Leadership Style: Nelson Mandela Vs Adolf Hitler

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Nelson Mandela and Adolf Hitler are considered two influential leaders whose decisions have made significant changes in the history. Also, the two leaders are chosen as they propose extreme difference in terms of leadership attitudes and style, charismatic leadership, ethical decision-making and leadership powers. And these are also the key theories employed to analyze and contrast them.

Referring to leadership attitudes and styles, Mandela had strong relationship-oriented behaviors which contributed to his participate leadership style. In contrast, the task-related behaviors of Hitler helped form his autocratic leadership style. Secondly, both leaders had similar characteristics of a charismatic leader: having a strong vision, being risk-taking and masterful communicators. However, two leaders were opposite in their intentions of using their charisma, which resulted in their different types of charismatic leaders: Mandela was categorized as a socialized charismatic leader while the type of charisma that Hitler used was personalized charisma. Thirdly, Mandela and Hitler also processed different ethical decision-making. Whilst Mandela showed a strong commitment to justice, Hitler based on the consequentialism to make ethical decisions. In fact, Mandela was truly an ethical leader for all the things he has devoted but Hitler was an unethical one due to immoral consequences he caused to Jews and others. Lastly, in the topic about leadership power, Mandela successfully used the power derived from his own characteristics and behaviors, which were expert power, referent power, and prestige power. Conversely, Hitler used legitimate power, coercive power and expert power so as to influence people.

PART A

1. Introduction

Leadership is known as a very wide-ranging and complex domain, and its elements are perceived in various ways. The history has created a lot of great leaders, whose stories bring us valuable leadership lessons to examine. To have a more insightful and comprehensive view of basic leadership theories, two famous and influential political leaders, Nelson Mandela and Adolf Hitler were chosen. Also, because they promote extremely opposite leadership style, ethics and power, analyzing and comparing them will help to apply leadership theories into practice more effectively, which is the ultimate goal of this report.

Nelson Mandela (1918) is a South Africa lawyer, prominent activist and also known as the leader of African National Congress (ANC) party and first black President of South Africa (1994-1999). Mandela is famous owing to his dedication for South Africa to fight against Apartheid government and his charity fund. In 1993, he was rewarded the Peace Nobel Prize.

Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) was the Supreme Chancellor of Nazi Party (1933-1945) and the leader of National Socialist German Worker Party. He was also well-known for triggering The Second World War and creating fascist dictatorship which had caused about 62 million deaths (1939- 1945), (Stokes, 2008).

Mandela and Hitler are known as two discordant leaders, therefore, five key theories were employed to compare and contrast them. The analysis about leadership attitudes, style and charismatic leadership would help understand the different ways Mandela and Hitler unified millions of people. They both succeeded when using their own leadership style and considered charismatic leaders of all time. However, they did encounter unexpected problems related to their sticking to one style only. Next, ethical leadership was

chosen to discuss. With distinct value and moral perception, Mandela and Hitler processed decision in extremely different way; hence, studying about them would clearly point out the consequences of ethical and unethical decisions. Also, leadership power has become a more interesting topic thanks to the learning about Mandela and Hitler. Mandela is a typical example of the leader who frequently empowers his followers and has actually received "more", in contrast, Hitler used his position and coercive power to perform high-level tasks. And because both used their own power wisely, learning about them actually provides practical lessons.

2. Discussion and Analysis

2.1. Leadership Attitudes and Style

2.1.1. Nelson Mandela

Dubrin, Dalglish & Miller (2006, p64) said "leadership involves influencing people". In the case of Mandela, the way he influenced people is utilizing strong relationship-oriented attitudes and behavior throughout his life.

"To get people pulling together, it is necessary to speak to many people", (Dubrin et al. 2006, p65). According to Brink (1998), although Mandela has never perceived himself a good speaker, whenever he speaks, people will listen. Indeed, he appealed to 10,000 volunteers for joining in his defiance of Unjust Law campaign in August 1952, though Apartheid policy of racial discrimination was introduced widely across the country (ANC, n.d).

