Henry V and Richard III about the Usefulness of Leadership Styles Shakespeare’s Medieval Kings about Modern Research on Leadership:

(1)

Shakespeare’s Medieval Kings about

Modern Research on Leadership:

Henry V and Richard III about the Usefulness of Leadership Styles

An interdisciplinary approach

MSc Business Administration Management Accounting and Control

By:

Vincent Boudewijn Visser

Student number: 2920034

Supervisor: Dr. C. P. A. Heijes

Date: 22 June 2020

Total effective word count: 12103

(2)

2

Abstract

Leadership is a diverse and topical subject for which leadership styles are being used as research tools. However, the use of these tools has several problems of which a main one arguably is that leadership styles are too general and rigid to be used for a topic so personal and complex. This has led to calls for a more multidisciplinary approach on leadership. In this paper I build on this by using the humanities, and in particular William Shakespeare, to explore the use of leadership styles and their effectiveness. First, I will go into two leadership styles, being transformational and autocratic leadership. These two styles are argued to be two of the most used styles in leadership research and extreme opposites of each other. Next, I will use a content analysis to analyse Henry V and Richard III to find out to what extent both leadership styles apply to each of them. The results show that Henry V is clearly transformational whilst also showing much of autocratic leadership. Richard III, however, almost perfectly represents autocratic leadership while embodying transformational leadership much less. Both results imply that leadership styles are more fluid than expected and that leadership styles are indeed too general and rigid to be used for a topic so personal and complex. Furthermore, the findings show that the codes of today are applicable to cases from over 500 years ago, which shows the timelessness of leadership and leadership research. Finally, the results show that both leaders at least partially embody both styles instead of only the style that they were expected to embody. Therefore, a combination of both styles can be very successful knowing that both leaders succeeded in the central goal of their play. This implies that neither style is by definition good or bad.

(3)

3

Chapter 1: Introduction

Leadership research is very diverse and has focused on various conceptual debates. Examples of such topics are how to define leadership, how it relates to management, its effectiveness, its origin, where it occurs in the hierarchy and how, the role of genders in leadership, and even whether it exists in organisational life at all (Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2003; Collinson, 2006; Hunt & Dodge, 2001; Kanji & Moura, 2001; Svenningsson & Larsson, 2006; Van Maurik, 2001; Yukl, 2002; Zaleznik, 2004). The most important topics, however, are the difference between leadership and management, the perception of influence and power, its necessity or redundancy, and its locus in the organisation (Gronn, 2003). In the same paper, Gronn states that leaders themselves are individuals with strategic organisational positions and that leaders are expected to be visionary, charismatic, and transformational champions. Gronn argues that leaders add value to the organisation rather than defending the status quo like managers. Likewise, Bennis and Nanus (1985) call managers ‘people who do the things right’, compared to leaders who ‘do the right things’. Much other research also concludes that leadership is indeed important. Amongst other conclusions, leadership predicts employee commitment and motivation which ultimately leads to organisational effectiveness (Rupert, Jehn, Van Engen and De Reuver, 2010). Furthermore, leadership has a substantial influence on the work environment, employee behaviour and an organisation’s level of innovation (Pieterse, Van Knippenberg, Schippers and Stam, 2010). In general, Pearce (2007) concluded that the popularity of the topic is astounding when looking at the number of books and articles written about it. Pearce also noticed the vast amount of media attention that leaders received, from corporate leaders to religious leaders, political leaders, or civic leaders. To the present day this still holds, if it has not increased.

To continue, Bennis and Nanus (1997) state that leadership is considered “the most studied and least understood concept of any in the social sciences.” Stogdill already concluded in 1974 that “there are almost as many definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the concept.” Peter Drucker (2004) points out the essence of leadership with his classic definition by stating that a leader is “someone who has followers”. However, Drucker (2004) does not explain the purpose of leadership, making it hard to understand where leadership is needed for. Tannenbaum and Massarik (1957) do include a purpose with their definition by saying that leadership is the “interpersonal influence, exercised in a situation and directed, through the communication process, toward the attainment of a specified goal or goals”. They also stress interpersonal relationships just like Drucker, but add that the purpose of leadership is goal attainment. Combining these two definitions would conclude that a leader is someone who has followers and who directs these followers to behave towards attaining goals. It then follows that a leadership style is any configuration of a leader’s attributes that incites this desired behaviour.

(6)

6

Leadership styles

Leaders develop different means to exercise their positions based on the people they work with, the knowledge they work with, and the working environments amongst other things (Paletta, Alivernini & Manganelli, 2017). To gain a grip on the wide variety of leaders, scholars have developed generalised leadership styles that provide relevant information about a category of leaders. These categories range from charismatic leadership (Howell & Shamir, 2005) to authentic leadership (Wang, Luthans, Wang & Wu, 2013), ethical leadership (Eisenbeiss, 2012) and servant leadership (Tang, Kwan, Zhang & Zhu, 2015). Additional styles have been developed over the years to account for different leaders in different contexts (Hannah, Sumanth & Cavarretta, 2014). This trend has been going for the last 30 to 40 years as the focus shifted to a more interpersonal point of view. This view emphasized how leaders can lead individuals and groups rather than organisations, as originally emphasised by traditional leadership (Hannah et al., 2014). Anderson and Sun (2017) currently find an overwhelming amount of styles because of this trend, ranging from empowering to responsible, directive, self-sacrificial, Pygmalion, paternalistic, heroic, despotic, egotistical, altruistic, relational, functional, etc. Anderson and Sun (2017) explain that the reason for this increase in styles, is that researchers are trying to capture missing parts in the spectrum and therefore add styles to explain uncovered ground. To narrow this multitude of leadership styles down, Hannah et al. (2014) found that the most recognised styles are charismatic leadership, authentic leadership, ethical leadership, character-based leadership, servant leadership, and participative leadership. Bryman (1992) and others came to similar findings before and called these most recognised theories the “newer” theories. Some of these “newer” theories were established over 30 years ago but still remain relevant for the discipline of leadership research as scholars continued working with them and further developed them to the styles that are still used nowadays (Eisenbeiss, 2012; Howell and Shamir, 2005; Tang et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2013).

