Leadership- Winston Churchill

Another theory is the style approach which emphasises on the behaviour of the leader, it focuses on what leaders do and how they act (Northouse 2007, p. 69). This approach is composed of two kinds of behaviours, task and relationship. Task behaviours are linked to facilitating the goal and relationship is ensuring subordinates feel comfortable with themselves in a particular situation. In the late 1940’s Ohio State University investigated the style approach, by looking at quadrants of leadership behaviours (appendix 1). The behaviour is narrowed down to consideration and construction. Churchill has moved around the quadrants throughout his life, he demonstrated high consideration and low construction in his early years before becoming Prime Minster, he was task orientated e.g. when writing books, he even spent his honey moon writing journals “he insisted on working on the final text ‘My African Journey’ when they were in Blenheim”. During World War II Churchill demonstrated the characteristics of high consideration and high construction, e.g. he built relationships with the French government which Chamberlain had not been able to achieve. He understood the importance of communicating effectively and this was clearly demonstrated in his radio broadcasting. During the darkest days of World War II, he kept the public informed which in return increased morale and gained him backing from the public. This model is simple and has a basis of leadership and can be linked to McGregor’s Motivational X (relationship) and Y (task) theory. However it is an old model and in 1977 was further developed by the Heresy & Blanchard leadership model, which is commonly referred to as task and relationship (appendix 2). I feel that Churchill would still remain within the same quadrants identified in the 1940 and 1977 models, during the same stages of his life.

The situational approach stresses that leadership has elements of both directive and support dimensions. The model I looked at was the path goal theory developed by House in 1971. Churchill was partly an achievement orientated leader (appendix 7) and partly a directive leader. The characteristics of achievement orientated leadership are setting challenging goals for followers, and expecting them to perform to high standards, displaying confidence that followers will perform well, best used when the task is complex and when followers lack sufficient drive. Churchill displays the characteristics within this model in all areas and an example is that he set goals uniting Britain, saving democracy and winning the war which to many seemed impossible. Then I followed this up and looked at the four areas that affect a leader, these being subordinates, outcomes, work environments and the leader (appendix 8). An example of the effect of outcomes on Churchill’s leadership was that he managed to secure the support of America in 1941 and Best (2010) stated “without whose material help – and better, military alliance – Britain, he well understood, had no chance of winning”.

I feel that Churchill was a directive leader when comparing him to the directive leadership model (House 1971) as he possessed all of the required characteristics, in particular his ability to speak effectively, which can be shown through a quote from Ignatius J Reilly “It may not be an exaggeration to say that in 1940, Winston Churchill saved the world, and instrumental in doing that were the incredible power of his speeches”, this clearly supports the notion of Churchill being an effective speaker. The effect of the subordinates is important, it was a tough time for the country, they needed direction, Churchill recognised this and connected with the public e.g. by broadcasts.

Transformational leadership (appendix 3) is an approach that James Burns (1978) identified and defined as “leaders have the ability to inspire and motivate followers to achieve results greater than originally planned and for internal reward”. The approach linked leadership and followership together and focused on influencing followers and the whole of the organisation. According to Bass and Avolio (1990) and Bass (1998) stated there are four areas of transformational leadership these being, idealised influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualised consideration, all of these qualities a leader must posses. Churchill demonstrated all these qualities throughout his leadership, an example such as “Churchill’s rhetorical powers set him apart from all other politicians. Often imitated, never bettered, his delivery and phraseology sparked the adjective ‘Churchillian’”.  The fact that Churchill has had a powerful impact on the public has led to him being idealized and being set apart from other politicians. Building on this further charismatic leadership was drawn to my attention, which Daft (2002) stated is the “ability to inspire and motivate people to do more than they would normally do, despite obstacles”. Churchill I believe was a charismatic leader, he created a vision to ensure the future was better for the country and to gain trust and respect from the followers. Churchill fits in all the four stages of the Conger and Rabindra, 1988 model (appendix 4), which suggests charismatic leaders may be more adept to tailoring the level of their language to different audiences than other leaders, what I could see from this concept was that Churchill communicated the vision, it was clear that after one of his famous speeches in June 1940 the morale of the British people turned around, “80% were now in favour of defending themselves against Nazi Germany, Churchill stated "We shall not flag or fail”.Churchill was an energising enabling and envisioning man who showed self confidence, and therefore gained confidence in the people. There was a victory strategy and a key vision from the start.

Interactive leadership (appendix 5) has been researched in depth and Daft (2008) stated “research indicates that women’s style of leadership is typically different from most men’s and particularly suited to today’s organisations, scoring higher on abilities such as motivating others, fostering communication and listening”. Churchill’s leadership styles seems to support this perspective, Dafts statement strengthens the argument that women are most likely to be considered interactive leaders as Churchill failed to meet most of the main characteristics required, although he did  inherit some aspects such as energising others by providing speeches which effectively engage others. Churchill could have further embraced this leadership style by encouraging participation e.g. Churchill was very individualistic but took on the opinion of others in isolated incidents such as those of the service chiefs.

Level 5 leadership (appendix 6) is a fairly new form of leadership that Jim Collins in 2001 identified and stated that this approach “is an individual who blends extreme personal humility with intense professional will”. Churchill throughout his life displayed this leadership, he showed the characteristics within the model. Whilst he was Prime Minster he showed personal humility by channelling his ambition to over come Nazi Germany and demonstrated to the whole country that he would do whatever was necessary to win the war.

Overall I would state that leadership styles vary according to various situations. I feel effective leadership is a process where leaders uses their leadership skills to influence followers and in return achieves the set goal/s. After looking at all the models and applying these to Winston Churchill’s leadership style it is clear that the reason why he was so effective was because he demonstrated traits such as communicating, self confidence, confidence to others etc. These traits contributed to his effectiveness. I believe that Churchill did all that he could to express himself. Warren Bennis (1998) summed this up as “leaders know what they want, why they want it, how to communicate what they want to others in order to gain cooperation and support”. This is what Churchill did during a period of crisis. What would have happened if Churchill had not shared social identity with his followers, would he have been a leader that no-one spoke about today? If you delegate leadership then this clearly means you are progressively relinquishing the role of leader. Churchill clearly demonstrated that leadership is the one job which a leader cannot delegate.

 References: