In the following article Kapil Edke has discussed the leadership styles in the context of two world-famous leaders in 1940's, whose actions changed the future of the world for decades.
A few days ago, I attended a conference related to leadership skills. The conference was attended mostly by human resource professionals like me and had some really good discussion on topics like leadership style, motivation etc.One of the modules in this conference discussed leadership in the context of two leaders from World War II era, Winston Churchill of UK and Adolf Hitler of Germany. There are numerous similarities as well as differences between their leadership styles. However, one is considered as brilliant strategist whose actions saved the democracy and freedom, while the other is looked at with disdain because of his atrocities and is blamed squarely for waging the world war.
Similarities:
1) Both Hitler and Churchill were "non-serious" students. They used to hate mathematics and like arts and history (so a leader need not be brilliant in academic sense).
2) Both these men faced initial failures in politics. During World War I in 1915, Churchill was blamed for failure in Battle of Gallipoli and resigned from the government, while Hitler failed in Munich Putsch (coup in Bavaria) and suffered hard time in politics for the years to come.
3) Both these men had certain ideologies which they didn't change or modify for political gain. For example, Hitler was against the Treaty of Versailles which he used to consider to be against German welfare, while Churchill was against appeasement of Nazis/ Fascists and opposed developments like Munich Pact.
4) Both of them gained popularity when times and situations changed and their view of the world started appearing correct to the general public, after slowdown in Germany in 1930's (Hitler) and after Germany's attack on Poland in 1939 (Churchill).
5) Both of them hated communism. However, because of political and military compulsions each of them had to make friendship pact with Soviet Russia, albeit at different times. However, during the pact, each of them looked at Soviets with suspicion while Soviet leader Stalin tried to extract maximum benefit through the pact.
Differences:
1) In general, Hitler is considered Charismatic leader (charisma: divinely conferred gift or power), while Churchill is considered Inspirational leader (inspire: influence, animate or motivate). While the charismatic leader makes people believe in him entirely, inspirational leader highly motivates them and gets things done easily.
2) Hitler was more of a micro-manager who insisted on his involvement in military decisions, which not just slowed down Germany's progress in the war, but also lead to several wrong decisions as they were taken by Hitler based on gut feeling or instinct rather than understanding ground realities. Churchill confined himself to broad strategy, and left its implementation on his generals.
3) Churchill had served in military in different countries like Cuba, India, South Africa etc. and hence understood the military aspects of the war and world geographies better than Hitler, who had never served in the military.
4) Hitler believed that he can't go wrong and hence had low tolerance if his generals protested or opposed his decisions. Compared to him, Churchill being a democratically elected leader and not a dictator knew his limitations and boundaries and hence was more tolerant wrt difference of opinion.
Interesting, isn't it? Leadership style of every leader in the world is unique, and it is difficult to declare one as right and the other as wrong. However, in general, Churchill's qualities helped him motivate the Britishers when the going was tough, win solid allies like US and Soviets, and plan the right strategy which lead to the success of allies.
Dear Kapil Edke
ReplyDeleteYou have presented the whole comparison in concise way but in effective words. I agree to your underlying point, that is, no leadership style is right or wrong, it all depends on what works in the surrounding situation.
To add to the similarities: Both these persons had lot of energy and incredible memory, which used to help them in decision making. To add to the differences: Churchill had a great sense of humour, while Hitler used to work in more serious way.
Vishal Verma
Hey Vishal,
DeleteThank you for reading my article and also thanks for making valuable additions.
Kapil Edke
Vishal,
DeleteYou are welcome to read my other articles, too and provide feedback.
Kapil Edke
Hey Kapil,
ReplyDeleteYou would remember that I was also part of this seminar. Your article is great, but I don't personally agree with the point which describes Hitler as a micro-manager and meddler in military decision making. I think any world leader of Hitler's caliber would know that the generals located on actual war frontier know the ground realities much better than him sitting in Berlin. I think this impression about Hitler was created by his own field marshals and generals after the war was ended, to avoid their responsibility for defeat by blaming Hitler squarely whereas in reality, the blame should have been shared among everyone. Also let us not forget the early victories achieved by Nazi Germany over countries like Poland, France and Scandinavia.
The other points mentioned by you seem to be accurate, as most of the literature available today supports these views.
- Vij
Well, I'd like to differ on this. I think even during war it had become a known fact that Hitler interfered a lot in army decisions. The early victories cited by you were against weak and unprepared armies.
Delete- Pavithra Ramamurthy
Hi Vij,
ReplyDeleteThanks for reading the article and providing your valuable feedback. You may be right when you say that the impression about Hitler as a micro-manager was created by his own people in post-war era to avoid their responsibility. However, some decisions like micro-involvement in Stalingrad battle, denying permission to surrender to Field Marshal Paulus suggest possibility of significant interference in military decisions. The examples of early victories are fine, but let us not forget that these were weaker opponents than Soviets.
Kapil Edke
Both Britishers and Germans looked at Soviets with suspicion while in alliance with them. When Germany and Russia were in non-aggression pact, Stalin tried to extract as many of war equipment as he could from Germany in return for food and oil. Later, the same equipment was used against Germany when Germans attacked Soviets.
ReplyDeleteThe same was the case a few years later in Yalta conference where Stalin tried to gain as much as possible from Roosevelt and Churchill.
Sathish Thiyagarajan