Leadership characteristics define many prominent figures throughout history. The view of what good leadership is varies from place to place or even from person to person. Good leadership is often associated with positive role models such Gandhi or Martin Luther King. Yet, good leadership is also visible in unscrupulous figures such as Genghis Kahn and Adolf Hitler. The following paragraphs will compare and contrast leadership characteristics between Adolf Hitler and Winston Churchill. An examination of their goals and leadership characteristics will show that these individuals had quite very different objectives.; hHowever, the leadership processes they used were frequently similar.
Adolf Hitler and Winton Churchill were among the greatest leaders in world history and certainly during the years of World War II. History perceives Churchill as a positive character and Hitler as an example of an unscrupulous leader who brought death and destruction. Churchill led Great Britain as a prime minister during World War II, while Hitler was a leader of Germany. Churchill and Hitler were very different individuals.
In many ways their leadership styles and approach seemed similar, however, their backgrounds were quite different. Churchill came from a wealthy and famous family while Hitler, in contrast, was born into a family of commoners. Both of them lost their fathers during their youth; Hitler was 14, Churchill was 20.
Churchill was a patriot and a prominent speaker who gave many speeches defending freedom and showing nationalistic pride. According to Rossi (2004) Churchill “loved the British people but hated no other nation. Hitler, in contrast, was consumed by hatred-of the Jews, Slavs, and gypsies among others. Hatred was the driving force of his life” (pp. 106-107).
Churchill despised totalitarianism and was a mortal enemy of fascism, while Hitler supported totalitarianism as the only way to lead a nation. Hitler wanted to have total control of the government and its people. Anyone who disagreed with Hitler would end up in prison or dead.
Hitler, as well as Churchill, was a very charismatic speaker, they both displayed a high degree of self-confidence and were very passionate about the messages they were trying to convey; both had an excellent memory. Churchill, when delivering his messages, used his great sense of humor; people loved to listen to him, and they cheered for him wherever he would appear. Churchill would inspire and encourage British people, not frighten them. Even to this day, Churchill’s positive influence echoes in the voice of many presidents and leaders. According to Gibson and Weber (2015) “Churchill’s speeches are regarded as some of the greatest speeches in history” (p. 80). In contrast, Hitler’s speeches were accompanied by violence during which he would encourage fighting, controlling the crowd by spreading fear according to Howell (2012). Gibson and Weber (2015) also noted that during his speeches, Churchill used soft tones and logical reasoning that extended his followers’ acceptance of his governing approach. In contrast, Hitler used loud, serious tone of voice accompanied by threats spreading confusion and fear.
Churchill led his people by making sure that his officers were well taken care of by inviting them to join him for dinners, ensuring that he knew their names and familiarized himself with details of their lives. During the war, he made sure that his troops were taken care of by ensuring they had enough food. He surrounded himself with people of reason while according to Rossi (2004), “In contrast Hitler’s closest aides were yes men who feared his wrath” (pp. 106-107). Similarly to Churchill’s approach, Hitler was very generous to his generals. Hitler would buy his top officers expensive gifts+ or lavishly celebrate their birthdays (Howell, 2012). However, unlike Churchill’s approach, Hitler’s generous treatment was predicated on his generals delivering successful outcomes.
Churchill would run the country by listening to the advice of other members of Parliament during peaceful times, and his officers during the war. As Gibson and Weber (2015) noted “Churchill constantly requested criticism and feedback from his subordinates. He understood the value of these opinions and encouraged those around him to speak their mind” (p. 81). Mulki, Caemmerer, and Heggde (2015) found that a leader’s participative leadership style has a significant and positive effect on followers. Churchill had extensive military knowledge and intelligence to listen to the people surrounding him that made him foresee the future of international events. While Hitler, as a totalitarian, believed that he was the only one who could make the right decision, often ignoring his officers’ advice. Hitler’s approach to decision making eventually cost him his success. People were afraid to question his decisions for fear of retaliation.
Hitler and Churchill handled international affairs in different ways. Churchill would court the leaders of other countries by inviting them to dinners and charming them with his eloquent speeches and a great sense of humor (Howell, 2013). Hitler would use threats and violence to achieve what he wanted. He was also dishonest, lying to other leaders of European countries, as in the case of the nonaggression pact that he signed knowing that he had no intentions in honoring it. By signing this agreement, he was buying himself time to rebuild his army (HoowellHowell, 2013) underscoring his unethical and deceitful behavior .
Their goals were different, Hitler’s goals were to exterminate the Jewish race because, according to him, Jews were the cause of Germany’s economic ruin. He wanted to create a superior race and claim absolute power over Europe. While Churchill strived to maintain a peaceful balance. Churchill’s goals were “to maintain a respectful place of British power in the world but while keeping a peaceful balance” (Howell, 2013, p. 94).
Churchill and Hitler shared certain characteristics;, they both were charismatic speakers who believed they could achieve greatness for their country and people. They both displayed extreme self-confidence and dedication to their cause. Churchill is viewed as a positive leader while Hitler is seen as a tyrant. Both leaders influenced their followers in similar fashion achieving quite different outcomes. To this day, many leaders use Churchill’s leadership approach as an example of excellent leadership stewardship and as a positive example of a great man while avoiding any suggestions of Hitler’s ideas. References
Gibson, M., & Weber, R.J. (2015, January). Applying Leadership Qualities of Great People to
Your Department: Sir Winston Churchill. Hospital Pharmacy, 50(1) 078-083.
Howell, J.P. (2013). Snapshots of Great Leadership: Leadership: research and practice. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Mulki, J. P., Caemmerer, B., & Heggde, G. S. (2015). Leadership style, salesperson's work effort and job performance: the influence of power distance. Journal of Personal Selling &
Sales Management, 35(1), 3-22. doi:10.1080/08853134.2014.958157
Rossi, J. (2004). Hitler and Churchill: Secrets of leadership. History, 32(3), 106-107. Retrieved from ProQuest.
Sevaldsen, J. (2005). Churchill: the continuing story. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 4(1),
137+. Retrieved from Gale.