When it comes to leaders, Martin Luther King is one that is extremely popular and well-known. In the article by Bill George, he asks this question about leadership: “how do you teach it?”. In class, we often question how one becomes a leader and tie it in with the statistic that you are born with one third and make two thirds, as noted from the charisma readings. Leadership qualities can surface when the opportunity presents itself and George hints towards that within the article. “It was a role he neither sought nor was prepared for…”(George 1). With this, he is emphasizing that King wasn’t voluntarily advocating for himself to lead protests but clearly displayed charisma as he was chosen. Leaders rise to the occasion and accept challenges when opportunities present themselves.
While MLK was a profound charismatic leader, he also displayed tendencies that weren’t charismatic. “He was at times reluctant to take on the responsibilities suddenly and unexpectedly thrust upon him”(Carson 29). Though he often presented confidence, there were times in which MLK was instinctually nervous and/or fearful when in potential danger. this shows that many great leaders can display charismatic traits. However, leaders can have moments of unsureness and still remain strong as well as maintain their status as a leader.
I also found the idea that he had uncharismatic features very interesting. I don’t think the article discredits him at all which is cool. When its mentioned that he said that African Americans would make it to the promise land with or without him it really showed his traits and who he was/ what he stood for.
You make an interesting point, which I agree with, about how he did not have some of the charismatic leader traits. The article didn’t identify what type of leader he was, but it will be fascinating if he is categorized as a certain type.