Download - Winston Churchill

I N T E R V I E WChurchill’s Lessons of LeadershipSIR MARTIN GILBERT “ONE ON ONE” WITH PETER MANSBRIDGEPeter Mansbridge is a British-bornCanadian journalist, for twentyyears the chief correspondent andanchor of The National, CBC Television’spremier nightly newscast. This November2006 interview is published bykind permission of the Canadian BroadcastingCompany, Peter Mansbridge andSir Martin Gilbert. Finest Hour thanksMike Campbell in Halifax, Nova Scotia,for arranging permission with the CBC.Mr. Mansbridge began by saying thatalthough he would like to talk about allof Sir Martin’s thirty books on Sir WinstonChurchill, the show was unfortunatelyonly a half hour long. He thenasked Sir Martin what defines leadershipand great leaders.SIR MARTIN GILBERT: I think agreat leader has to have a sense of moralpurpose, he has to know exactly wherehe stands on the crucial issues of theday, and, if he is going to be a leader ofa western democracy, he must have areal sense that democracy matters, thatit has to be defended; a real convictionin his beliefs, and, of course, an abilityto transmit his convictions. There aremany people who have intense andgood convictions but, for one reason oranother, do not have the means totransmit them, to get them across—toyou and me.PETER MANSBRIDGE: So, it’s thatcombination of knowing where youwant to go, being convinced that it’sright, and having the ability, not onlyto attract others to follow you, but tohelp you get there?MG: Absolutely. You have to reflectpublic opinion, but you also have to beable to lead it—perhaps in directions itis a little reluctant to go. It is a complicatedbalancing act.PM: How do you judge a leader, anddo you have to wait and look back onwhat they did?MG: Churchill’s caseis interesting, in thathe judged himself afailure because duringthe Thirties, duringthe great appeasementdebate, when he was inopposition and so fewwere listening to him,he felt he had failed toproduce acceptance forhis views that war couldbe averted by armaments,by alliances, by faith inone’s own ideological, democratic positions.Being called in, as it were, to pickup the mess—to make good the neglectof his advocacy—he did not see as agreat achievement: he saw it as a failurethat he had been unable to convincethe Baldwin and Chamberlain governmentsto take measures that he—Churchill—believed could prevent war.Of course, for us, his coming to powerwas a great achievement. One has alwaysto think, what would have happenedif he had not had the full confidenceof his convictions? What wouldhave happened, when the Blitz was atits height, if he had said to himself, “Idon’t think I can go ahead with this”?He came near to that—very near to losing,not his nerve, but to feeling thatthe power of the enemy was too strongto overcome.PM: Is leadership different in wartime?MG: I think so. I think it is muchharder also to get to the bottom of whatwartime leadership is. So much of wartimeleadership—even, indeed especiallyChurchill’s —is working with alarge group of people, drawing on theirexpertise, allowing fighting men andwomen get on with the job, encouragingeffort and achievement, and notnecessarily being a micro-manager.Churchill was not primarily amicromanager, despite his incrediblefascination for and grasp of detail. HisFINEST HOUR 135 / 60leadership was that of an inspiring presence,rather then a finger in the pie. Intimes of peace, perhaps, a leader has tobe more pro-active.PM: Has television changed leadership?MG: Probably. People often ask me,“Would Churchill have been any goodon television?” We do not know. In hisprime he would probably have beenmagical on television, as he was onpublic platforms.PM: He became Prime Minister in hismid-Sixties. Was that his prime?MG: I think some of his greatest dayswere in the five or six years before theFirst World War, when he spearheadedthe great social revolution in Britain,creating the social system in Britainunder which we still live. Then therewas the greatness of his struggle againstappeasement—such an up-hill and dedicatedstruggle. But yes, certainly hisprime was in those first months of theSecond World War. In May 1940,when everything seemed hopeless, healso feared that Britain might be defeated.He confided to Anthony Edensix months later, “I awoke every morningwith dread in my heart.” Yet he wasable to go out and about into thebombed areas and show defiance, andpeople said, “He does not think we’rebeaten.” Even the “V for Victory” sign