Month: September 2019

MLK was and will for a long time be viewed as one of the United States most iconic leaders. I agree with both of the articles by Camerota and Carson. Camerota’s article pointed out the big ideas surrounding the man that was MLK. He was well educated and had a supportive wife to help him. While at the same time Camerota states a valid point by highlighting the fact that MLK Jr.’s push for peaceful protests was highly disagreed with within the black community. This was what made it challenging for MLK to lead.

 

At the same time, Camerota points out the fact that the FBI did have evidence of some infidelity. Some people that this evidence is real and others do not because the FBI did bug phone calls and send mail all to try to discredit MLK during the height of the Civil Rights Movement. All at the same time, Malcolm X had a very different idea of what black people should do to propel a movement. In the end, the U.S. government supported Martin Luther King Jr. because he did promote nonviolence and they knew that making successions with MLK Jr. was safer for them than to allow the ideas of Malcolm X to take lead in the movement completely. I believe that all of this information is relevant when studying the leadership of MLK. I do like that Carson brings up the background of the movement and the pieces that are often left out of the history but the job of MLK Jr. was difficult because he had many people that despised him on several fronts and different communities. Yet he still managed to be a figurehead for his controversial movement. That seems pretty charismatic to me.

 

3 Comments

        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. 

 

2 Comments

Growing up, I was taught that Martin Luther King Jr. was the most important leader of the civil rights era. We often focused on his actions and were taught that he was confident in what he did. We never learned about his self-doubts so I find it interesting that Carson decided to go into detail about those. According to Carson, King often doubted himself and feared for his life, as well as others. He wasn’t the person he is portrayed to be and that makes me wonder why we as a society create a false persona of him

I also found Carson’s understanding of the word charisma and how it pertains to MLK, very interesting. King understood that his charisma alone would not help him gain the number of followers that he wanted and he often risked his popularity. There is no doubt that he was charismatic but it was not always enough. I find it interesting that King used religion as his top tactic despite the backlash he would receive

4 Comments

The way Clayborne sets the background for king as a myth and legend, even though Dr. King has only been dead for a short time is really intriguing to me. He argues that this is extremely wrong to do. It reminds me of a book I am currently reading entitled Lies My Teacher Told Me By James W. Lowen. The book discusses how hero-fication of Leaders like King and George Washington white wash them to the point where in most cases their flaws are hidden, but in Kings case a large portion of who he was and how he went about the reform. It was peaceful, yes, but also forceful and his Hero-fication undermines a lot of those qualities.

 

Clayborne also suggests that King is only perceived as such a great leader because he was in the right place at the right time. He specifically notes that the Civil Rights movement had many leaders long before King took the spotlight, people like E.D. Nixon and Rosa Parks, Clayborne continues down this path and openly says that the movement would have continued no matter if King had lived or not. This is a weird thought to me, but it made me realize that we as humans put almost too much faith in the great leaders of our time and giving them the credit all to them when in reality the public should get a majority of the credit for actually “moving the machine” so to speak. 

   

 

6 Comments

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.

4 Comments

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. 

 

2 Comments

One thing I found interesting in the Carson piece was the backlash against the mainstream/national memorialization of MLK. Carson believes that this memorialization distorts MLK’s historical importance by posing him as a force of oratory nature holding the civil rights movement together, rather than one among many skilled people driving the movement (Carson, 28-29). I liked how Carson contextualized MLK as more than just a charismatic leader. Describing MLK as both a charismatic leader and a self-doubting person aware of his limitations creates a more human and relatable impression.

Stemming off the point above, an interesting question that came to mind for me was the association of leaders with their respective actions or movements. Carson argues against the narrow view of a leader comprising a movement because it is too simplistic, but is not that how we have primarily related historical events for thousands of years? When we talk about the Egyptians, we tend to focus primarily on Pharaohs, Julius Caesar with the Romans, Hitler with the Nazi’s, etc. I agree with Carson that the notion surrounding Great Men/Women is flawed for understanding human history. However, as we move farther away from the 1960’s and the civil right movement, how do we stop the simplification of the civil rights movement from becoming synonymous with MLK if doing so is historically distorting?

3 Comments

We know that Martin Luther King was a great peaceful and charismatic leader, so choosing him to represent what a charismatic leader should represent is only right. In the reading it was interesting when it said, “The fact that he has more prestige than power; the fact that he not only criticizes whites but explicitly believes in their redemption…”(27).  In other words he was willing to forgive those who had judged him for the color of his people’s skin. It takes the right type of good charisma to forgive those who have hurt you for that long.

I think it was also interesting how Carson noted how King “rejected” charismatic traits assigned to him because they conflicted with his own self-doubts and limitations. I think this made him an even greater leader, because being able to recognize your weaknesses while knowing how important you are to the movement made him connect with his followers better and made the whole movement more genuine. He still naturally used  Being in a leadership role can blind people of the fact that they are still human just like any one of their followers, but King knew that he was just as vulnerable ass any other person.

