Doll Hitler, regardless of his wrong doings and the obvious evil that he empowered, was one of the great leaders of our time and changed the way that our society looked at war. The fact that Hitler came from a front-line soldier with no real future in a leadership role to the chancellor of Germany and the commander of a great army shows his great will and ability to meet his goals and to manipulate people to achieve a vision.
The reason that I chose Hitler as the subject for this paper was because of the great impact that he had on our world ever the last century and also to take a look at just how he could convince not only his nation but other allies to carry out his ill-will towards Russia and the Jews. Whether or not he is viewed as crazy is irrelevant here, his leadership and manipulative skills allowed him to achieve at least some of his sub-goals and very nearly his overall goal of expanding Germany into Russia and exterminating the Jews.
When looking at a leadership style or a model to compare Hitler to, there is one word that really stands out in most leadership models that all relate to Hitler: receive. This paper will look at two different models which believe will show what kind of leader Hitler was and also why I think that he was as successful as he possibly could have been. These two models are Blake and Mouton’s Leadership Grid and the contingency model. On Blake and Mouton’s Leadership Grid, Hitler should be taken as a “9,1 ” type leader, the place on the model known as “authority-compliance”.
This type of leader is said to place heavy emphasis on task and job requirements and only care about people because they are “tools” necessary in getting the job done. The leader is often seen as controlling, demanding, hard-driving, and overpowering (Morehouse, 2004: pig 69). The contingency theory looks at not only the leader but the subordinates and then predicts whether or not the leader should be effective in his position given the situation.
In Hitter’s case, leader-member relations are good, there is a high task structure and high position power. For reference in the analysis section of the paper, leaders who are low on the least-preferred coworker (LAP) scale are those who first worry about finishing the task and then worry about their relationships tit people. They gain self-esteem through accomplishing their goals and will only take time to attend to personal matters if the goal or mission has been realized (Morehouse, 2004: pig 1 19). Hitler should be considered a low LAP.
Analysis of Behavior When looking at Hitter’s behavior with the goal of analyzing his leadership style and leadership success, it is important to keep in mind that the focus of the paper is to look at how well and in what manner he led. To say that he was a poor leader based on his actions or his extremely unethical goals would be a disservice to the analysis. This section of the paper will be broken down into two sections that will separate the style approach and the contingency theory approach to analyze Hitter’s leadership style.
Style Approach (Blake and Mouton’s Leadership Grid) As was stated previously, Doll Hitter’s leadership style when considering the style approach is “authority-compliance”. Essentially, Hitler wanted supreme power among his peers and the rest of the world and once his country submitted to him and granted him this supreme power, Hitler took full advantage of his positional power and at that point it was too late for anyone to oppose him. An article that talked about Hitter’s leadership style said “Hitler was, first and foremost, determined to command personally.
According to his so-called Leader Principle (Fјhornpipe), ultimate authority rested with him and extended downward. At each level, the superior was to give the orders, the subordinates to follow them to the letter. In practice the command relationships were more subtle and complex, especially at the lower levels, but Hitler did have the final say on any subject in which he took a direct interest, including the details of military operations, that is, the actual direction of armies in the fields (Manager, 2003).
Not only did Hitler give these orders, but if they were not followed exactly as they were given, the subordinates were severely punished. There is a clear emphasis on the task at hand, with little regard for the soldiers involved. These orders did not only extend to his army. Hitler (or subordinates acting through Hitler) had the same mentality no matter who he was talking to. The entire country was to do as they were told or they would suffer the consequences. Hitler also did not like or trust his soldiers or his generals. Fitting the leadership grid, the only time that he ever really spoke to these people was to eve them orders to follow.
One other thing to look at in the style approach was Hitter’s ability to manipulate people into thinking that he was their friend (or at least not a threat) in order to achieve his goals. Hitter’s primary goal was to expand Germany and to take over a part of Eastern Russia. In light of this goal, Hitler made sub-goals that involved eliminating certain armies that would hinder in his goals. Knowing that Germany had just been defeated in WWW, Hitler used that as an excuse to build up his army and through manipulative discussion and empty promises of peace,
Hitler soon had a naval fleet outside of Britain and troops monopolizing to prepare for battle. Hitler was shown some opposition to rebuilding the army by such countries as France, but when opposition came from any country, he flattered the leaders and told stories about how much the war had scarred his country and how he wanted peace (“The History Place”, 2001). Although Hitler seems to have had great communication skills, again, the only reason that he drove himself to talk to these people was because they were almost taking orders from Hitler to let him do as he pleased.
This was done only to attain another step in accomplishing his goals and his lies showed total disregard for the countries that he spoke with because he ended up attacking them. All that Hitler cared about was his tasks. To say that Hitler was seen as controlling and overpowering is an understatement and this is an extreme case where I would say that this leader is an actual “one” where communicating with people interpersonally is concerned. To me, this shows the sociopath that was Doll Hitler because he really did not care about anyone but himself.
This look at the style approach only really shows Hitler as a leader who simply used his positional power to push everyone around, possibly giving the impression that he wasn’t much of a leader as much as he was a bully. When you only look at the style approach, which most people subconsciously do when they think about Hitler, you do not see how he led his way into this positional power. The contingency model will look more at how he turned his poor situation into one of great power through smart and opportunistic leadership.
Contingency Model The contingency model will help look at Hitter’s situation (that he had to create for himself), the goals that he made, and his power over people (mostly through fear of punishment). After looking at these items, Hitter’s approach will predict whether or not he chose the correct style of leadership. The first step in the contingency model is one that looks at the relationship between the leader and the subordinates.
