4.4: Was Hitler an effective Leader?

Last updated
Save as PDF

Page ID: 80162

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \) \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)\(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)\(\newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

The answer is yes. As was Jim Jones and Charlie Manson, Hitler was an effective leader, but each for all the wrong reasons. Albeit each operated under morally bankrupt leadership style these were all effective leaders. Perhaps each possessed traits and qualities that great leaders have in common, they seized power for immoral purpose, and they did so using coveted leadership styles (Ciulla, 1995). Each of the mass murders identified, used their influence to dominate their membership. Hitler of course gained power then crushed all opposition which converted his status to tyrant (Ciulla, 1995). Hitler not only coveted malignant views but sought methods for furthering his beliefs, first he believed that the end justified the means; second he had contempt for peace; and third his influence was in the form of propaganda embracing total distortion of reality (Gardner, 1990). Hitler distorted an entire ethnic population (Jewish) misleading the German population providing them someone to blame for their own misgivings.

Power is ethically neutral, it can be used for good or bad purposes and therefore leadership must be addressed from a moral framework (Gardner, 1990). Why is it then that so many people obey when they feel coerced? A social psychologist from Yale University, Stanley Milgram studied this very topic in 1963. He advertised for ordinary men to participate in a learning/memory experiment based on paired words (Milgram, 1974).

The participants (teachers-recruited persons) were led to believe they were assisting in an experiment that measured retention of material recently taught to a student (actor-confidant of the experimenter). What Milgram was measuring was the level of obedience to an authoritarian figure, regardless of personal convictions or personal conscience. The teacher (recruited participant) was advised to induce an electric shock to the student (affiliate) for each wrong answer from 15-450 volts. In reality the shocks were fake and in fact had they not been, they would have been fatal in the upper range (Blass, 1999).

Milgram concluded that everyday people will follow orders given by an authoritarian figure. Obedience is ingrained in humans from birth through socialization of members in society. This response to legitimate authority is generally learned from person’s family, school, and workplace. Most will obey others if the authority is recognized as legitimate and morally correct and based in some legal foundation (Milgram, 1974).