2 Comments

The article written by Carson talks about how King should be remembered more for his work in the actual movement rather than his role as a leader. Carson mentions how King did not want to be charismatic because of those sketchy elements that were brought up in class like manipulation and how leaders need a mysterious quality to them in order to attract an audience. Rather than being a flawless role model for the whole world to follow, I like how the article goes into depth about King embracing his flaws and his fears to the world instead of acting all high and mighty. I think any great leader should have the ability to say that they are scared or admit and show people that they are not perfect because to me, it would intrigue me more by knowing I can actually relate to this person rather than be intimidated and a bit sad that I may not be able to reach the standards they live by.

I did find it interesting how the article goes from talking about King and his major involvement in the black movement and all the actual progress that happened because of him, and then sheds light on the fact that the movement still would have happened without him but may have not been as quick to success. Yes, I’m sure the movement would have progressed in some capacity but it would have been more violent and would it have been worth it to not have King as such a figurehead for this movement just because he was merely a “helper” with other leaders during this time? I found that part of the article a bit contradictory but overall I still got the impression and believe that King was a great leader who showed people that he was human above all else who had fears and dreams just the same as the next person. I feel like that was one aspect that made him so attractable to others because they were able to see him as one of their own and he even compromised his black follower base to not hinder his beliefs of nonviolence and that in itself is so admirable.

3 Comments

In this reading, Carson describes Dr. King in a very different manner than he is often thought of today. I liked how Carson emphasized just how much of a controversial figure King really was, and that if he was still alive today, he would not nearly be as popular as modern scholarship and history perceive him to be. This gives readers an idea of just how radically different Dr. King’s ideology was in the 1960s and helps us understand that he risked, and ultimately lost his life in order to preach and spread the ideals he believed in. While history today looks at King’s movement as an example of courageous activism and praises the ideals he was fighting for, I think Carson’s piece explains that if the modern people of today who praise him actually lived in King’s time, they would not see him as this static, mythically constructed figure who can do no wrong. When Carson explains the way history today views King, he compared him to larger than life figures such as George Washington, people who are seen as untouchable in American history. This metaphor helped me understand the difference between modern scholarship about King, and the actual perception of him in the 1960s, two very different schools of thought.

 

I think it is also important to note that King had an understanding of his shortcomings, and he was adamant about having his followers think for themselves as opposed to blindly following him. This is an example of leadership that deviates from the traditional charismatic model, and I believe that differentiating between these models of leadership can have serious implications when evaluating the ethical and moral values and intentions of our future leaders.

3 Comments

The first reading by Christian Camerota reinforced to me that King was indeed a charismatic man. King was chosen to lead protests despite his lack of experience, showing that something drew people to him; people viewed him as the type of man that they wanted to follow, the mark of a “true charismatic.” His emphasis on the imperfection of our leaders made me think about other high-profile leaders with their own imperfections. JFK was a known philanderer, yet that is rarely the first thing that people think of when reflecting on his presidency. Similarly, George Washington was a slave owner as were many other Founding Fathers, but their reputations remain untarnished. On the other hand, there have been many influential leaders whose legacies have been outshined by their mistakes. Alexander Hamilton set up our financial system that allowed us to be a unified group of states, but his very public affair dragged his name and reputation through the mud. Does this have something to do with “how much good” the leader does during their life? Does this have something to do with their reputation at the time of their death? I’m genuinely curious so please discuss.

When I started Clayborne Carson’s piece, I felt that he was being too hard on King. I was definitely raised in the kind of environment that Carson criticized, an environment that galvanized King’s leadership skills while ignoring other factors and components of the Civil Rights Movement, but even when taking those things into consideration, King was still a charismatic and influential leader. On page 29, Carson says King was “overcome with fear rather than confident and secure in his leadership role,” but do we know that those outside his inner circle saw this fear? Part of charismatic leadership is developing the persona; just because MLK may have felt afraid does not mean that his followers saw or felt that same fear. Carson also cites the example that black students initiated counter sit-ins without waiting for King to tell them to do so. Charismatic leaders have messages or agendas that they wish their followers to adopt. While I am certainly no expert on Dr. King, I think that the largest part of his message was standing up peacefully against racial injustice, exactly what these students did. Even without explicit encouragement from King, these students embraced his philosophy and lived-out King’s message.

Shortly after this point, I wondered by Carson even wrote this piece. It seemed very negative and belittling of King’s accomplishments, even though he threw a few paragraphs of praise in there. Shortly after wondering this, I reached page 32 where Carson emphasizes that others can recognize qualities similar to King within themselves. He wrote this piece to humanize the public perception of Dr. King so that others can see the most meaningful portions of his life had nothing to do with charisma. This ties in very well to the first reading because they aim to accomplish the same goal: allowing lay people to see the potential within themselves.

