Assessment of Winston and Franklin
Winston Churchill and Franklin Delano Roosevelt were two important leaders, especially during the occurrence of World War 2. They managed to see the significance in joining forces to have their own nations’ needs met as their friendship blossomed. Winston Churchill was effective when it came to his leadership and statesmanship of Britain. He had strategic foresight as an attribute, especially in consideration of the Munich Agreement following its aftermath and lack of success in preservation of Europe’s peace (Kumar, 2014). This peace could not be assured in the presence of the looming threat of Nazi Germany. Winston Churchill’s friendship with Franklin D. Roosevelt would grow further owing to the alliance that they fostered for the sake of ridding Britain and the United States of the Nazi control. The man also had vision clarity especially in the Western Alliance’s (Britain and the United States) defeat of Germany and Japan. Franklin Roosevelt is considered a strategic leader since he took the United States through a great portion of the World War II and the Great Depression in the 1930s (Goodwin, 2018). He was a visionary leader through his impressionable discussion of political issues and the level of optimism with which he led the United States. The Americans were calmer when Franklin Roosevelt was handling national issues, so much so that the fear of facing certain situations was eliminated and replaced by boldness in handling difficult matters.
Comparison and contrast of the strategic leadership skills
These two leaders were similar and different in various ways. They were both good communicators. FDR was “one of the best orators of the 20th century”, especially with the use of the advanced technology of the time, the radio, through his “fireside chats” (Leuchtenburg, 1995). He was well known for his presentation skills, both as an orator and through his imposing stature. To further this truth, the previous administration only boasted of a single mailroom staff, but after FDR taking office as president, the same mailroom now boasted of 70 people as staff within the first week in office. Churchill was a good communicator, owing to his ability to bring the Britons together through his conversations, visibility, and the amount of value he left with those whom he interacted with (Axelrod, 2009). He left a mark through every interaction he had with them. He managed to build himself up into an effective orator, especially in the presence of his allied forces. His effectiveness as an orator did not come seamlessly like it did for FDR. His best option was practicing it to the point of achieving effectiveness. Not only were Churchill and Roosevelt good communicators, they were also good problem solvers. When Churchill was faced with difficulty during World War II, he engaged FDR, with whom they brainstormed on effective ways of dealing with their impending rivals in the field (Reynolds, 2006; & Roosevelt & Churchill, 2012). The fact that they were already friends helped better the interactive situation. They managed to champion efforts towards the end of the war as well as to keep the enemies away from the American coast while managing to end the global war, especially against Britain.
With regard to negotiation skills, Churchill put them into good effect when he convinced FDR to provide help to Britain even through the provision of tools of war to aid Britain bring the war to an end, and true to this, FDR helped out the Britons. Churchill was gifted with his convincing ability. This case especially worked since both countries were going to benefit from the additional American efforts to bring the war to an end. FDR was a good negotiator too, since he convinced the American people about their disengagement from the war and their neutrality in the World War II, thus distancing America from the war, but promising to lend a much needed hand to Britain. They both succeeded as great negotiators. Both leaders were effective in building consensus, especially when looking at FDR and Churchill agreeing to help each other out to the point of keeping America safe and Britain out of the war (La Feber, 1975; Reynolds, 2006; & Roosevelt & Churchill, 2012). They agreed on these terms, which then became their source of motivation in the engagement of the war. It is also important to throw in their relationship building capabilities seeing that they cultivated their personal and professional relationship. This relationship helped fuel their ability to build a consensus to a point of both leaders benefitting from the arrangement.
On differences, Churchill was actively involved with the military during his tenure as Prime Minister while FDR distanced himself from his commander in chief position to the point of leaving the heavy-lifting to his military leaders. As much as FDR has been part of the military before jumping into politics, he got to a point where he thought best to delegate the military issues to the military heads, so much so that he distanced himself from his position as commander in chief. Another difference is that FDR, during the blossoming of his relationship with Churchill, was functioning at a time when he was focused on his political future as president while Churchill was focused on efforts to calm and rid Britain of the war (Roosevelt, 2017). FDR was also focused on the national political issues while Churchill was focused on global, war issues. The leaders had different agendas, thus having different goals to achieve.
Churchill’s strengths, weaknesses, successes, and failures
Churchill was a man of various strengths. He was an effective leader and statesman, a popular and influential man, he was convincing as he did Roosevelt, inspirational, he was a good orator, and he was able to make difficult decisions. However, he had various weaknesses. He had a weakness in gambling through which he lost a lot of money, he failed in a World War I attack when his attempt to land troops went sideways, and his leadership in Norway’s invasion bore no fruits (Best, 2001). These were also his failures. His successes were he succeeded as statesman prime minister; he brought the first minimum wage system to Britain, and naval reform implementation (Haugen, 2006). He also succeeded in getting Britain out of the war and uniting Britons, he won the literature Nobel Peace Prize, and he was active in the passing of the people’s budget.
Franklin’s successes, weaknesses, successes, and failures
FDR was a compassionate man, a pragmatic leader, he had a good combination of political skills, he was self-confident, he was able to overcome adversity, and was a keen leader (Parrish, 1991; & Leuchtenburg, 1995). He was, however, considered insincere, vain, and a liar but compensated these with good leadership skills. The successes of FDR include credit and banking system stabilization, employment through public works was made possible, union membership and labor rights were improved, and farmers were able to finance their loans. Others were America’s infrastructure improved due to public works, rural electrification benefitted from improvement, and success during the great Depression and World War II (Winkler, 2009). The failures include farmers experienced worse situations due to ineffective federal policies, and as much as depression was dealt with people did not experience economic recovery which declined leading to increase in unemployment. On top of this, farmers went on with their suffering due to little impact by the Resettlement Administration, and African American farmers suffered even more as a result of Roosevelt wanting to please southern businessmen and politicians, with farmers’ production levels reducing.
Axelrod, A. (2009). Winston Churchill, CEO: 25 Lessons for bold business leaders. Sterling Publishing Company, Inc..Best, G. (2001). Churchill: A study in greatness. A&C Black.
Goodwin, D. K. (2018). Leadership: Lessons from the Presidents Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson for Turbulent Times. Penguin UK.Haugen, B. (2006). Winston Churchill: British soldier, writer, statesman. Capstone.Kumar, S. (2014). Establishing linkages between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership. Industrial Psychiatry Journal, 23(1), 1.La Feber, W. (1975). Roosevelt, Churchill, and Indochina: 1942-45. The American Historical Review, 80(5), 1277-1295.
Leuchtenburg, W. E. (1995). The FDR years: On Roosevelt and his legacy. Columbia University Press.Parrish, M. E. (1991). The Juggler: Franklin Roosevelt as Wartime Statesman.
Reynolds, D. (2006). From World War to Cold War: Churchill, Roosevelt, and the international history of the 1940s. Oxford University Press on Demand.
Roosevelt, C. (2017). Upstairs at the Roosevelts’: Growing Up with Franklin and Eleanor. U of Nebraska Press.Roosevelt, F. D., & Churchill, W. S. (2012). Atlantic Charter. The Wiley‐Blackwell Encyclopedia of Globalization.Winkler, A. (2009). The New Deal-Accomplishments and Failures. Washington: US Senate Committee on Banking.