Anderson de Souza Sant'Anna, Daniela Diniz

Three Presidents, Three Paths:

Introduction

Three presidents, three paths:. Analyze the leadership styles of U.S. Presidents McKinley, Roosevelt, and Trump. Examine their historical contexts and contemporary theories to understand leadership effectiveness.

Abstract

Purpose: this article presents a comparative analysis of the leadership styles of three U.S. presidents - William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, and Donald Trump - examining their approaches within the context of their respective historical eras and through the lens of contemporary leadership theories. Methodology: of a theoretical nature, this work is based on a comparative analysis of the leadership styles of three US presidents. Research, Practical & Social implications: McKinley, a consensus-driven leader of the Progressive Era, emphasized institutional stability and collaborative decision-making. Roosevelt, his immediate successor, brought a more dynamic and charismatic style, combining robust nationalism with reformist policies that laid the foundation for contemporary presidential activism. Trump, leading in an era of political polarization and digital media dominance, disrupts traditional norms with a populist and media-centric approach. By analyzing governance, public communication, relational dynamics, and responses to crises, this study explores how their leadership styles align or diverge from contemporary approaches, such as relational leadership theories. Originality/value: the article highlights the interplay between historical context, individual traits, and societal expectations in shaping leadership effectiveness, offering insights for both the study and practice of leadership in contemporary contexts.

Review

This article, "Three Presidents, Three Paths," offers an ambitious and timely comparative analysis of the leadership styles of William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, and Donald Trump. The authors articulate a clear purpose: to examine these presidencies within their distinct historical eras and through the lens of contemporary leadership theories. This scope promises rich insights into how presidential leadership adapts and manifests across different historical and political landscapes, making it a potentially valuable contribution to both historical scholarship and the broader field of leadership studies. A significant strength lies in the article's theoretical approach and the multi-faceted aspects chosen for comparison. By analyzing governance, public communication, relational dynamics, and responses to crises, the study proposes a comprehensive framework for understanding these leaders beyond mere biographical description. The explicit mention of grounding the analysis in contemporary leadership theories, such as relational leadership, demonstrates a commitment to moving beyond historical narrative to a more analytical and theoretically informed discussion. The conceptualization of leadership effectiveness as an interplay between historical context, individual traits, and societal expectations is particularly compelling. The originality and value proposition of this article are clearly articulated. By juxtaposing a consensus-driven leader (McKinley), a dynamic nationalist (Roosevelt), and a populist disrupter (Trump), the study offers a fascinating spectrum for analysis, highlighting how leadership styles align or diverge from modern approaches. The promised practical and social implications for both the study and practice of leadership in contemporary contexts underscore its relevance. The comprehensive comparative methodology, though theoretical, seems well-suited to extract significant insights from these diverse presidencies, offering a fresh perspective on the evolving nature of executive leadership.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.