2 Comments

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?

4 Comments

I believe that Carson made a good choice in using Marin Luther King Jr. as an example of being a charismatic leader. One of the qualities of a charismatic leader, that was discussed in the Riggio article, is being able to speak eloquently, driving those listening to action. MLK was able to effectively communicate the injustices that African Americans were going through in that time, spurring them to action, such as in his famous ‘I Have A Dream’ speech. Even with the repercussions he had to face in such a racist period, he continued to speak his truth and the truth of others, nonviolently.

 

It was brought up in this article that MLK is thought to be “the initiator and sole indispensable element in the southern black struggles of the 1950s and 1960s” (Carson). I believe that this is true because if you ask someone to name the first person that they can think of who played an important role in the Civil Rights Movement, many people would say King. However, there are plenty of other leaders during this period that had a considerable impact on history. For example, it was brought up in the reading that Rosa Parks was also one of the important Civil Rights leaders, emerging before him, however, she was probably not taken as seriously as MLK based on the fact that she was a woman.

 

Going back to one of our previous readings which talked about if a leader is born through situational events or can be made, I believe in MLK’s case his leadership abilities depended on him being alive during the Civil Rights Movement. There were certain events that had to occur in his life which would inspire him to become the man we all read in our history books today. One may never know, if he was born a couple decades after the 60’s would he still be as known as the leader he is today? Perhaps. Or he could still be known as a leader, but the leader of his local congregation, not a nationwide movement.

2 Comments

In going over these readings, something I found especially interesting was an idea presented Clayborne Carson in “Martin Luther King, Jr.: Charismatic Leadership in a Mass Struggle”. Carson says that because of the surrounding support, as well as the other leaders of the civil rights movement, “If King had never lived, the black struggle would have followed a course of development similar to the one it did”. The idea that taking out the central figure of a movement or government and it still ending up going down the same path, with a similar result is something most people never consider. 

I believe that this premise can not be used as a blanket statement. Each case must be judged individually. In the case of Martin Luther King Jr., I would agree with Carson’s assessment. King was more part of a group of leaders as opposed to being the sole head of the civil rights movement.  One of the most famous boycotts in the civil rights movement, the Montgomery bus boycott, was not initiated by King but by local black leaders such as E. D. Nixon, Rosa Parks, and Jo Ann Robinson. The same goes for the lunch counter sit-ins, which was launched by students (though they were inspired by King). Another example of this would be Abraham Lincoln, who was also part of a group of leaders lobbying for the abolishment of slavery. Although he helped move along the process of abolishing slavery, I believe that the same process would have eventually taken place because of the growth of the abolitionist movement and the leaders at the forefront of it such as Frederick Douglas and William Lloyd Garrison who helped gain support for the movement.

3 Comments

The Jepson School of Leadership Studies has in its school description that “Students look at leadership as it was, as it is, and as it should be,” (University of Richmond); my first thought when reading these two works about Martin Luther King, Jr. was that he is a prime example of a leader as it was and should be. While to some he might be representative of a holiday we celebrate in January or a piece of our history class, he holds one of the most important legacies for leaders in the struggle for racial inequality and for leaders in general. Bill George, in “Leadership Lessons from Martin Luther King, Jr.” indicates that MLK holds a legacy of “…staying true to your beliefs, pursuing your purpose, and exhibiting courage under pressure and profound lessons for leaders in all walks of life,” (Camerota, Harvard Business School). MLK’s progress toward racial equality was a pivotal turning point in the history of the American South through his implementation of civil disobedience, civil rights protests, and charismatic leadership methods such as those from Riggio’s empirical article from The Encyclopedia of Leadership.

The readings about MLK directly connect to the lesson in class on charismatic leadership because he is the epitome of a charismatic leader, in my opinion. Carson’s article is introduced by saying that his effectiveness stems from his “…that of effectively communicating Negro aspirations to white people, of making non-violent direct action respectable in the eyes of the white majority,” (Carson 27). Charismatic leadership traits include that of effective communication skills and being influential to followers (Riggio 3). MLK was able to appeal to the masses through his charismatic leadership methods. His eloquence in works such as the famous “I Have a Dream” speech and enthusiasm in his marches on Montgomery and Washington represent charismatic leadership, in my opinion.

I agree with the author that he had a much greater contribution to racial equality and to the future of leaders; he utilized “other forms of intellectual and political leadership” (Carson 29) in addition to charismatic methods. Labeling MLK’s leadership methods as charismatic are sufficient, but we must not do so in a way that eliminates the efforts of other leaders such as Rosa Parks and E.D. Nixon, just to name a few. Analyzing MLK’s charismatic skills as the influential figure as he was is significant, but when studying leadership it is important to acknowledge all sides of the struggle. After reading this article, I want to ensure my future endeavors in leadership are not in a way that discredits significant contributors to the cause or issue at hand.