However, two styles are most frequently researched and demand the most attention in leadership literature, being transformational and transactional leadership (Avolio, Sosik, Jung & Berson, 2003 and Jung, Yammarino & Lee, 2009). They serve as the basis for much modern research on leadership. Both terms were introduced by Burns (1978) and are framed as mutually exclusive. Core to transformational leadership is to take other factors than the leader himself as the starting point and to progressively aim for change. The opposing transactional leadership style is not based on a “give and take” relationship and takes just the leader’s own personality, traits, and abilities as the starting point to pursue effectiveness (Burns, 1978). The transactional style does not aim for change but rather tries to support the ‘status quo’ (Bass et al. 1987). Conclusively, the transformational style uses democratic decision-making to establish change whereas the transactional style uses the contradicting autocratic decision-making to support the status quo (Bogler, 2001). Although these two styles clearly oppose each other, Dunham and Klafehn (1990) criticised the idea

(7)

7

that they are each other’s comparable opposites. Dunham and Klafehn propose that the purpose of the styles should be the same in order to be comparable. Transformational and transactional leadership have different purposes and are therefore less relevant as comparable opposites. The autocratic leadership style as explained by Muczyk and Reimann (1987) seems more appropriate to be a comparable opposite to transformational leadership. According to their paper, autocratic leadership combines the use of autocratic decision making with the goal of establishing change. Therefore, it has the same purpose as transformational leadership while using the opposite decision making style, causing autocratic leadership to be a more relevant counter-style for transformational leadership than transactional leadership. Interestingly, Singh, Nadim, and Ezzedeen (2012) have identified characteristics of transformational leadership like vision, inspiration, and development and claimed those to be ‘good’ leadership traits whereas autocracy was identified as ‘bad’. These findings again indicate that transformational and autocratic leadership are theoretical opposites. Therefore, transformational and autocratic leadership will guide this thesis instead of transformational and transactional leadership.

Problems with the current spectrum of leadership styles

The usage of leadership styles in current research is problematic for three reasons. Firstly, although the most recognised styles as presented by Hannah et al. (2014) and the “newer” styles by Bryman (1992) are selections, they are nonetheless only a fraction of the current spectrum of styles. The amount of styles currently present is so vast, that Anderson and Sun (2017) did some prior inquiry to narrow the number of leadership styles down. The problem of having too many styles is that the “exploding amounts” override the initial function of the styles, which is a structure for generalization purposes. The more styles that are taken into account, the harder it is to categorize leaders, which leadership styles were initially meant to do. Apparently, there is a trade-off between accuracy and structure. The second problem is that the styles have started to overlap due to their growing number. Anderson and Sun (2017) took nine well-developed leadership styles from the 2000s, including most of the “newer” styles of Bryman (1992), compared them to each other, and found many overlapping themes. In their call for future research, they ask for a reorientation of leadership styles. Overlapping styles are problematic because they make it harder to draw accurate conclusions and threaten their validity. The third and final problem is that, as explained above, all these styles are deliberately designed to recognize categories of leaders rather than the unique leadership traits of an individual. Hence, when using leadership styles in research, leaders are assigned to the characteristics of a theoretical style rather than to the leader’s factual performance which threatens accuracy (Sing, Nadim & Ezzedeen, 2012). The combination of these problems raises the question whether leadership styles are usable for research. However, instead of researching all three problems, this study only

(8)

8

focuses on the third in exploring how relevant leadership styles are for research. This paper will do so by comparing two leaders to each other which respectively represent transformational and autocratic leadership. Therefore, this paper will examine two leaders with seemingly opposed leadership styles to see to what extent they are different and to what extent they overlap. Transformational and autocratic leadership clearly set the two leaders apart, which allows this study to vividly outline any differences or overlap and therefore to what degree both leaders conform to their seemingly corresponding leadership styles. The two leaders chosen are taken from Shakespeare’s plays, which means that they are taken from the field of humanities.

The humanities as the guiding discipline

The study will take classical literature from Shakespeare, and therefore the discipline of the humanities, as the source. The reason for using the humanities rather than the discipline of social sciences, as normally used in business studies, is because classical literature provides an alternative terrain of knowledge from which scholars and professionals can learn (Statler & De Monthoux, 2015). Having this complementary, interdisciplinary perspective may contribute to new insights into leadership. Literary arts can vividly frame the personal dynamics of leadership, making artistic analysis a valuable complementary approach to the social sciences (Warner, 2007). Michaelson (2017) elaborates on this by explaining that "business is a human endeavour, and ethical business practice takes into account above all the welfare of human beings who are affected by it. Whereas the term 'humanities' demarcates those fields with a special interest in human values and culture, it is not meant to imply that other disciplines are unconcerned with those things." Coutu (2006) agrees with Michaelson and explains that business literature and formalised management tools only function well in the case you want to study financial valuation but lack the necessary personal orientation when studying leadership and organisational behaviour (Coutu, 2006). The humanities would benefit from in-depth instead of quantitative research because they focus on individuals rather than larger numbers of people. Furthermore, although the humanities may be labelled as fiction, they do "provide some of the most powerful and engaging case studies ever written." Since the humanities dive deeply into their characters, including monologues, they offer much value to develop highly in-depth analyses. Coutu continues by calling management literature "relentlessly upbeat" compared to the "unsparingly realist" classical literature. Both scholars and leaders can learn greatly from literary characters which can be as instructive as any business textbook. Instead of viewing leaders as study material like management literature does, the humanities help leaders to understand their own circumstances better and through that themselves and their inner lives (Coutu, 2006). The use of the humanities has thus proven to offer valuable, complementary insights to management literature and is highly relevant for leadership due to its

(9)

person-9

focused nature. It is argued by Townsend, Pisapia, and Razzaq (2015) that interdisciplinary research helps shed light on the complexity of society. Others research additionally concludes that intersecting knowledge from different fields leads to new knowledge and innovative approaches to problem-solving (Fischer, 2004; Huutoniemi, Klein, Bruun & Hukkinen, 2010).

Shakespeare as the main source

Shakespeare was chosen because he is the most renowned Western writer and because his writings have been used both to expand leadership knowledge (Etzold, 2012) as well as to recently teach leadership skills in schools (Lezaun & Muniesa, 2017). Shakespeare's plays are a "creative and safe mirror" according to Richard Olivier (2013) who is a pioneer in using theatrical plotlines in business education. Olivier (2013) claims that Shakespeare's plays can enable students to learn about various leadership traits through empathizing with the plot. Students can experience inspiration, influence, ethics, and transformational leadership by reading Shakespeare. Besides what can still be learned, classical literature has already influenced academic writing regarding leadership remarkably. For example, Shakespeare's characters are being used to help create and illustrate the leadership archetypes of today (Etzold, 2012). The parallels between Shakespeare's insights and modern leadership theories are astounding (Egan, 2000).

