I think it was very interesting how Martin Luther King did not seek out a leadership position but was rather thrown into one. Under the circumstances of the time he took the call to action. This made me thing about the nature vs. nurture debate. MLK used the circumstances and feelings of the people and causes he stood for to nurture the skills he needed to be a great leader. He was able to symbothize with his audience which captivated many many and increased his following.
A question I had while reading about MLk is: Is he a charismatic leader or servant leader or both? MLK shows all signs of being a charismatic leader. He also served along side his followers in the fight agaisnt segregation. He served the cause and lead it as well. Can a leader be both charismatic and a servant?
What I took from the reading was that MLK was in fact a charismatic leader, but that the author wanted to help humanize MLK. Carson seemed to say that the movement would have come about, though a different movement in some ways, without MLK. I think he was a charismatic leader that served the movement well, but was not the reason for the movement. So, to me, he appears to be both a servant of the movement and others as well as leader.
I also think the nature versus. nurture debate can be argued here. I think when MLK prayed for guidance, that was him choosing to agree to step up to the circumstances he was thrown into.
I believe that MLK was a servant leader because the article states that he wanted people to remember him for how he served the community, not his achievements. Also, the author says that King knew he had limitations and human weaknesses, which a charismatic leader would never say.
I think your question of whether MLK Jr. is a charismatic leader or servant leader or both is a very important one. What I took from the readings was that Carson and Camerota both argued that we need to change our understanding of Martin Luther King Jr. as a strictly charismatic leader and open our eyes to the fact that he did not work alone. Camerota references Coretta Scott King as helping MLK carrying on their mission but his legacy after MLK’s death. Carson references groups like the SNCC taking matters into their own hands, using MLK as inspiration but also not waiting around for his help during their 1960 lunch counter sit-ins. I wonder, similar to the nature vs. nurture, ⅓ and ⅔ argument, if we can determine how much of MLK’s leadership was due to charisma and how much of his leadership was due to servitude.