Comparing Leadership Styles: Eisenhower and Kennedy

From the vantage point of the present, it is easy to look back at the tenure of any great leader and draw conclusions about just what it was that made him/her great. We can examine the circumstances under which their leadership flourished; piece together what we know of their character and personality traits; delve into the factors that may have driven them; and dissect their leadership style all in an effort to pinpoint the source of their success. The ‘Great Man’ theory, popular in the 19th century and now thoroughly debunked, held that leaders are born, not made; suggesting that men like George Washington, Martin Luther King Jr., and Winston Churchill were born with the innate capacity to change the world (Landis,

“Dwight D. Eisenhower was a master craftsman in the demanding art of leadership. For twenty years, first as a soldier and then as a statesman, he bore the daily responsibility for difficult decisions that had far-reaching consequences for the nation.” (WS) He had been promoted lieutenant colonel and was an obscure officer until the US involvement with World War Two. The US had been attacked at Pearl Harbor by the Japanese on December 7, 1941. Soon after the attack, Congress declared war and they entered on the Allied side. Until the war Eisenhower had no real chance of distinguishing himself through war. However, he still worked hard to be prepared for whatever task came to him. This preparation and hard work helped him, as he caught the eye

This book is a bold work by George C. Edwards in which he shares his views of the political system in the US and how it has evolved over time. He has touched almost every president since the 1930s and brought to light some interesting details about how presidents have followed patterns and used their own style of actions to meet their unique objectives. The book describes in detail the attitudes of presidents and reflects his views on presidency. For instance, he has expressed three premises about presidential leadership: public support is used as a social resource by president, presidents must take interest in the problems of the people in order to actually garner support rather than just delivering speeches, and the public can be mobilized successfully by permanent campaigns.

When thinking about the numerous, dynamic leaders that America has had over the course of the nation’s history, it can become troublesome to fairly compare these respective heads of state. Though each American president has unquestionably left their own unique legacy from their time in office, when comparing leaders from similar times, certain consistencies can present themselves. While the Presidency is of course beholden to constructs of political normativity subjective to the era they presided in, by choosing two POTUS’ from the same era, we can more adequately synthesize comparable actions and philosophies between the two. To this end, we will analyze the terms of Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft, cutting through narratives of their tenures to truly delineate their comparability. Through a comprehensive analysis of these two leaders on the subjects of foreign policy, we begin to parse out many similarities and differences between these two early 20th century leaders.

On the turn of the 5th decade of the 20th century, America was ready for a change. The change they made was to elect John Fitzgerald Kennedy as president of the United States and V.P. Lyndon Baines Johnson. LBJ and JFK were elected as president, with similarities between the two, as well a common vision for America. However, they came from vastly different backgrounds during their lifetime, which affected how they ran the country as they were the president.

During 1948-1961, the American people became overwhelmed with calamity regarding fear of the Cold War, as well as the impacts of WWII. The president at the time, Dwight Eisenhower; a former U.S General won the election of 1952 and described his ideology as “modern Republicanism”. Ike and his administration believed in a balanced budget, as well as conservative government spending; “Conservative with money and liberal with humans”. Eisenhower time as president would allow the middle class to thrive economically; by adding social security, minimum wage, and Departments of Education, Health, and Welfare. Eisenhower's strategy to promote the “good times” of the 50’s economic success, stand against Communism and create his “Brinkmanship” allowed American society to prosper, and address the nation’s fears.

This purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast the presidential styles of management between President Franklin D. Roosevelt and President William Clinton. Particular emphasis will be on domestic and foreign policy, and effectiveness of their presidential administration. Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected four times as President of the United States of American between 1933 through 1945. William Clinton was elected twice as President of the United States of American between 1993 through 2001. Both Presidents share many similar standpoints on foreign policy because of international conflict that took place during their administration. President Roosevelt made many crucial decisions with regards to World War II and the Great

Being the leader of the free world is an accomplishment that citizens of the United States see as job with a vast amount of responsibility. Along with the responsibility comes great scrutiny. Presidents have come and gone, leaving a legacy that either creates a lasting memory of great leadership, or leaves a bad taste in the mouth of American voters. Leading the way in the land of the free is judged by three points: how the president chose to conduct themselves during controversial times, critical situations, and most importantly how they plan to help the citizens of the United States.

The modern presidency has in a sense become a double-edged sword in that presidents have become beneficiaries of anything positive that can be attributed to government, but also can be blamed for anything bad occurring in society. Quite simply, the modern president has become the center of our political system (The Modern Presidency, 2004). The men who have dealt with this double-edged sword known as the modern presidency have often walked a very fine line between effectiveness and ineffectiveness, but all have attempted to use their power in one way or another.

The purpose and the intent of this paper are to compare and contrast the leadership styles and scope of influence of two historical leaders. This paper will capture what made this historical leader effective looking at these points of interest one) Integrity, two) Knowledge, three) Sincerity of purpose and four) Care for others. This paper will also view how the historical leader influenced the lives of others in a positive or negative way. How will or has this leader been remembered in history? In my personal opinion would I consider this leader a servant-leader and how did these leaders use their communication skills gain the support for their ideas doing the time of leading others. It is the hope that the reader will be able to make a

Leadership Evaluation and Philosophy: An Appraisal of Angela Merkel’s Leadership during the Euro Crisis and My Leadership Philosophy

Donald T. Phillips’ book, Lincoln on Leadership, explores the life and practices of Abraham Lincoln as the leader of the United States of America. Without question, Lincoln’s legacy lies as one of the greatest leaders in the history of the country. Lincoln’s style of leadership, which facilitated his accomplishment of one of the most complicated tasks in a divided country, have only recently become the foundation for developing concepts of leadership in both private and public organizations. Throughout Lincoln on Leadership, Phillips discusses over one hundred of Lincoln’s principles of leadership and practices, practices which still inspire and motivate persons in all aspects of society.

A president 's ability to adapt to changes and learn from mistakes is a quality that separates a good leader from a great one. In considering the governmental history of the United States, John F. Kennedy is arguably among the most successful presidents to hold the mantle of commander in chief. However, this degree was not achieved due to his infallible leadership and decision making skills.

The dynamics of leadership’s styles has changed throughout the century because the dynamics of leaders have changed. Many researchers have conceptualized the term leadership to make it simpler to understand, however it can be quite complicated because there are some many levels and components that make up a great leader in theory. There are no equations to explain how to become the perfect leader or how to obtain the perfect leadership style. There are strategies one can use to develop as a leader and certain behaviors that can allow an individual to identify with a particular style of leadership. In fact when dealing with followers of any sort, this allows the public to get a glimpse and know when the individual in authority changes. It would give the public a better understanding of what to expect and what to desire in future leaders. With this in mind, the purpose of this analysis is to evaluate and summarize the leadership styles and management of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Since they both hold influence and they both developed a campaign to become the greatest leader of the United States of America this analysis will explore the different styles they possess to get a better idea of their leadership behaviors.

In the 2004 movie, Ike: Countdown to D-Day, a profile of the leadership style of General Dwight D. Eisenhower is presented as planning and preparation for the single greatest invasion in the history of the world is engaged. This paper examines the leadership style and qualities of the Supreme Allied Commander as presented in the movie and in other literary references.