The two leaders chosen, as depicted in Shakespeare's works, are King Henry V of England (Appendix 1) and King Richard III of England (Appendix 2). Henry V and Richard III have been selected since they seem to reflect transformational and autocratic leadership styles respectively. Henry V is depicted as a successful king who looked after his people (Kingsford, 1911) and Richard III as unsuccessful, ugly, and evil (Shakespeare, n.d. b). Besides their theoretical relevance, they compare well since both men are central to a play of Shakespeare and both have been a king of England in medieval times. To elaborate on the two men, Henry of Monmouth (or Henry V) reigned between 1413 and 1422, which is a relatively short reign. His outstanding military successes made England one of the strongest military powers in Europe (Ross, 1999) causing Henry V to be known and celebrated as one of the greatest warrior kings of medieval England. The life of Henry V has largely been about military exploits which dominate the view on his reign: "We have become accustomed to seeing Henry V as, perhaps, the supreme English war leader of the Middle Ages, for whom war and waging war was an unparalleled way of life" (Vale, 2016). King Henry exemplifies effective and inspiring leadership according to the definition of contemporary theory (Warner, 2007). His eyes were said to depend on his mood: they "flashed from the mildness of a dove's to the brilliance of a lion's." Henry is remembered as a good king and leader (Andrews, 1976). Some say Shakespeare exemplifies this positive image of Henry V by writing about a semi-fictional heroic king (Norwich, 1999)

(10)

10

who is "the mirror of all Christian kings" and a moral pearl without a spot (Vale, 2016). Not all agree with this depiction as some state that, historically seen, Henry is a much darker figure (Norwich, 1999). The analysis in this paper agrees with neither and shows a more nuanced perspective of Henry V instead. Although transformational leadership is indeed generally seen as a positive leadership style (Burns, 1978) and Shakespeare's take on Henry V does steer that way, light is also shed on some contradicting characteristics of Henry V. This nuanced view is interesting since it helps to find whether Henry V's leadership style encompasses characteristics of both transformational as autocratic leadership.

Richard III was King of England and Lord of Ireland from 1483 until 1485 (Baldwin, 2013). However, many disagreed with Richard being the rightful king due to the conspiracy that Richard III murdered the princes that stood in line to the throne after he himself had been crowned king. Richard was able to ascend the throne instead of the princes in the first place because the marriage of the princes' parents had been proven to be invalid and because Richard as Lord Protector (head of state) was therefore first in line. The story goes that Richard had Edward V, originally first in line, and his brother locked up in the Tower of London to later murder them to clear his path to the throne entirely (Bramwell, 1989). Although sources about Richard's personality are contradicting (Byard, 2020; Pollard, 1991; Ross, 1981; Seward, 1984), the ruthless-power-grabber image remained dominant due to the dramatic seizure of the throne and hence Richard III is remembered for having a "fierce and savage nature" and as someone who "abandoned all principles of honour and humanity." (Kendall, 1956). Certainly, Shakespeare's play, "Richard the Third", casts Richard in a dark light with explicit death wishes to the former royal families of England: "Shall I be plain, I wish the bastards dead." This coincides with autocratic leadership which is generally seen as a negative leadership style (Muczyk & Reimann, 1987). However, Shakespeare's take on Richard III is again more nuanced than merely negative. Some of Richard's strengths are brought forward as well. Conclusively, Richard's leadership style contradicts that of Henry V while leaving room for overlap due to Shakespeare's nuanced approach. It is therefore interesting to review Shakespeare's perspective on Richard III.

Research question and structure

Leadership is a topical though complex field of research. Due to the rigidity of leadership styles, the usage of them in leadership research is arguably problematic. This has led to calls for more multidisciplinary research. This paper will build on that by using the humanities and in particular William Shakespeare. To expand on how relevant leadership styles are for research, this thesis will compare two leaders with two leadership styles. The two styles that have been selected are transformational and autocratic leadership since those are argued to be extreme opposites of each other, as well as being two of the most used styles for

(11)

11

leadership research. The selected leaders are Henry V and Richard III since they are argued to represent transformational and autocratic leadership respectively. This cross-comparison will extend our knowledge on leadership styles, will examine whether they can overlap in practice independent of theory and if so, by how much. The following research question has been developed:

To what extent do the leadership styles of Henry V and Richard III conform to the theories of transformational and autocratic leadership styles and what implications does this have for research on leadership?

In the following parts of this thesis, the study will be worked out as follows: in chapter 2, the current literature on transformational and autocratic leadership styles will be elaborated on, followed by the development of a framework. Chapter 3 formulates the methodology and chapter 4 will present the findings. The thesis will finish with a discussion in chapter 5 and limitations and future research in chapter 6.

Chapter 2: Literature review

This thesis builds on two leadership styles, being transformational leadership and autocratic leadership. Avolio, Walumbwa, and Weber (2009) explain that the relationship between the two styles is that transformational leadership goes beyond autocratic leadership. Transformational leadership falls within the domain of new-genre leadership which emphasizes transformational, inspirational, visionary, charismatic, growth-oriented, and integrative leadership whereas autocratic leaders lead more traditionally. Based on leadership literature, I will analyse what the most important codes are from these two styles in order to develop a framework to compare Henry V and Richard III to both styles.

Transformational leadership

Referring to transformational leadership, Burns (1978) described the relationship between the leader and the follower as one that can achieve “higher levels of morality and motivation” such as justice and equality. Transformational leaders understand their followers’ individual needs and promote the development of their intellect to satisfy those needs (Bass 1985; House 1977). Moreover, transformational leaders stimulate change by being visionaries. They express ideas about an idealistic future to create a collective vision (Barbuto 1997). Silins (1994) emphasised the need for change within transformational leadership by saying that this style “bonds leader and followers within a collaborative change process” which Silins argues to

(12)

12

contribute to the performance of the whole organisation. However, instead of attributing the change to vision, Silins (1994) attributes it to the followers that are directed to look at things from new perspectives. Hetland, Skogstad, Hetland, and Mikkelsen (2011) suggested that the orientation on change may signify to followers that learning is central to develop the necessary competence. This is in line with Bass (1985) who already concluded in earlier work that transformational leaders stimulate the desire to develop competence. According to Bass, leaders do so by treating followers as individuals that have their own needs and abilities. Additionally, they focus their followers’ attention on improving their own skills rather than comparing themselves with others. Hamtra, Van Yperen, Wisse, and Sassenberg (2013) confirmed this thought because their multi-level quantitative study found that transformational leadership indeed causes followers to emphasize goals related to skill and competence.

The more extended work of Bass in collaboration with Avolio (1994) gives a more global description of transformational leadership besides motivation, vision, and competence-orientation. They conclude that successful transformational leadership stresses the key issues of the group and organisation and develops a mentality that aims for achievement, growth, and development. Furthermore, it stimulates colleagues and followers to look beyond their current perspectives, generates awareness of the mission or vision of the team and organisation and increases the ability and potential within colleagues and followers. Lastly, it also motivates the actors within the group to abandon their self-interest to benefit the group as a whole (Bass & Avolio, 1994). Pieterse et al. (2010) add that transformational leaders are effective in engendering innovation because it increases psychological empowerment. This means they give followers the feeling that they can influence their work role and environment proactively. Transformational leaders thus change their followers’ insights, energy, and sensitivity to what is necessary to satisfy the needs of others. Next, they change organisational culture by understanding it and realigning it to the vision, values, and norms of the organisation. Leaders can be defined as transformational when their followers feel trust, admiration, loyalty, and respect for the leader as well as when followers are willing to work harder because of the leader’s qualities (Bass & Avolio, 1994).

