Leadership

//WHO IS ANDREW ROBERTS?// Andrew Roberts, was born in January 13, 1963. He is a historian and has written many books tackling different topics of history especially during the last 20th Century. He wrote this article on February 26, 2003. In my standpoint, I view that his audience are the people who have different views of what are the makings of a true leader. In some way, you can trust this article because it is presenting how "charisma-inspired" leadership and "true inspirational" leadership contrast each other. (remember to link reliability to origin and purpose rather than content)  On the other hand, you can't trust this article because of the fact that there was no real evidence or basis. "True Inspiration" & "Charisma" are described in this article as very different ideas. True inspiration is defined in this article as a type of leadership trait wherein one serves to the fullest without making compromise and using rational and logical ways of running a government. "Charisma" on the other hand is the complete opposite of "True Inspiration". Charisma only uses sort of fake ways to gain people's trust by pretending they're something that they're really not. Well explained! 

We people always feel the need to be led but why do we feel it? The author is trying to explain in the first page of this article that the desire to follow a leader or some sort of authority has always been around us for many centuries now. There is an important question in this page of this article, which is, “…is national leadership just a trick of a trade...?” Four key leaders of the 20th Century were mentioned including John F. Kennedy, Adolf Hitler, Martin Luther King Jr., and Winston Churchill. Hitler and Kennedy were seen to become leaders because of mere charisma while Churchill and King were viewed as leaders because of genuine inspiration. In the second page of the article, Hitler was described on how we used charisma as a way to acquire such aura to make people follow you. It is also referred that charisma is something that no one is born with but one can acquire it in such various ways. While Churchill was described as a leader because of genuine inspiration by showing how he was inspired to use the Victorian heritage of the Brits, which has already been established before. He has a large collection of hats, bow ties, canes, and cigars to show his true Victorian heritage. On the third page of the article, Hitler was described to have been kinder to his staff compared to Churchill but it was Hitler’s attempt to micro-manage the Third Reich after the war broke out that caused his downfall. Churchill on the other hand, used strategic sweep of the war and the fact that he wasn’t a totalitarian dictator helped him win the war, which was based on rational and logical way of running things. On the fourth page, fundamental similarities and differences between Hitler and Churchill were pointed out. Both have a similarity to the fact that the political classes derided them both while they were out of office (Hitler in 1920’s and Churchill in 1930’s). The difference between them two is that Hitler was the archetype of what leader to avoid while Churchill was seen to have supreme relevance to the political world. Hitler died in his own capital,   where his corpse was doused with petrol and set on fire while Churchill died in his 90’s, full with different honorary awards and recognitions and seen as a object of admiration for the entire globe. These two people are seen to be ultimately the contrasting leadership techniques used.