Mandela also succeeded in creating inspiration and giving emotional support toward his followers. Once ANC was under the threat of Apartheid government, he told his followers: "Dangers and difficulties have not deterred us in the past, they will not frighten us now" (ANC, n.d) to praise their strengths and encourage them. Moreover, he also inspired people by satisfying their higher-level needs, "he is very sensitive to the emotional needs of other people" (Topsynergy, 2008). When being the President of South Africa, his initiative to found the Children's Fund came from his

understanding that "people need emotional support, protection and a sense of belonging" (South Africa, 2001). Also, Mandela has characteristics of a "servant leader" when he is more concerned about helping people than achieving power or position. "Kindness, consideration and tenderness are more meaningful to Nelson Mandela than any sort of honor the world can bestow" (Topsynergy, 2008).

Mandela's "relationship-oriented" attitudes help form his participative leadership style. According to Ripka (2007), Mandela adopted a democratic leadership style throughout his fight to bring democracy to South Africa. While Johnson & Johnson (2006) believed his leadership success is attributed to his use of consensus.

Though in term of "democratic" or "consensus", the way Mandela led people was not telling them what to do but leading them from behind. At any leading positions, he always set policies or made decision through group discussion. For example, when he urged to reduce the voting age to 14 in ANC but did not receive the consensus among members in the party, he also accepted because he thought "That is democracy". This leadership style might sometimes make his intention become more difficult, like "during his imprisonment on Robben Island, he desired to stage a strike to force the warders to address prisoners with the honorific "Mr" but he was always turned down by his comrades" (Kelvin, 2008).

2.1.2. Adolf Hitler

The task-related behavior of Hitler firstly reflected in his direction setting for the Nazi Party, which was to use a war to re-divide the world, in order to achieve the vision of making Germany become the highest-status class and dominate all nations (Battersby, 1952). Mueller (1991) also stated that "the political/diplomatic use of military force was an important element in Hitler's strategy". Clearly, Hitler showed a feasible way in his strategy to achieve the desired vision.

Also, Hitler always held his followers to high standards of performance. Indeed, he tended to set goals very toughly, such as Nazi Army must invade

other nations in the shortest time, or Germany must become one of the most super powerful military nations, etc. (Histclo, 2007).

In many times, Hitler was willing to take risks in order to obtain what he desired. One of those was the event on 9th November 1923 when Hitler led the Group trying to make a revolution against the current government although the Nazi Party was not strong enough (Braunbeck, 1997). Besides, when many Germans had a fear of war, and Hitler himself was aware of that danger, he was still determined to lead the German military to conquer other nations and expand German's boundary (Mueller, 1991). Such behaviors evidently showed the bias for action in Hitler's leadership style.

Such task-related attitudes help explain why Dictator Adolf Hitler is well-known for being an autocratic leader, who is not concerned with group members' attitudes toward decision (Dubrin et al. 2006). To retain most of the authority in military, he appointed himself as the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces. It means that his decision was the final one and no decision during the war was made without his direct involvement (Braunbeck, 1997). Baranowski (2005) stated that Hitler even tried to dominant over his closest followers. Besides, the autocratic characteristic of Hitler was also shown in his distrusting his Generals: Hitler ignored advice of other Generals and decided confidently to declare war against the rest of Euro (Battersby, 1952)

However, using autocratic leadership style did not help Hitler all times succeed. William et al. (1960) shows the biggest mistake of Hitler was tactical strategy. For example, when other Generals advised to attack Britain firstly, Hitler ignored their suggestion and still kept his own decision to attack So Viet Union and finally experienced severe failure.

2.1.3. Conclusion

In conclusion, differences in leadership styles of Hitler and Mandela were explained by the differences in their attitudes and behavior. Hitler had task-related behaviors which contributed to form his autocratic leadership because an autocratic leader tends to have actions that mainly focus on

getting tasks done (Dubrin et al. 2006). Conversely, Mandela was seen as a relationship-oriented leader whose behaviors were based on the relationship with people. More specifically, Mandela had a democratic leadership because he tended to give final authority on the group, which was totally opposite to the autocratic leadership of Hitler, who wanted to retain most of the authority and did not want to share his power to anyone.