Transformational leadership is a higher-order construct comprising several components. Avolio, Waldman, and Yammarino (1991) extended the work of Burns (1978) by operationalizing transformational leadership with four I’s: idealised influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualised consideration. The component idealised influence explains that leaders set the example and are seen as a role model. By providing guidance and a sense of belonging they can encourage individuals to commit to the organisation and to behave like the leader. As a role model, idealised influence also means that leaders should sacrifice their self-gain for collective gain. Inspirational motivation involves expressing an energizing vision and raising the morale of the team through motivational techniques and inspirational acts.

(13)

13

The result of inspirational motivation is that followers work harder to reach shared goals. Intellectual stimulation aims to spark initiative among followers to generate new ideas. Furthermore, it promotes respecting an open environment, questioning the status quo, and pushing to challenge the followers’ own beliefs and values to establish change. Lastly, individualised consideration is about providing support for each individual in order for them to developing themselves and their needs. Therefore, differences are meant to be respected while the leader should act as a mentor or coach.

Autocratic leadership

Although Muczyk and Reimann (1987) find that autocratic leadership differs across cultures, the overall definition remains the same. Autocratic leadership to them is self-centred and leaders that lead by this example make decisions more unilaterally besides supervising the work of subordinates more closely. Vroom and Yetton (1973) summarised autocratic leadership by stating that autocratic leaders obtain all necessary information for decision making from the subordinates but eventually decide themselves by using the information available to them at that time. The subordinates do not necessarily have the right to know what the decision to be made is and their role is clearly one of providing specific information at the request of the leader, rather than one of generating alternative ideas.

Van Vugt, Jepson, Hart, and De Cremer (2004) elaborate on this, though say that the controlled nature of autocratic leadership is able to resolve social conflict by forcing members to invest in their group. However, the downside is that this is only effective when members of the group have no other group to be in and no way to escape the current group. Maintaining group stability can be the primary objective of leadership in open groups, especially if there are attractive exit options available such as rival groups (Levine, Moreland, & Ryan, 1998). To maintain the viability of a group, a leader must ensure that its members are sufficiently committed to staying in the group (Van Vugt et al., 2004). The style of leadership is important for this. In cases where members have the option to switch or leave the group, autocratic leadership threatens the welfare and stability of the group instead (Ziller, 1965). Open, democratic leaders may be more likely to retain members than closed, autocratic leaders since members in autocratic groups want more input into group decision making than that they get in their autocratic collectives (Tyler & Smith, 1998). In our current society, members almost always have the possibility to reconsider their group and therefore Van Vugt et al. (2004) doubt the effectiveness of autocratic leadership. Instead, they argue it would expel valuable human resources from the group in the long-term. Moreover, Edmond (2013) states that when autocratic leaders in regional positions strive, the citizenry is worse off. Repression and censorship are common tools used by regional autocratic leaders. Van de Vliert (2006) concludes that autocratic leadership only works

(14)

14

when subordinates value being given orders, egalitarian commitment, and autonomy and when subordinates value earnings, recognition, and mastery-oriented advancements above good working relationships and desirable living conditions.

Autocratic leaders score high on six measures according to Harms, Wood, Landay, Lester, and Lester (2018). These measures are low agreeableness and high neuroticism (e.g. Kaiser & Hogan, 2011), high narcissism and psychopathy (Semenyna & Honey, 2015), high need for power (Delbecq, House, de Luque & Quigley, 2013) and high task-orientation (Einarsen, Aasland & Skogstad, 2007). Neuroticism is characterised by suspiciousness (Singh & Kaur, 2001), anxiety (Rosenfeld & Plax, 1975) and anger (Kant, Skogstad, Torsheim, & Einarsen, 2013) while narcissism is characterised by self-interest and unwillingness to subsume to the interests of others (Harms et al., 2018). Finally, psychopathy is characterised by a lack of empathy, shallow levels of affection, deceitfulness, manipulation, boldness, premeditated and antisocial behaviour, violence, and even cruelty (Viding, McCroy & Seara-Cardoso, 2014). Psychopaths are generally cold and callous. Vien and Beech (2006) add poor judgment, unreliability, and disinhibited behaviour among other things to the operationalization of psychopathy.

Theoretical framework

Based on the previous paragraphs, a framework can be developed for the data analysis with the kings on the horizontal axis and the leadership styles on the vertical axis in order to facilitate a cross-comparison. Since most indicators for the styles are not easily measured by themselves, the indicators are initially represented by operational and measurable codes as found in table 1. These codes are examined while reading the plays and function as the first level of analysis. In table 2, the codes are merged and shown as the indicators that they originally represent. Since the indicators are the official components of the styles, the indicators function as the second level of analysis. The final conclusions will be based on this second level of analysis. This means Henry V and Richard III are compared against both leadership styles, firstly based on the operational characteristics of the styles and secondly on the official components of the styles. The theory about both men and their leadership styles would predict that Henry V, as a good king, scores high on all the traits of the ‘good’, transformational leadership style whereas the failed Richard III matches all the traits of the ‘bad’, autocratic leadership style. It is then also predicted that both men do not conform to any traits of the contradicting style in a significant fashion. In order to examine the above, this paper will look at to what extent Henry V and Richard III are different and to what extent they overlap. The opposite styles will allow the study to outline whether the leadership styles overlap in practice, contrary to their distinct theories and, if so, to what degree.

(15)

15

Table 1: Code analysis

Style Codes Henry V Richard III Transformational 1. Role modelling (II)

2. Sacrificing self-gain (II) 3. Stimulating collective gain (II) 4. Energizing vision (IM)

5. Motivational behaviour (IM) 6. Stimulating initiative (IS) 7. Stimulating change (IS) 8. Individual support (IC)

Autocratic 1. Lack of agreeableness 2. Need for power 3. Task-orientation 4. Suspiciousness (NT) 5. Anxiety (NT) 6. Anger (NT)

7. Self-interest over others (NS) 8. Psychopathy

II = idealised influence; IM = inspirational motivation; IS = intellectual stimulation; IC = individualised consideration; NT = neuroticism; NS = narcissism. X = support for this code is limited; XX = support for this code is moderate; XXX = support for this code was indefinite; No X means no support was found for this code.

Table 2: Indicator analysis

Style Codes Henry V Richard III Transformational 1. Idealised influence

2. Inspirational motivation 3. Intellectual stimulation 4. Individualised consideration

Autocratic 1. Lack of agreeableness 2. Need for power 3. Task-orientation 4. Neuroticism 5. Narcissism 6. Psychopathy

X = support for this indicator is limited; XX = support for this indicator is moderate; XXX = support for this indicator was indefinite; No X means no support was found for this indicator.

