Based on the readings, Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) stands out to me from other charismatic leaders that I have been picturing during our in class discussions. A charismatic leader can be defined as one who embodies six main characteristics: emotional expressiveness, drive, eloquence, vision, self-confidence, and responsiveness. While MLK undoubtedly possessed these traits, there was something about him that I found seemingly more “ordinary.”
First, MLK didn’t want to be a leader. In the article, Leadership Lessons from Martin Luther King, Jr, Professor Bill George states that King was “chosen at a town meeting…to lead the protests against racial discrimination,” (George 1). In other words, MLK was faced with an obstacle that anyone could be faced with: he had to step up to a challenge. This idea of situational leadership instills a hope that anyone can become a leader, just like the “myths” we talked about in class. In the article, Martin Luther King, Jr: Charismatic Leadership in a Mass Struggle, the author Clayborne Carson explains how the story of Martin Luther King Jr. is also a myth, calling MLK the “black counterpart to the static, heroic myths that have embalmed George Washington as the Father of His Country and Abraham Lincoln as the Great Emancipator,” (Carson 28).
Additionally, there are multiple aspects of King’s personality that differentiate him from other charismatic leaders and make him appear more “ordinary”. To begin with, MLK didn’t enjoy the devotion and loyalty of his followers like most other leaders do. He didn’t even always try to appease his audience. On many occasions, Carson states that King “risked popularity among blacks” to achieve peace (Carson 29). Finally, MLK let his fear of certain situations shine through, denying the argument that charismatic leaders are self-confident.
This is a very interesting perspective. Do you think that because MLK seemed to be more “ordinary” it made African Americans more reliant on his leadership?
In reading your response I found myself agreeing and questioning if MLK is really the charismatic, heroic leader that we make him out to be. Although I will not deny that he was very inspirational and propelled the Civil Rights movement forward, I think it is still important to note that he was voluntold to be a leader. He had intentions to be a religious leader but when presented a mission, he accepted. Does this take away from his honor simply because he initially had no desire to lead?