The Human being is the most powerful, intelligent animal and stays on the top of the food chain

on the Earth but we don’t have the biggest muscles or the highest speed. Some can say that it’s

because God gave us the gift from heaven “a brain full of knowledge”; nevertheless, thousands

of years ago when human spears were less sharp than any other animal claws, we still found a lot

of evidence that proved human used to hunt any other bigger wild enemy. So what is the true

superpower that led us to the top of the world through those difficult historical times? I can say it

is because of the human herd behaviour power, and to have a strong organization we need a good

leader. Leaders exist at every level, providing guidance, motivation, and clarity, and inspiring

confidence among those around them – whether they are fellow employees or not. However, a

good or a bad leader will depend on their leadership style and how they lead their team to

achieve the goal. A good leader usually uses the right leadership style at the right time and right

situation as a result a bad leader is one who usually makes the wrong decision in random

situations. I have here the two successful leaders from the films “The Social Network” and “The

King’s Speech” Mark Zuckerberg and King George VI, and let's find out what was the way they

became successful leaders.

In 1939, German-American psychologist Kurt Lewin is credited with branding the basic

leadership styles so he conducted research on schoolchildren. The main idea of this research was

to determine which leadership style was the most effective to use in business. Lewin identified

three styles of leadership: Autocratic, Democratic, and Laissez-faire and one that is commonly

grouped in with Lewin’s three is Transformational Leadership. Autocratic leadership is also

known as Authoritarian leadership; this kind of leader leads his team by his determination,

dictates the particular work or deadline for each member and rarely listens to other perspectives.

On the opposite side of “ don’t question my command”, we have here Democratic leadership or
Participative leadership, and with this leadership, all the policies will be voted on through

discussion or a meeting then be summarized and made the final decision by the leader so that the

tasks can be done by the best person with the best experience on it. If you wonder how Batman

always plays around and is still a billionaire here is the answer to that question: Laissez-faire

leadership; what a beautiful name for the true meaning of this leadership, basically the leaders

who have this style will just leave decisions to their employees while staying there waiting for

help signal from their inferiors. Transformational leadership, this style allows continuous

information exchange between the leaders and the employees so that the team is eager to

transform and evolve personally and professionally. Over time, there are more and more

leadership styles have been found like coaching, bureaucracy, v.v. Basically, your leadership

style is based on factors like experience, personality or what kind of industry your company is in

and its organizational culture. Also, depending on a specific situation, wise leaders should be

flexible to change from one style to a more productive style which is suitable for the problems

his or her company is dealing with. In consequence, leadership styles play a significant role in

the managerial job; how leaders impact their employees affects the success of their company or

we can say every achievement a company can get depends on its boss’s leadership style.

Nowadays, we have Mark Zuckerberg, an awkward but brilliant computer geek, who grew up on

Long Island in an upper-middle-class family. His personality is the worst of himself, they are

self-fish, sarcastic, arrogant, quick-witted and defensive. His personality can be counted as his

advantage but also his disadvantage; “You are probably going to be a very successful computer

person but you’re gonna go through life thinking that girls don’t like you” because of the fact

that Mark is mercilessly logical so his ability to get along relationships is further hindered, but it

can also mean that he willing to cut off any relationships that he feels that it is a threat with his
success. According to Zuckerberg’s humour, I can define his main leadership style as Autocratic

leadership; he made the whole company's decisions by himself and just took a little input from

his best friend Eduardo “1000$”. More than 80 years ago, there was King George – another

example of a successful leader. Grew up in luxury and royalty, but that doesn’t mean that

everything will happen in like a tale for him; he has a problem with his tongue-tied which was a

result of a terrible childhood. To be honest, the Duke of York, before Lionel accepts treatment

for his stammer and becomes the King, is a Laissez-faire leader. He always tries to avoid his

duty and easily gets angry when someone tries to get him on his duty path. But after being cured

and being able to use vocal technique and singing, … he could finally read his speech as a King

of England; by that moment he successfully improved he was changed into a Democratic and

Transformational leadership style. In the main, basically, these two people have many

similarities but also many differences.

Regarding similarity ground, we can easily say that they are both successful in their leadership

career so they are both good at determination leadership. Mark Zuckerberg was willing to regret

the idea of making money from advertising contracts when Facebook still needed to be improved

and had a big opportunity to become bigger and bigger than just a small website for Havard

students; he also stabbed his best friend who gave him money in the first few day to start up

Facebook because Guardo’s vision was too thoughtless with him and that could be a big wall for

the evolution of Facebook. Bertie’s determination, he recognized the importance of clear

communication and was willing to work hard to improve his speech. Before being a king, Bertie

always kept his duty of helping his brother become the true king and he can do everything to get

his purpose.
In terms of differences, King George VI in "The King's Speech" and Mark Zuckerberg in "The

Social Network" are two very different individuals in distinct historical contexts, quality of life

and position, so their leadership styles naturally differ. While King George Vi was the King of an

empire, Mark Zuckerberg is just the founder of a multinational company. Bertie can be described

as a Transformational leader because he overcame his speech impediment which enabled him to

have better communication skills, not like that Zuckerberg just showed that he has

entrepreneurial leadership, he is driven by a vision to create and expand Facebook, and he is

willing to take risks and make bold decisions to achieve his goals. Besides that, Zuckerberg is

exactly an Autocratic leader; he does almost everything on his own: planning, and coding and

just takes a little help from his friends Guardo and Will but it is all he needs to become the

youngest billionaire on Earth. On the other side, the Duke of York needs help from others to

complete his purpose: mental help from Lionel, and the biggest one is his brother abdicated the

throne, it was not help but it was an external reason for him to become a King. Bertie can be

described as a democratic leader, he wished for the speech therapy sessions to be “strictly

business no personal nonsense,“ which was not all that Logue wanted to do to cure the king’s

stutter. However, after talking the matter over, Logue, who is in this situation the leader figure,

decides to do what they believe would be best. After all, King George VI's leadership in "The

King's Speech" is more transformational, focused on personal growth, and rooted in humility and

empathy, whereas Mark Zuckerberg's leadership in "The Social Network" is entrepreneurial,

ambitious, and driven by innovation and competition in the technology industry. These

differences are influenced by their respective contexts and character portrayals in their respective

films.
As an essay to compare Zuckerberg's and King George VI's leadership styles, probably that they

are all good leaders. Although these two guys have different backgrounds, historical contexts and

styles in leadership; they have their way of fixing their problems and achieving what they want.

In consequence, my perspective is more inclined toward Zuckerberg even though he is an

ungrateful man, but I think self-fish is needed to be a good leader. By the way, the Duke of York

depended too much on the others and it could be his fatal weakness, a leader can’t survive when

staying individual must be weaker when compared him to the remaining person .