(16)

16

Chapter 3: Methodology

This study is a qualitative, interdisciplinary case study. The study is qualitative, and case based as I look at leadership from an in-depth and personal perspective that revolves around individuals and their relationships to others (Michaelson, 2017). It is interdisciplinary because it builds on theory from the social sciences while obtaining the data from the humanities. I do so because the humanities offer a wealth of in-depth information regarding human endeavours (Michaelson, 2017). More specifically, this study is a narrative study, one of the types of social constructionism. Social constructionism is concerned with the processes of describing, explaining, and accounting for the world in which the individuals in question live (Gergen, 1985). The study is narrative because it studies the narratives of two individuals with a focus on analysing the people and the relationships in which they are involved through the perspective of the characters (Gergen, 1985). Mishler (1995) explains that analysing narratives can help us find the components to construct one's identity.

The sources for the introduction and literature review were mostly found through the database of the University of Groningen (SmartCat) and Google Scholar. Except for the information about the kings, all other information comes journals or leadership related books. The use of websites is reduced to a minimum. No physical sources were used. The sources for the data analysis are two plays by Shakespeare, each about one of the kings in question. The plays have eponymous names, being Henry V and Richard III (Shakespeare, n.d. a; Shakespeare, n.d. c). Henry V is written near 1599 and tells the story of Henry V with a focus on events immediately before and after the Battle of Agincourt of 1415. Richard III is written around 1593 and depicts the rise to power and reign of Richard III in the '70s and '80s of the fifteenth century. These two plays have been chosen because of their main characters as they seem to represent transformational and autocratic leadership. Shakespeare has been chosen because of his previous contributions to leadership in both education and research (Etzold, 2012). The two plays are used in different forms: both written as on film. The films were used to establish a first idea about the kings but were not used for the data collection. The films that were used were Henry V (1989) by Kenneth Branagh and Richard III (1995) by Richard Loncraine. The written plays that were used were Henry V and Richard III as found on the website of The Folger (for the original texts).

The analysis technique for this thesis will be a content analysis. A content analysis is used to make valid inferences from text (Weber, 1985). The inferences are directed to the message, the senders of the message, and the audience of the message. It can identify the intentions and other characteristics of the communicator, determine the psychological state of persons or groups, and reveal the focus of individual, group,

(17)

17

institutional, or societal attention. Conclusively, a content analysis identifies patterns in communication to find its purpose, messages, and effects. This study reviews two narratives, making a content analysis relevant. The type of content analysis used in this thesis is a written form focused on interpreting and understanding words, phrases, and sentences. The main advantage of a content analysis is the ease of execution. A content analysis does not require any physical participants nor the physical presence of the researcher. Moreover, a content analysis can be performed at any time and location and at low cost (Luo, 2019). Finally, a content analysis is systematic, which makes it transparent and replicable, causing high reliability. However, a content analysis is also reductive since it focuses on only small parts of the full texts. Furthermore, a content analysis is subjective through interpretation and time-intensive.

This specific content analyses will be based on the applicable codes. The codes are derived from the operational traits of both leadership styles. The codes for both plays are the same and can be found in the theoretical framework as shown in the previous chapter. The findings will be presented in 'Chapter 4: Findings' and will contain four sections. Section 1 will outline the findings regarding the transformational codes related to Henry V, followed by the autocratic codes for Henry V in section 2. Sections 3 and 4 will do the same for Richard III. Lastly, my position as a researcher is one without any connection to the topic or Shakespeare besides the general interest in leadership as a management student. I do not have any previous knowledge about Shakespeare apart from his fame. Also, I do not have any knowledge about Henry V and Richard III besides the findings of this study and I am also not connected to either of their histories.

Chapter 4: Findings

In this chapter, the dimensions of transformational and autocratic leadership that are found in the plays of Shakespeare will be elaborated on. This is done to outline to what extent codes of both styles can be found in the characters of Henry V and Richard III. Such an analysis will then allow for a comparison. The chapter has four individual sections of which the first two are about Henry V and the second two about Richard III. In the first sections about Henry V and Richard III, attention will be given to the eight transformational codes, whereas in the second sections for both kings the eight autocratic codes will be presented.

(18)

18

Henry V – Transformational leadership

In this first section, the eight transformational codes regarding Henry V will be briefly discussed and illustrated according to findings from the play Henry V (Shakespeare, n.d. a) starting with role modelling. From the play, it can be seen that role modelling is vivid in Henry's leadership. This becomes evident through the reflections of others on him and through his own deeds. An example given by the Chorus is that people are selling their land to buy horses to follow the king in battle. This shows that people argue that what Henry does is the right thing to do and therefore see him as a role model. Other research also calls Henry a model king or a role model (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2020a; Margaret, 2013a; Walker, 2009).

CHORUS

They sell the pasture now to buy the horse, Following the mirror of all Christian kings

With winged heels, as English Mercurys. (2.0: 5-7)

Aspects regarding sacrificing self-gain are also clearly visible in the play. It becomes clear that Henry is not after fame or power when he does not rightfully deserve it. In one instance, the king is speaking to the soldiers Bates, Court and Williams about himself. However, the king is masked and could, therefore, have tried to have the men believe anything he wished them to believe about him. Instead, he calls himself only a man like no other.

KING HENRY

… I think the king is but a

man as I am. The violet smells to him as it doth to me. The element shows to him as it doth to me. All his senses have but human conditions. (4.1: 105-108)

Stimulating collective gain, on the other hand, is also present in the play. In the cases where this comes

forth, either war-related or personal, Henry continuously considers the needs of the other party besides his own. This is best represented after the battle of Harfleur where he convinces the Governor to surrender by handing him the choice to accept defeat and mercy, or total ruin instead. Hence, Henry does not make a decision on his own feelings but also on the perspective of the Governor. Arguably, offering total ruin and defeat or only defeat is not much of a choice for the Governor. The options given by Henry are therefore invaluable. However, the point is that giving the choice nonetheless shows that Henry does not want to unnecessarily harm his own people, nor those of Harfleur. In the film by Kenneth Branagh we also see Henry uttering a sigh of relief after the Governor agrees to surrender. In that sense, Henry stimulates collective gain. Something similar happens when the Duke of Exeter is sent to threaten the French King.

(19)

19

The King is given the choice of total ruin or instant defeat, with an emphasis on the latter to have mercy for the innocent souls that otherwise would be harmed. Rabkin (1977 and Walker (2009) also conformed that Henry sacrifices his own gain to put that of others above him.