2.2. Charismatic Leadership

2.2.1. Similarities

"A charismatic leader has profound and unusual effects on followers", (House, 1977 cited in Leadership in Organisations, p254). Actually, both Mandela and Hitler had charisma to produce magnetic influences on followers.

First, they promoted a very strong vision. To Mandela, it was "a beautiful South Africa" and actually "his standards and vision resulted in monumental changes in governance that transformed the entire nation of South Africa" (Butterfoss, 2007) Also, Hitler offered to his followers a Germany's future, which was the most powerful nation in the world, and he followed it enthusiastically.

Second, both were proven to be risk-taking leaders. While Mandela valiantly opposed the government's unfair treatment when Apartheid had a very strong power, Hitler promoted an action orientation which was "expansion through conquests" and "use war as a tactic" to achieve his desired vision (Mueller, 1991).

Third, Mandela and Hitler were masterful communicators as they had an ability to use words to persuade people. Brink (1998) talked about Mandela: "when he begins to speak, the cheers usually turn into a good-natured but puzzled silence". Also, Hitler used his talent of giving speeches in public in order to persuade people to accept his beliefs about the country's recovery through a "national reawakening" (Dreijmanis, 2005)

2.2.2. Differences

Although "charismatic leaders are likely to have a strong need for power" (Yukl 2006, p254), millions of people deify Mandela because he has always used his power with the needs and promotion of other in mind (Mayseless & Popper, 2007). Mandela has actually made lots of self-sacrifices to promote his strong vision. That was why their struggle was continued even when Mandela was imprisoned, and even after, he continued lending his voice toward human's rights. He completely restrained the use of his power in order to benefit others, which characterizes him as a socialized charismatic leader (Dubrin et.al 2006).

In contrast, Hitler was the leader that used personalized charisma since his intention of using his power is to serve his own passion for control and power over others. He only supported what was helpful for achieving his goals, indeed, if the German were not strong enough to help him rule the world, he would not need them anymore (Drabkin, 2002).

2.2.3. Conclusion

In brief, both Mandela and Hitler had distinguishing characteristics which made them be charismatic. They passionately pursued their "lofty long-term goal" and communicated their vision in inspiring ways. Also, the different leadership attitudes and styles partly lead to their opposite use of charisma. Mandela who was always concerned about people was proven to be a socialized charismatic leader, however, Hitler who tried to retain his own power promoted the same characteristics of a personalized charismatic leader.

2.3. Ethical leadership

2.3.1. Nelson Mandela: Justice Model

To Mandela, throughout his whole life, he raises the awareness of followers by appealing to the moral value of justice.

From an early age, he was inspired to study law with the hope of defending black South Africans against the government's increasingly unfair treatment (South Africa, 2001). His decision of being a lawyer was undeniably driven by his strong belief in fairness.

When studying at University of Fort Hare, he led a student protest to propagate an activism gaining equality among South Africans. His commitment to his principle "justice" was so strong that he was even willing to be expelled from the university (South Africa, 2001)

In the court for trial in 1964, he had no hesitation in saying from the dock: "Above all, we want equal political rights, because without them our disabilities will be permanent" (cited from "I am prepared to die" - Nelson Mandela's statement). And even when the ANC party gained the authority, and white community only contributed a small population in South Africa, he never promulgated any regulation dispossessing their equal rights. It is indeed true when Kollapen (2007) stated "The name Mandela is synonymous with human rights and racial equality".

