Investigative Interrogative Profiling
Name and Surname
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). 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 realise 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. What was the key to their success were groups of followers, that had been “mentally reshaped” to follow their leader, and extend theirs leader point of view. Indeed, this is what Hitler expressed in his books saying that: “The art of leadership . . . consists in consolidating the attention of the people” (Hitler, 2010). In addition, one can note (Stephen Reicher, 2005) that there are two chief points of being a successful leader. First of all, the leader has to be a creative visionary at the same time, making their followers eager to the imaginary world the leader has created. As a result, the idea unifies groups of followers to grow in power and create humans support for the leader. And this is yet another answer why both Mussolini and Hitler remained leaders for such a long time. 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...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document