Investigative Interrogative Profiling
In this report the profile of Hitler and Mussolini were presented and compared. Charismatic, Transformational, Narcissistic and Visionary styles of leadership were briefly introduced. As a result, an analysis of Hitler’s or Mussolini’s traits assigning them to any of these styles has been possible. The comparison of their activity as leaders has been carried out. In the conclusion of this report, the final verdict over their suitability as leaders has been included. Introduction Hitler and Mussolini were raised in the same times.
Hitler was born on the 20th April 1889, while older Mussolini was born on the 29 July 1883. As history has taught us, it was Mussolini who influenced Hitler dictatorship-based policy. Therefore it is apparent that Mussolini must have reached power first, and it happened in 1922 when he became the Prime Minister of Italy. Eleven years later, in 1933, Hitler was nominated as the Chancellor of Germany. There are many similarities in these two infamous individuals, yet there are some differences. It might be the fact that Mussolini was not a good war leader.In fact, he won most of the crucial war encounter with his enemies with help of German army (Carpi, 1994).
Investigative Interrogative Profiling Essay Example
Hitler wanted to become architect but lacked academic experience; he expressed interest in arts. On the other hand, Mussolini was not really the type of a top-student and it happened that he had been expelled from schools he attended. However, they share much in common. They both wanted to be perceived as chosen individuals, as leaders who are artists (Stephen Reicher, 2005). Also, both of them promoted their power in a way of totalitarian leadership.By totalitarianism, we understand the unlimited authority and power. And clearly, Hitler reached that level when he destroyed any political apparatus that could be able to bring him down as the country leader (Heifetz, 1998).
Similarly, after Mussolini called himself “His Excellency Benito Mussolini, Head of Government, Duce of Fascism, and Founder of the Empire”. The problem one might be interested to solve is to give an answer for the question, how both individuals managed to, first, gained the power, and then clung on it for so long. We need to ealise that Hitler and Mussolini were able to single out key social identities. Then, by redefining these entities, they were able to shape the perception and vision of masses (Turner, 2005). Therefore, they were not famous politicians that turned up at the political stage with radical and innovative ideas. However, at the same time, the masses are to be used for the leader purposes not vice versa (Stephen Reicher, 2005). And that capitalisation of human beings is on the contrary with the fundamental concepts of leadership, such as: using leadership as responsibility not the rank (Peter F.
Drucker, 1997), fairness, ethical decision-making and humility (Cohen, 2007). Thus in this report we try to prove that both individuals were ineffective as leaders. What type of leaders have they been? I argue, that it is difficult to assign one particular type of leadership to either Mussolini or Hitler.However, I try to locate characteristics that could assign them to any of the leadership style. Charismatic leadership Firstly, as far as charismatic leadership is considered, there are two approaches. One of them conceives charismatic leadership as separate leadership style (C. Marlene Fiol, 1999).
On the other hand, one might claim that it is part of the transformational leadership (Susan T. Fiske, 2010). I will consider it separate. Charismatic leadership was invented by Maximillian Weber in 1947.The idea behind its style defined a charismatic person as someone with supernatural power or at least exceptional powers and qualities. Some well-known examples might be religion character such as Jesus or Prophet Muhammad, the character that caught attention of millions of supporters up to now. Was Mussolini or Hitler charismatic? Indeed, they were.
Mussolini at the age of 28, became the editor of “Avanti! ” magazine, a newspaper published by the Socialist party in Italy. While he was working there, the magazine’s print run rose from 20,000 to 100,000 copies.Therefore, we might claim that Mussolini’s thought really caught on. On the other hand, Hitler joined German Worker’s Party (DAP) in 1919 as the member number 555 (this number was reduced to 55 as though Hitler had been perceived as one of the founders). Owing to Hitler influence, this number grew to 3,000 after one-year long Hitler’s activity. Both, Mussolini and Hitler were self-confident, emotionally expressive and definitely enthusiastic. Therefore, we could claim there were charismatic leaders.
Transformational leadershipTransformational leadership is sometimes referred to as transactional (Bass, 1997). This type of leadership causes followers to exceed the expected outcome. Sometimes, the followers might develop well enough to become leaders themselves. That is why it is called transformational. On the positive side, we could appraise Mahatma Gandhi or Nelson Mandela, for their invaluable contribution to peace in the world. On the other hand, Hitler practice led to mass genocide of Jewish nation, and this is the factor that might be perceived as exceeding the expected performance.The cruel activity that took place in Auschwitz might be thought of as the outcome that for Hitler was positive.