EXETER

That, if requiring fail, he will compel, And bids you, in the bowels of the Lord, Deliver up the crown and to take mercy On the poor souls for whom this hungry war Opens his vasty jaws… (2.4: 108-112)

The two codes of energizing vision and motivational behaviour are evident in Henry V the most. Vision, motivation, and inspiration are also mentioned frequently in other analyses (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2020a; Discorfano, 2003; Margaret, 2013a; RSC, 2020; Walker, 2009). These two go hand in hand in the occasions where Henry uses them, mostly when speaking to his soldiers. From time to time, Henry manages to convince his people to do what he desires, even in the cases where they are likely to face, death by giving inspirational speeches. This is a form of motivational behaviour. During his speeches, Henry often makes use of his energizing vision which makes these two codes highly related. There was a specific moment in the play, just before the battle of Agincourt, which illustrates this behaviour perfectly. In this occasion, the English are outnumbered five to one and the morale is low. However, Henry then gives his vision on the situation which changes the opinion of his men, voiced by Westmoreland. Instead of regretting the small size of their army, Henry asks them to imagine what can still become of the battle with the men who are present. It is not per se about winning but rather about honour. This can be assumed because those who wanted to leave, could return to England, but without honour.

WESTMORELAND O, that we now had here

But one ten thousand of those men in England That do not work today.

KING HENRY

What's he that wishes so?

My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin. If we are marked to die, we are enough

To do our country loss; and if to live, The fewer men, the greater share of honor. God's will, I pray thee wish not one man more.

(20)

20 By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,

Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost; It yearns me not if men my garments wear; Such outward things dwell not in my desires. But if it be a sin to covet honor,

I am the most offending soul alive. (4.3: 18-32) […]

That he which hath no stomach to this fight, Let him depart. His passport shall be made, And crowns for convoy put into his purse. We would not die in that man's company

That fears his fellowship to die with us. (4.3: 38-42) […]

WESTMORELAND

God's will, my liege, would you and I alone,

Without more help, could fight this royal battle! (4.3: 76-77)

Stimulating initiative is less obvious in Henry V. There are some occasions where characters are stimulated

to have initiative, though most of the time these acts are more about granting responsibility than initiative since the tasks that are given are often clear and require little real initiative. An example of this is when the Duke of Exeter is given the responsibility to defend Harfleur. Whereas defending a town requires much responsibility and decision making, it requires initiative much less. Only on one occasion, Henry explicitly asks for initiative, which is when the Dukes are given the free power to negotiate with the French king over the demands after defeat. This is a significant deal to hand over to others. The Dukes are given the authority to confirm, change and add any demands.

KING HENRY

Brother, we shall.–Go, uncle Exeter,

And brother Clarence, and you, brother Gloucester, Warwick and Huntingdon, go with the King And take with you free power to ratify, Augment, or alter, as your wishes best Shall see advantageable for our dignity, Anything in or out of our demands, And we'll consign thereto… (5.2: 85-92)

(21)

21

Stimulating change is resembled in only one situation. This is the situation where Henry calls for the release

of someone that railed against him in a drunk state. Several men disagree and ask for a more severe punishment, which shows that Henry's decision was uncommon and a statement that stimulated a change in attitude towards offenders. Finally, evidence for individual support is found twice. The first instance is when Henry does his round amongst his soldiers to show he is with them. This "little touch of Harry in the night" depicts how Henry cares about his soldiers and is willing to support them. Although it is a small act for an ordinary man, it is quite unusual for a king to do. The second instance is when Henry behaves like a mentor for Michael Williams. Henry tells Williams the right thing to do, which is keeping his oath, and later rewards him for doing so with a glove of crowns. The authors from SparkNotes (2020) also noticed the individual support that Henry offers to others.

KING HENRY

What think you, Captain Fluellen, is it fit this soldier keep his oath?

FLUELLEN

He is a craven and a villain else, an 't

please your Majesty, in my conscience. (4.7: 138-141) KING HENRY

Then keep thy vow, sirrah, when thou meet'st the fellow.

WILLIAMS

So I will, my liege, as I live. (4.7: 151-153)

Henry V – Autocratic leadership

In this second section, the autocratic aspects regarding Henry V will be briefly discussed and illustrated according to findings from the play Henry V (Shakespeare, n.d. a). As there were no signs for a lack of

agreeableness, the first code that appears to be present is need for power. Although this aspect of autocratic

leadership is not often shown, it is very intense when it does. In Henry's first appearance in the play, he has to decide whether or not to claim the French throne. It is in this scene where his need for power is exemplified best. His perception that the throne of France belongs to him comes after a complex speech of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Without a second thought, additional sources, or self-examination, Henry is persuaded to attack France. Also, Rabkin (1977) notices this and it comes across as if not much was needed to spark action among Henry. Therefore, it looks like Henry all too happily accepted the quest for power.

(22)

22

The authors from SparkNotes (2020) also think that Henry’s claim to the French throne is weak. An argument can be made for Henry that he did so because he was pressured as a young, inexperienced king to make a statement. However, this would still imply a desire for power since it would still revolve around gaining authority and dominance.

The aspect of task-orientation comes forth very convincingly three times and is therefore present. The first time Henry acts task-oriented is when he states that all his thoughts and every man should be put to the task of invading France. In Act 2, he takes this dedication even further by saying he would die for the cause. The third time it shows is when he hangs his former friend Bardolph to show that absolutely no one is superior to the great cause of conquering France.

KING HENRY

For we have now no thought in us but France, Save those to God, that run before our business. Therefore let our proportions for these wars Be soon collected, and all things thought upon That may with reasonable swiftness add More feathers to our wings. For, God before, We’ll chide this Dauphin at his father’s door. Therefore let every man now task his thought,

That this fair action may on foot be brought. (1.2: 315-323) […]

KING HENRY

No king of England if not king of France. (2.2: 202)

We only find one small case for suspiciousness when Henry says that he is suspicious of everyone after he unmasked three traitors. It is not touched upon again anymore and therefore the findings of suspiciousness are not significant enough to associate Henry with it. Regarding anxiety, no signs were found at all. However, for anger the most evidence is found for any of Henry’s autocratic codes. Henry loses his temper quite frequently and in strikes of emotion lets his behaviour be led by anger. Also, Rabkin (1977) and Walker (2009) confirm the presence of much anger. Exemplary is how Henry threatened with unforgivable repayment after the Dauphin mocked him. Later in the play, this happens a second time as well which Rabkin (1977) calls vengeful.

(23)

23 KING HENRY

And tell the pleasant prince this mock of his Hath turned his balls to gun-stones, and his soul Shall stand sore chargèd for the wasteful vengeance That shall fly with them; for many a thousand widows

Shall this his mock out of their dear husbands,

Mock mothers from their sons, mock castles down; (1.2: 293-299)

Also, after revealing an old friend as a traitor, Henry refused to lent mercy to him even though he had mercy with another offender just before that. Henry condemned his former friend and two other traitors with the death sentence instead, which is inconsistent and driven by anger since Henry was furious when he made the decision. A third example is Henry's decision to kill all prisoners from the Battle of Agincourt after seeing how some other French soldiers broke the rules of war. Again, Henry loses his sense of mercy in an angry state of mind, as also admitted by the king himself. The prisoners were initially not meant to die.

KING HENRY

I was not angry since I came to France Until this instant. Take a trumpet, herald. Ride thou unto the horsemen on yond hill. If they will fight with us, bid them come down, Or void the field. They do offend our sight. If they’ll do neither, we will come to them And make them skirr away as swift as stones Enforcèd from the old Assyrian slings.

