After reading both articles, the one that was most influential, to me, in developing a better sense of what leadership is, and how it’s formed, was Camerota’s piece. Though brief, the interview explores what makes a leader, while also discussing how leaders create their legacy– two vital key points that assisted in strengthening my understanding of the term’s actual meaning.
In the interview with Harvard alumnus, Bill George, Camerota seeks to discover what it was exactly that crafted MLK Jr. into such an effective leader, where George then responds in a way that gives much of the credit to the way he reacted to his circumstances. George’s claim is that we all experience crucibles yet
“it is important that we understand their meaning for our lives, and how they shape our future direction”.
My initial interpretation of this answer was that despite possessing the characteristics of a leader, it is true trial/tribulation and the way one reacts to it, that constructs leadership. This idea of a leader needing to be placed in a certain circumstance, is a topic that has also been discussed by other scholars, yet Camerota’s interview goes deeper by suggesting it is not merely the circumstance itself but the way in which one reacts to it, that makes all the difference.
Further in the interview she then inquired about the impacts and highlights of MLK Jr’s legacy, while also mentioning his affair. George’s response is then that a leader’s legacy is a reflection of
“...the character you demonstrate in achieving your purpose…” .
This answer thus dismisses her latter question about King’s affair, as his lack of commitment was a minor flaw in comparison to all he accomplished for the black population. King’s affair was irrelevant to his success as a leader and the legacy he left behind because his peaceful and tranquil approach to racial discrimination, in a time when the crisis of racism and racial violence was at an all time high, overpowered any of imperfections that he may have had, i.e, his lack of fidelity.
Through the evaluation of these concepts my main takeaway from Camerota is that leadership is heavily influenced by the actions of the leader. According to George, the way that an individual responds to their crucible determines the effectiveness of their leadership while at the same time the actions they take to achieve their goal manufactures their legacy, and through the analyzation of these claims it becomes clear to me that actions displaying leadership are, in a sense, more valuable than characteristics that do.
In regards to Camerota’s point about crucibles, I totally agree with you. I found it really interesting to point out that the circumstances surrounding a leader are very important, but it is even more pressing to see how that leader responds to the situation. That responsive action in itself makes all the difference.
I like how you brought up King’s infidelity and immediately stated that this had no affect on how much of an influential and charismatic leader he was. It is a very interesting yet questionable point that was added to the article, but this really did not matter to the people he was leading. The only thing that mattered was his view on civil rights.