people as much as he could, not necessarily convince them on anything.
I think this take on leadership is intriguing; it is almost as if there should be another category of charisma as a contrast to toxic charisma to encompass humble charisma. Some people have such natural charisma and power to sway a crowd that they do not even have to try to manipulate their audiences’ emotions.