 

Anna Marston

2 Comments

Charisma as defined in the reading is a quality that people have that allows them to relate to and inspire others on a deep emotional level. Throughout society, many people have been able to lead so effectively because they have this quality(s) (emotionally expressive, enthusiastic, driven, eloquent, visionary, self confident, and responsive to others.) They have the ability to communicate with people in both small settings as well as large setting and the ability to connect with people in a personal as well as emotional way. 

 

A perfect real world example of this would be Adolf Hitler the leader of the Nazi party. Hitler was an exceptional public speaker who used a lot of expressive gestures and emotion in his speeches to arouse his audience. He had the ability to articulate his words extremely well and paint a picture in the German people’s minds as to what Germany could look like under his control. In addition, as the reading discusses many of these charismatic leaders rise to power in times of distress. This is exactly what happened with Hitler because the German’s were in a terrible depression after WWI and the German government was failing its people. Which is exactly what allowed Hitler to rise into power. He was able to connect with and inspire the German people on such an intense level that they wanted to follow his every command. 

6 Comments

As I read these two articles, I could not help but think of President Donald Trump. Though he is already possibly one of the most historical American political figures, many Americans can likely agree, whether they despise every one of his policies and his entire administrations or follow him with the mindset that he is the most powerful and intelligent leader in the world, he is a person with charisma. A politician with such extreme views and who gives such outrageous speeches would never be able to get away with acting so divisively and aggressively if he or she was not charismatic and magnetic. Charisma is an interesting quality of a leader to me because it does not necessarily translate to solid leadership skills but is oftentimes very beneficial in terms of securing leadership positions. In my opinion, regardless of one’s opinion on Trump, it is undeniable that his communication skills and ability to manipulate a crowd using emotional intelligence strategies certainly helped him to campaign and draw a specific audience.

Reading about the significance of charisma in terms of leadership, being charismatic is very common in prototypical leaders, I heavily considered how important charisma actually is in leadership. A potential leader can appear energetic and motivated and express other characteristics of the six most typical characteristics associated with charisma, yet these traits could all be very natural to whoever possesses them. In other words, someone who is not dedicated to a certain cause or someone who does not care to engage in conversations but has a natural sense of charisma can appear to act a certain way in order to be elected or step up into a leadership role. It is very easy as well for a message to get lost if the leader is appealing and enthusiastic but does not actually have a strong and clear plan or ideology. Thus, charisma may be a common trait in many leaders and is beneficial for being chosen or pointed out as a leader, but it is certainly not necessary and in my opinion can either distract from the leader’s ideas or even trick followers into blindly following someone because they present themselves in such a socially appealing way.

For example, going back to President Donald Trump, at this point in his career, he can say almost anything and the specific audience that he has attracted will support what he says because they are so devoted to him. Many of his supporters do not even fully understand what he stands for, but it does not matter due to how captivated they are by someone so bold with such an air of arrogance or self-confidence who knows exactly how to communicate with his followers.

5 Comments

The way that Charisma is defined by Riggio is as a constellation of positive traits that ultimately allows one to move and inspire others on an emotional level. Basically, their personality traits make them likable and these “leaders” such as Gandhi, FDR, and even Adolf Hitler have the ability to communicate effectively to an audience. I found Riggio’s discussion on communication most intriguing because I am currently taking a class on communication and how efficient and good communication works. When Riggio talks about the characteristics of leaders, the one that caught my attention was the ability to respond effectively to others through emotional communication. These people can read others, their emotions, and attitudes which give the leaders another tool in communicating with their audience. Leaders can be social chameleons and charisma allows them to be successful in social situations such as schools etc.

 

 The idea of manipulation is also strong, leaders are able to harness their ability to read crowds and then feed off of their energy. Whether the cause is good or bad, this is something that effective leaders utilize and this has been seen throughout history many times. I believe that emotional manipulation is the strongest because when there are masses of people fighting using their emotions, they have nothing left to lose and will follow blindly under a cause. This again can be for better or for worse however it is still a skill that many, if not all leaders have.

 

Another thing that I found interesting was the charisma and tsav. This introduced the concept of leadership as an object or a symbol. It is described almost like a real-life black panther scenario. In Black Panther, the king or leader takes something called the heart-shaped herb which endows its possessor with superhuman powers. Tsav is very similar in that its possessors are gifted with leadership skills such as charisma. It allows one to dominate a social situation. I think that charisma is really different social skills that develop over time through different situations and blossoms into what we call a gift.

7 Comments