2.3.2. Adolf Hitler: Consequentialism Model

With the desire to change Germany into the strongest nation, Adolf Hitler mercilessly murdered millions of people, typically Jews and even Germans. In this case, Hitler's ethical decision making is categorized as the Consequentialism model, since he evaluated ethics based on the consequences of his actions when eliminating the Jews, which was to purify the German race and then help the Germans rule the world. In fact, Hitler considered the Jews as an alien people which might bring obstacles to the German in the way to become the leading nation (Mueller, 1991). Moreover, Hitler did not only kill Jews, he also murdered anyone who he thought inferior. According to Goldhagen (1996), about 1 million Germans who did not have blonde hair and blue eyes, which symbolized for a pureblooded and perfect German, would be cut off to avoid polluting the German race. To Hitler, this action was ethical because he believed it could benefit the majority - the German in long term. However, this action was clearly cruel and immoral. According to Malaspina Great Book (2008), approximate 6

million Jews and more mercilessly, 1.5 million Jews Children were also killed by German Axis. With its terrible consequences to the human beings, Hitler's action was still considered an unethical one regardless of the benefits it might bring to Germany in Hitler's perception.

2.3.3. Conclusion

In term of ethical leadership, Mandela and Hitler used different models to make their decisions. With his belief in "justice", Mandela led blacks in South Africa to fight against the unfair treatment of The Apartheid government. Even when becoming the President of South Africa, Mandela's decisions still aimed to solve human issues like racial segregation, which made people consider him an ethical leader. In contrast, despite the fact that Hitler based on the consequentialism - an ethical model to make decision, he was still an unethical leader due to dreadful consequences he caused in the massacre of Jews and others in Germany.

2.4. Leadership Power

2.4.1. Nelson Mandela

INFLUENCE OTHERS

Specialized skills and knowledge give Mandela expert power to influence others. He graduated with Law degree and had huge political experiences when being the leader of A.N.C., which helped him even when being imprisoned. In Robben Island, he found various ways to communicate with other prisoners, such as writing messages on toilet paper, hiding messages in the bottom of food buckets, etc, to call them upon for a hunger strike to get better living condition. Consequently, he succeeded in persuading and gathering all prisoners and they finally won (Max, 2003).

Also, Mandela inspired and influenced others by utilizing referent power, which was closely linked to his traits. His trustworthiness was one of the key things that made people believe and follow him. Mandela believes a great leader must not be the best speaker, the important thing is to create trust

among people by showing them what you have done match with what you have talked (Boyce, 1998). Moreover, he instilled hope and passion to people using his warmth, self-confidence and enthusiasm, which were revealed from his tireless struggle for South Africans' happiness and freedom. Although he experienced lots of harsh situations throughout his leadership life, he still maintained calm and inspire others to move beyond fear (1st leadership lesson of Nelson Mandela).

With his own lofty personality of a charismatic leader, skills and knowledge accumulated, Mandela has gained world-wide reputation, which brought him prestige power to have impacts on not only South Africa but also on all over the world. Even after retirement, he still used his status to raise money for charity; he founded Nelson Mandela Children's Fund, HIV foundation 46664, etc, which attracted a large numbers of global funds to join in.

2.4.2. Legitimate Power

Adolf Hitler

INFLUENCE OTHERS

Hitler was the chancellor of German since 1933 and then became the most powerful political leader in the country (History Today, 2008). Hence, Hitler clearly was in the highest position in German, which provided him an authority called "legitimate power". With that power, Hitler could decide nearly everything without anyone's advice, without getting anyone's agreement and without reporting to anyone (Drabkin, 2002). In other words, Hitler had the right to make a decision and expect obedience from people below him.

Hitler also used his coercive power based on fear to punish people who were not compliant with him. Soon after being the Germany chancellor, Hitler gave a decision to build a concentration camp in at Da Chau (southern Germany), which became a prison to detain people who opposed Hitler and rejected his plans (Haugen, 2006). Besides, due to the worry about losing

their position, Hitler's subordinate commanders must comply with Hitler's plans, otherwise they would be replaced (Braunbeck, 1997). So, by using his coercive power, Hitler was able to make people so scared that they tended to obey his decisions without any question.