According to the text, a good leader- member relationship is one where the members have confidence in the leader, are loyal to the leader, and the attraction that they have for the leader (Morehouse, 2004: pig 1 10). Hitler came into politics at a time where the people of Germany were devastated from WWW and the country was lost, with no sign of nationalism and no hope. Hitler, once again with his manipulative speeches that were geared toward his goals, gave people hope and through telling people who to hate and why to hate them, created a following of a massive army and gave the hopeless Germans something to believe in.
The soldiers felt as if they were a part of something and Hitler used this to gain their absolute loyalty and gained their confidence. For the people he was leading, although he did not care about them personally, Hitler was respected and admired by his followers. The next item to look at in the contingency theory is the task structure. As was rebelliously stated, Hitler had his hand in anything that was of interest to him in military operations. He was so precise in how he wanted things done that if they were not done exactly as ordered, his own people were punished, sometimes severely.
In reference to task, the text says that “A task is considered structured when (a) the requirements of the task are clearly stated and known by the individuals required to perform them, (b) the path to accomplish the path has few alternatives, (c) the completion of the task can be clearly demonstrated, (d) only a limited number of correct solutions to the task exist (Morehouse, 2004: pig 110). Although there may have been a couple of different solutions to the tasks that Hitler ordered, it was very clearly stated that the “only correct way” to accomplish the task was to complete the task in the manner that Hitler wanted it to be completed.
As was said, each order was extremely precise and organized, leaving the subordinate little room for error or chance to sway from the goal path. This exemplifies that high structure of each task that was delegated by Hitler. Lastly, the contingency model looks at the position power that the leader holds. Hitler started his military career as a front-line soldier in WWW and through his retreat persuasive abilities worked his way to being the chancellor of Germany. Once there, Hitler started to fire people and take over positions in order to increase his position power over everybody.
People were terrified to fail him let alone oppose him, so his positional power over his subordinates was quite extreme. Hitler gave himself the power to do whatever he wanted to do to people whenever he wanted to do it. After looking at the previous three items, the information is in place to determine the best style of leadership given the conditions surrounding the leader and his subordinates. Hitter’s situation comes out as a “1” on the preferred leadership style scale, showing good leader-member relations, high task structure, and strong positional power.
Keeping in mind that Hitler should be viewed as a low LAP, the contingency model says that people who are in Hitter’s situation would be most successful as a low or middle LAP. Based on this model, Hitler should theoretically be successful in his directive approach. Hitter’s Effectiveness The definition of leadership, as presented for our purposes by the text says that leadership is “a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals o achieve a common goal” (Morehouse, 2004: pig 3).
My interpretation of this definition is that if a person influences a group of people so that they collectively attempt to achieve a goal, they have accomplished leadership. Whether or not the goal is accomplished would not be the focus of this definition, but the fact that the leader had projected his vision and convinced people that this vision was worth working towards. Based on this definition and my interpretation of the definition, would say that Doll Hitler was miraculously successful.
When you think about the types of orders that were being given and taken out, to tell money to murder millions of innocent people, your leadership skills have to be very strong. Hitler had a goal, a vision, and then drew his country, as well as others, to fight toward that goal. By putting himself into a position of great power and fear, Hitler understood the situation that he was in and acted accordingly. If you think about this situation in a business sense, think about a boss who has made an example of firing a few people who would not perform as ordered to, and how the next person is going to feel when ordered to do something.
Hitler struck fear into his army but at the same time maintained loyalty and motivation for the soldiers to arrive at Hitter’s vision. For the boss of the business, if production was his only concern, it is very unlikely that employees would work harder for any reason other than to not be fired. The boss’ goal or vision would not likely be a priority to the employee as it was to the Germans. In the case of the boss, however, I am not saying that the boss would not be successful as a leader, am only trying to show Hitter’s success in leadership because of his consciousness to the situation and his ability to exploit it most efficiently.
Appropriateness of Leadership Style Implemented In my opinion, Doll Hitter’s style of leadership during the late sass’s and early to mid sass’s was the most efficient way to get the things done that he wanted to have done. During a time of war, there is little time to sit there and support people or take time to help someone out with something, you could get shot or lose important position while this is happening. I think that the most important part of Hitter’s drive to win WI was the fact that he very clearly, from the beginning told his prospective followers of his vision and how he planned on aging this vision become a reality.
This vision gave the subordinates motivation in a very dark time in Germany and by using the expectancy theory, he gave his troops the drive needed to attempt to carry out their goal. Of course Hitter’s actions were absolutely evil, but he did use the situation to his advantage and to try to accomplish his goals, as terrible as some of them were. I think that driving his troops through nationalism was a great situational approach because the country was once so proud and at that time had nothing to be proud about.
One thing that I would say about Hitter’s leadership was that his lack of caring or his people was quite unnecessary near the end of the war and that although it wasn’t really a priority for him, he should have surrendered and killed himself to save some of the people who had worked so hard for a lost cause. When figuring that the goal could not be reached, it might have been a more humane idea to take a higher stance on the concern for people on Blake and Mouton’s Leadership Grid.
Of course, this does not deter my belief that Hitler was an effective leader to that point, I just think that a great leader should have the ability to adapt to situations and to mould his leadership style accordingly, and his did not happen in Hitter’s case. This was probably due to the fact that Hitler was as psychotic as he was smart, but this fault should be looked at nonetheless. Overall, Hitter’s situational analysis and leadership style based on the analysis and the situations that he created for himself make Hitler a great leader and a great man in the respect that he turned nothing into something huge.
It is unfortunate that he used his abilities for evil rather than good, but his accomplishments as a leader must be regarded as great. This style of leadership would not be likely to succeed in a growing, innovative corporation today, but in he setting that Germany and Doll Hitler found themselves in during the sass’s, the style proved to be very successful when referring to the definition of leadership that we have been concerned with this term.