Besides, we’ll cut the throats of those we have, And not a man of them that we shall take

Shall taste our mercy. Go and tell them so. (4.7: 56-66)

The code of putting self-interest over others is possibly present during the entire course of the play since the king risks and sacrifices many lives to gain his French crown, where the play is about. The intentions to wage war against France contradict each other in light of this code. Since the reason for the war stems from a need for power in the form of gaining authority as a young king, it could be concluded that the war was in Henry's self-interest. On the other hand, Henry wages the war because he seems to believe that this fight is not about him in person, but about honouring his predecessors and the English throne, and therefore the country of England as well. Moreover, the people of England support Henry in this fight and even

(24)

24

follow him voluntarily onto the battlefield as told by the Chorus before Act 2. It is thus truly in the desire of the whole of England to conquer France. Therefore, the conclusion is that the war was in Henry's self-interest at first, though his love for England and the willingness of his people to fight alongside him strongly weaken this code later in the play. Additionally, Henry refuses the ransom that is offered by Mont Joy and prefers to die alongside his men if it would come that far. This stresses that he does not fight the war just for himself. Henry V therefore only shows a slight self-interest over others.

KING HENRY

… Herald, save thou thy labor.

Come thou no more for ransom, gentle herald. They shall have none, I swear, but these my joints, Which, if they have, as I will leave ’em them, Shall yield them little, tell the Constable.

The final code of psychopathy is strongly evident in three strong occasions. The first is at the start of the after the Bishop of Ely and the Duke of Exeter give the valiant ancestors of Henry as an argument to invade France. They find that the ancestors' lion-hearts should be persevered. The Archbishop of Canterbury then explicitly asks for blood, sword, and fire after which Henry gives in. Therefore, the arguments on which Henry takes off are violent, bold, and disinhibited which correspond with psychopathy.

EXETER

Your brother kings and monarchs of the Earth Do all expect that you should rouse yourself

As did the former lions of your blood. (1.2: 127-129)

BISHOP OF CANTERBURY

O, let their bodies follow, my dear liege,

With blood and sword and fire to win your right, (1.2: 136-137)

The second occasion is the murder on Sir John Falstaff. It is mentioned that Henry broke his old friend Falstaff's heart by cruelly turning against him. Falstaff became ill because of that and soon died. Indirectly, this scene depicts Henry murdering a friend. This murder strongly represents psychopathy since it shows a lack of empathy, antisocial behaviour, and cruelty. The third example is the murdering of the French prisoners for the deeds of others. This was also cited for the aspect of anger due to Henry's state of mind, though the action itself is psychopathic. Furthermore, Rabkin (1977) finds it violent and an ethical breach, conforming to psychopathy. Other authors also find Henry ruthless, heartless, or violent and destructive (Andreson, 2019; Rabkin, 1977; SparkNotes, 2020; Walker, 2009).

(25)

25

Richard III – Transformational leadership

In this third section, the transformational aspects regarding Richard III will be briefly discussed and illustrated according to findings from the play Richard III (Shakespeare, n.d. c). There seem to be a few cases where Richard looks transformational. However, his behaviour is pretentious in these cases because his intentions are wrongful nonetheless. Richard himself also admits that. This means there is a discrepancy between his behaviour and intentions. Richard is gifted with the power of persuasion and gets many other characters to like or believe him whilst they are also disgusted by him. Still, this implies that Richard is capable of having some transformational characteristics independent of his intentions. In one case Richard is even being admired for something he did well without harmful intentions. This is when he asks God to pardon Clarence for what he did. This is noticed by the bystanders from whom he receives a compliment for saying so. The respective code that belongs to this deed would be role modelling since Richard shows others how to behave in the respective situation. It is the first of a few transformational codes present.

RICHARD

Marry, as for Clarence, he is well repaid; He is franked up to fatting for his pains. God pardon them that are the cause thereof.

RIVERS

A virtuous and a Christian-like conclusion

To pray for them that have done scathe to us. (1.3: 332-336)

A second code for which proof was found was energizing vision. In Richard's speech to Ratcliff and Norfolk right before the battle where he dies in, he shows his talent to speak. Richard emphasizes the importance of honour by saying that the only way he wants to lose is through fighting. He then brings up some patriotism by calling his men 'gentlemen of England' and 'yeomen'. There are more examples in the play where Richard knows how to say the right words to leave other characters with hope.

RICHARD

If we be conquered, let men conquer us,

And not these bastard Bretons, whom our fathers Have in their own land beaten, bobbed, and thumped,

And in record left them the heirs of shame. Shall these enjoy our lands, lie with our wives,

(26)

26 Hark, I hear their drum. Fight, gentlemen of England.—Fight, bold yeomen.—

Continuing, motivational behaviour is present as well due to Richard's strong charisma. The fact that Lady Anne was persuaded by Richard to marry him depicts this well, because she first hated him and wished to see him dead. However, after some discussion about Richard, she accepts his ring. Their dialogue is long, which eventually causes Richard to hand over his sword to Lady Anne to offer her the possibility to murder him. Richard knows she will not be able to do so and it indeed creates some goodwill for Richard. The offer of the sword is a very specific motivational behaviour on its own since it motivates Anne to pity Richard and look at him in a much less unfavourable light. A citation is provided below, of which the first part is from before offering the sword and the second part from right after. An important note to make with this scene is that Richard does not motivate Anne to do something she wants, but to do something Richard wants her to do. Though a transformational trait is being used, the intention is autocratic. The writers from Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (2020b) also think Richard III behaves pretentious in this scene.

RICHARD Here. (‹She› spits at him.) Why dost thou spit at me?

ANNE

Would it were mortal poison for thy sake. RICHARD

Never came poison from so sweet a place. ANNE

Never hung poison on a fouler toad.

Out of my sight! Thou dost infect mine eyes. RICHARD

Thine eyes, sweet lady, have infected mine. ANNE

Would they were basilisks’ to strike thee dead. (1.2: 157-164) […]

RICHARD But shall I live in hope? ANNE All men I hope live so.

‹RICHARD› Vouchsafe to wear this ring. ‹ANNE To take is not to give.›

(27)

27

Lastly, individual support is present when Richard comforts Queen Elizabeth. Although she reckons that Richard killed her children, she is persuaded by Richard to become a happy mother again by having her daughter marry him. Richard plays this smart and though his intentions lie with himself and not with Queen Elizabeth, he does support her in this process nonetheless. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (2020b) identified support in this scene as well.

QUEEN ELIZABETH Yet thou didst kill my children. RICHARD

But in your daughter’s womb I bury them, Where, in that nest of spicery, they will breed Selves of themselves, to your recomforture. QUEEN ELIZABETH

Shall I go win my daughter to thy will? RICHARD

And be a happy mother by the deed.