The expert power is another important one that helped Hitler to influence others. It was the power coming from his political skill which was admired by his generals (Megargee, 2003). In addition, Hitler also gained the expert power thanks to his special ability in persuading people through public speaking. According to Drabkin (2002), Hitler was a strong orator who could produce such a magnetic influence on his audiences. The fact is that his speeches instilled the rapturous passion into everybody surrounding him (Machtan, 2001). All those things made people easily believe in what Hitler said and were willing to follow him.

2.4.3. Conclusion

To conclude, Hitler and Mandela were different in types of the power they utilized. Actually, Mandela used personal power derived from his own characteristics, which was referent power to encourage people to fight for their freedom, and prestige power to make charity fund. On the other hand, sources of power that Hitler used stemmed mainly from his position, which were coercive power to threaten and punish those who opposed him, and legitimate power to make people find no other way but to obey him. Besides, both two leaders used expert power to influence followers. However, Mandela used that power to lead black people against the Apartheid while Hitler, with his expert power, attracted the German and made them follow him in the conquest of other nations by war.

PART B

1. No single leadership style can guarantee the best outcomesIt can be seen that throughout their life, Mandela and Hitler both stick with their own leadership style. The democratic leadership style of Mandela in fact helped him to unify millions of hearts to oppose Apartheid and racial segregation; and Hitler by using autocratic leadership style, could make

millions of soldiers be willing to die in the battle field to help him rule the world. Nevertheless, no leadership style is proven to be the best in all circumstances, despite how success the leader achieves. As mentioned above, Mandela did encounter difficulties when carrying out his intentions because he could not get the consensus among followers. Although sometimes he knew the members in Parliament were not absolutely right, he still conferred the final authority to them (Kelvin, 2008). Also, the failure of Hitler, for example, in the battle with So Viet was attributed to his wrong use of autocratic leadership style, as he ignored sensible advices from other Generals.

So should the leaders flexibly change their leadership style to fit with each situation? Indeed, it is easy to say but hard to do. Mandela and Hitler, both of them are among the greatest leaders, however, they could not change their leadership style. Hence, this fact demonstrates that "no single leadership style can guarantee the best outcomes".

2. Leader's ethics and its impact on followers and organizationThe analysis above illustrates a direct link between the leader's ethics and his leadership actions. According to Dubrin et al. (2006), the leader's decisions and actions can affect a large number of people. This concept is clearly proven in the cases of Nelson Mandela and Adolf Hitler. As Mandela has a strong commitment to his ethical principle of "justice", he has indefatigably struggled for the equality and human rights of blacks in South Africa; and that contributed to shape a firm belief in "fairness" among South Africans. Also, Hitler who maintained "consequentialism" in all of his actions instilled to people the thought of country recovery by battles and bloodshed. Hence, it can be concluded that the leader's ethics contributes greatly to form the values of ethics perceived by followers and organization. In today workplace, ethics is still an abstract notion among employees. It seems that they do not visibly see the link between their leader's ethics and the common goal of an organization. Therefore, the leader must play a crucial role in creating an ethical working environment and organizational culture.

3. Effective leaders know how to use their power wiselyGini (1998, cited in Leadership in Organisation, p148) stated that "the

primary issue is not whether leaders will use power, but whether they will use it wisely and well". In fact, both Mandela and Hitler succeeded in using proper sources of power to multiply their influence on others.

Moreover, a link between leadership style and empowering leader is visibly demonstrated. Mandela, who strongly promotes a democratic leadership style, is a typical example of empowering his followers. He did say: "It is better to lead from behind and to put others in front, especially when you celebrate victory when nice things occur. You take the front line when there is danger. Then people will appreciate your leadership" (Brainyquotes, 2009). It is clear that a leader should not only hold power and knowledge for him, if he shares it to followers, he will get more respect and admiration. Hitler, in contrast, although what made him become more powerful were using position and coercive power, no one can deny his success in creating a charismatic influence on people.

Overall, a leader if makes the most use of his power at right time can achieve the organizational goals more effectively based on the respect and support of followers.