Dwight D. Eisenhower was one of America's greatest leaders. This is not disputed today. His military service brought about victory in World War II. His two presidential terms saw an end to the Korean War, the beginning of a modus vivendi with the Soviet Union, political consensus at home and rising prosperity for many Americans. Although some at the time saw Eisenhower as a detached, even passive, president, that view has diminished since the coming to light of evidence demonstrating that Eisenhower as president was every bit as hands- on and masterful as he had been as a general. This is now the consensus view among historians.

History's verdict on Eisenhower as both general and president is that he was a superior commander. And perhaps command may be the most familiar type of leadership. But it is not the only kind. The study of leadership during the past few decades has grown to become a multifaceted field of scholarship in several disciplines. It now not only treats the psychology and education of leaders but also looks at followers and the many connections between them. Additionally, the study of leadership today also includes systems of leadership, which reminds us that to lead well involves much more than to be in command.

The army taught Eisenhower to lead. He knew how to discipline soldiers; to inspire them to do their utmost; to instill cohesion and loyalty. It is customary (albeit simplistic) to say there are two types of commanders—Marshalls and MacArthurs: the quiet, thoughtful, planner and the loud, brilliant, performer. Eisenhower had served under both men, but he fit neither stereotype. He was an interesting blend of command type. On the surface, he was more like George Marshall. He gained his reputation in the army as a staff officer rather than as a field commander. He was drawn to planning both intellectually and emotionally; he was even said to relish staff work. He also had the rare ability to be able to visualize multiple theaters at once, and to connect the overarching aims of each with likely costs and benefits overall. He was, in the strict sense, what we would call today a strategic thinker.