QUEEN ELIZABETH I go. Write to me very shortly, And you shall understand from me her mind. (4.4: 445-450)

Richard III – Autocratic leadership

In this fourth section, the autocratic aspects regarding Richard III will be briefly discussed and illustrated according to findings from the play Richard III (Shakespeare, n.d. c). The evidence is vast for each code apart from suspiciousness. The first code to be discussed is lack of agreeableness. There are many instances where characters explicitly state their hatred towards Richard and therefore Richard lacks agreeableness. The best example is provided at the very beginning of the play where he even displays his discontent with himself. He does so in such extreme proportions that he decides that he is bound to be a villain. Other sources call Richard hated or a monster as well and therefore confirm the lack of agreeableness (Fleming, 2013; Margaret, 2013b; Sobczak, 1998).

RICHARD

And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover To entertain these fair well-spoken days, I am determinèd to prove a villain And hate the idle pleasures of these days.

(28)

28

Continuing with need for power and task orientation, several murders work as strong proof for both codes. Much other research also calls Richard power-hungry (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2020b; Margaret, 2013b) and the writers from Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (2020b) write about the “boundless ambition to gain and hold the crown” which corresponds to task orientation. The play confirms eleven murders by Richard of which nine take place during this play. These include the murders on Prince Edward of Wales (pre-story), King Henry VI (pre-story), George Duke of Clarence, Earl Rivers, Lord Grey, Sir Thomas Vaughan, William Lord Hastings, Lady Anne, Prince Edward V, Richard Duke of York and the Duke of Buckingham. The murders are confirmed in the play through the ghosts of these eleven characters that visit Richard in his dreams after which Richard wakes up and calls himself a murderer.

RICHARD

What do I fear? Myself? There’s none else by. Richard loves Richard, that is, I am I.

Is there a murderer here? No. Yes, I am. (5.3: 194-196)

The motives for the murders vary, though all are eventually made to ensure Richard III can ascend the throne. This supports the code that Richard is in need of power while also showing how task-oriented Richard is to reach the goal of becoming king. There is one instance where Richard even mentions this explicitly, which is when he explains how much blood is on his hands for his sake already and how he should continue to stop everything that may still block his way to the crown.

RICHARD

About it, for it stands me much upon

To stop all hopes whose growth may damage me.

˹ Catesby exits. ˺ ˹ Aside. ˺ I must be married to my brother’s daughter,

Or else my kingdom stands on brittle glass. Murder her brothers, and then marry her— Uncertain way of gain. But I am in

So far in blood that sin will pluck on sin.

Tear-falling pity dwells not in this eye. (4.2: 61-68)

When talking about suspiciousness, the play often mentions that characters are suspicious of Richard though not vice versa. Richard himself is not suspicious at all apart from one time when his right hand, the Duke of Buckingham, doubts whether killing the underaged princes is still within the right of keeping Richard king. Richard immediately grows suspicious of him because of this doubt, although Buckingham had served

(29)

29

him loyally for a long period already and had been a, if not the, key character to ensure the success of Richard’s ascend. However, this one occasion is not enough to make Richard a suspicious character.

RICHARD,˹ aside ˺

I will converse with iron-witted fools And unrespective boys. None are for me That look into me with considerate eyes.

High-reaching Buckingham grows circumspect.— (4.2: 30-34)

Anxiety is the second code for neuroticism and the fifth code for autocratic leadership in general. There is

both indirect as direct evidence for this code. The indirect evidence consists of several murders that seem to be executed to grant Richard more certainty about his future to become king. These murders are the murders on William Lord Hastings, Earl Rivers, Lord Grey, Sir Thomas Vaughan, and Lady Anne. Neither of those characters was in the position to claim kingship over Richard. Apart from Lady Anne, the reason to kill them was to get rid of possible opposition. Lady Anne was murdered as an excuse to marry someone with a more suitable family. The rumour was spread that she died of Tuberculosis, though since Richard mentioned he needed to get rid of her and because her ghost came to haunt Richard's dreams, this play seems to illustrate that Lady Anne was murdered by him indeed. Therefore, these murders were executed to secure some certainty for Richard's future as a king. Also, Fleming (2013) links the murders to the elimination of opponents. The intensity of Richard’s desire for certainty indicates that Richard was highly anxious. The direct evidence is the sequence of haunted dreams that clearly frighten Richard for the final battle.

The final neurotic code is anger. From the play, it can be easily concluded that Richard is tempered, even in the most inappropriate settings or when all evidence is against him. An example of anger in an inappropriate situation is when Richard gets furious at some gentlemen that are transporting a coffin with a corpse. A citation from this scene is provided below. An example of anger in a situation where all evidence is against him is when Richard accuses others of lying about him to King Edward IV, after which the king explained to Richard that nobody lied to him and that he had noticed Richard's behaviour himself.

RICHARD

Stay, you that bear the corse, and set it down. ANNE

What black magician conjures up this fiend To stop devoted charitable deeds?

(30)

30 RICHARD

Villains, set down the corse or, by Saint Paul, I’ll make a corse of him that disobeys. GENTLEMAN

My lord, stand back and let the coffin pass. RICHARD

Unmannered dog, stand thou when I command!— (1.2: 34-40)

A third example is in Act 1, Scene 3, where Richard talks about why he is not the devil people think he is and where the Old Queen Margaret continuously disagrees with him. Others join in the discussion and multiple characters get accused of wrongdoings. Still, it is Richard, together with Queen Margaret, that receive and deal the heaviest curses from them all. This dialogue and later discussion, full of hatred and anger takes over 200 lines, starting at line 117 and fading after line 322 when Queen Margaret exits.

The final two codes come forward the strongest. Self-interest over others is supported by the murders, though also by other examples. One is when Richard talks about marriage for some secret reason which is certainly not love. The woman’s opinion does not matter in his eyes, but what he can get out of the marriage does. A citation from this scene is provided below. Another example is when he stops the procession of the dead Henry VI to convince the fresh widow Lady Anne to become his wife. There was no need to ask her hand on that particular moment and waiting for the procession to be over would have been the least Richard could have done to also respect the feelings of others.

RICHARD

For then I’ll marry Warwick’s youngest daughter. What though I killed her husband and her father? The readiest way to make the wench amends Is to become her husband and her father; The which will I, not all so much for love As for another secret close intent

By marrying her which I must reach unto. (1.1: 157-163)

A third example is when Buckingham is not given what he was promised, although he had been the key pawn to make Richard king. Richard owes Buckingham a great deal, though he does not give him anything. The contrast is even so big that Buckingham grows suspicious of Richard, becomes fearful for his life, and therefore flees. The only people Richard has rewarded correctly were the murderers he hired.

Henry V and Richard III about the Usefulness of Leadership Styles Shakespeare’s Medieval Kings about Modern Research on Leadership:

Shakespeare’s Medieval Kings about

Modern Research on Leadership: