When Neville Chamberlain assumed premiership of the United Kingdom in 1937, there were conflicts in certain parts of the world, foreshadowing a crippling worldwide war. Of utmost concern to the United Kingdom was the expansionist designs displayed by Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini.
How Chamberlain acted during those difficult times provides captivating proof of the obvious: leadership mettle is effectively and decisively tested only in the crucible of adversity.
But for hard times, inadequacies in a leader may go unnoticed. But for the difficult international situation of the late 1930s, Chamberlain’s lack of powerful leadership qualities might have gone unnoticed.
In 1938, Austria fell into the hands of Nazi Germany. Hitler hungered for more, staking a claim to a piece of Czechoslovakia, which marked its northern and western borders, and where German was spoken in the streets and market places.
Chamberlain adopted a policy of appeasement towards Nazi Germany and had a big hand in the Munich Agreement (1938) — signed by Germany, Italy, United Kingdom and France — which allowed Nazi Germany to annex this portion of Czechoslovakia.
This land was of strategic importance to Czechoslovakia, and losing it would make the country vulnerable to incursive forces. Chamberlain expected the Munich Agreement to satiate Hitler’s hunger for expansionism and usher in peace. As history showed, it did not.
In 1939, the German forces occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia. Immediately after signing the Agreement, Chamberlain received criticism from certain quarters — the most strident critic of all being Winston Churchill — and this criticism continues to this day. However, there are voices that take a considerate view of Chamberlain’s performance as Prime Minister.
A small number of historians side with Chamberlain, explaining that his decision was dictated by circumstances, which included the fact that British forces had become weaker. Given his situation, he could not have done anything else — so goes their argument.
Contingency modelThis argument evokes elements of what is called The Fielder Contingency Model.
Prof. Sunney Tharappan, director of Mangalore-based College for Leadership and Human Resource Development, says, “In his book, New Approaches To Leadership , Fred Fielder propounded his contingency model, based on situational theory. All human successes are contingent on circumstances. Situations engineer a leader’s response. The Fielder Contingency Model does account for a considerable part of a leader’s performance, yet it’s also true that a good leader engineers situations to his advantage.” An employee or a potential candidate displays sterling leadership qualities when he rises above unfavourable circumstances and effects a positive outcome.
Other lessons shining through a study of Chamberlain and his foreign policy are the importance of foresight and the ability to see through people.
Skills for the negotiation tableA great leader foresees trouble and warns others of it. He is not only adept at reading the times he lives in, but also the people he engages with.
He has an knack for spotting motives, expediency and deception, which is essential at the negotiation table. Chamberlain did not seem to understand the mind of Hilter, which was focussed on achieving unparalleled dominion.
Prof. Tharappan says, “In his analysis of leadership skills in the book Leadership In Organisations , Gary Yukl lists technical, conceptual and human relations skills. A leader has to possess more of human relations or people’s skills.”
Chamberlain would have probably fared better if he had known appeasement never stops a bully who is out to dominate others.