He did not have to worry about massive destruction of Jews, because his followers exceeded their hate toward Jewish nation. Moreover, transformational leaders always remain calm regardless of circumstances. That characteristic possessed Mussolini, and it was viable when he was attempted to be murdered, but by his clever speech, he talked his assassins out of the idea (Bass, 1997). The so-called cold-blood was the advantage in Hitler and Mussolini.Similarly, to change of the Jewish nation perception, Mussolini was the one that created fascism. At the beginning, he advocated the ideology of socialism. However, when he supported the First World War, and was ousted from the party he was one of the main leaders, he embarked on new ideology – fascism.
Because of his influential character, this philosophy brought down socialism and Italy became fascist country. Visionary Leadership As it has been previously mentioned, the visionary approach towards potential followers is a key merits that leader should express (Stephen Reicher, 2005).The facts that have been mentioned before, account for the answer why we should relate Mussolini and Hitler with visionary leadership. Hitler introduced Europe-wise hate towards Jews, while Mussolini invented fascism. However, the behaviour of the followers, bridges those two facts. People had not hated Jews; neither had they wanted to be fascists. However, the image of better environment and future (even though, it was often built upon lies) seemed to be so exciting, that the followers did not realise when they had ended up in horrible circumstances.
Were they infamously successful at the ideology they proclaim?Definitely, yes they were. There is a quote that summarises the effectiveness of visionary leadership (Ihlenfeldt, 2011): “Feed them a fish and they eat for a day; teach them how to fish and they eat for a lifetime” This sentence provides a valuable measure of successful leadership ideology. The disgraceful ideology is still viable currently, as we are informed daily about anti-Semitic or fascist behaviour. Narcissistic leadership Term narcissistic derives from the name of Greek God Narcissus, a young man who fell in love with his perfect own reflection in the mirror.One of the narcissistic leadership’s traits is self-promotion and self-nomination (Seth A. Rosenthal, 2006), which clearly dominated Hitler and Mussolini. However, in general for this type of leadership, the inseparable are: manipulation, deception and intimidation (Glad, 2002).
And by telling lies, Hitler gathered enough followers and renown to become the head of Germany (Abel, 1986). In addition, it is not well-known but, the translation of word Fuhrer to English is leader (Jagdeep S. Chhokar, 2007). As far as Mussolini is considered, his renowned title makes up for justification that he might be considered as the narcissistic leadership.Evaluation of Mussolini and Hitler as Leaders We have developed a summary of key characteristics that define why we could assign each leader to each category. The problem is, that there is no common-opinion about how to classify Hitler and Mussolini, but in many cases they should be perceived as charismatic individuals (Gina Scott Ligon, 2008). If we agree with the idea that they were charismatic leaders – then they both violated the idea of this leadership style.
It is because according to Weber, masses need agency that shape national thought.Dictators however, used their nations as a way to convey their ideology what is on the contrary with the leadership model (Stephen Reicher, 2005). That is why dictators cannot be perceived as leaders (Bass, 2006). Moreover, it is not clear how to define the successful leader. If we look at the current trends against some nations that have an underlying base in Hitler or Mussolini theories, the even if terrible in consequences, they have prevailed and are the legacy of ideological fathers. In addition, if the influence is the factor that decides of success or failure of a leader – then again, they were good leaders (Heifetz, 1998).Another factor that denies both Mussolini and Hitler as leaders is the fact that after they have reached their position, their initial followers took against them.
As it was mentioned, there was the attempt to murder Mussolini. As far as Hitler is considered, the high-rank officers from Wehrmacht tried to assassin Hitler. Thus, the nation as whole was afraid of him and obeyed his actions. Yet military soldiers realised his tyranny and attempted to prevent it (Lapin, 2009). Also, the concept of transformational leadership cannot be mistaken with what led either Mussolini or Hitler.Their unethical approaches deny them in this respect (Ciulla, 2004). Following (Ciulla, 2004) we agree with the quote: “the manager does things right and the leader does right things”.
Therefore, they both were managers rather than leaders. Also, if we look at post-war Germany and Italy, we notice that the transformations they introduced where annihilating. Therefore, the good change as the positive outcome was missing there again. Conclusion Given the initial aspirations Mussolini and Hitler could be perceived as leaders. They were both successful, at least partly at the initial stage, and recently with the infamous anti-racial movements.However, their tyranny, dictatorship and fascism prevent us from naming them as leaders. They reached the power that they did not want to use in ethic way.
Rather, they capitalised on people fear and obidence. That is why, I have decided to draw a conclusion that both of them were never even close to become good leaders. Even, if we take into consideration their country after the wars, we observer tragic image of fallen nations.