Most readers will know the person named General Dwight D Eisenhower (Ike) as the Supreme Commander of the Normandy D-Day invasion in June 1944 and later a two-term president of the USA, but we knew little of the man until now. This book delves into Ike’s’ past, his ancestors, upbringing in Kansas and his rather unusual army career. It focusses on his personality and relationships throughout his life and career that made him the most unexpected choice to become the most powerful Allied military Commander of WWII.
This fascinating account bring us closer to the man, his family and his army colleagues as well as his ability to write coherent military papers for his superiors that influenced significant moments in world military history. This latter ability led to appointments that prepared him for the eventual task of planning and executing Operation OVERLORD.

I enjoyed reading this book. I was somewhat familiar with Dwight D. Eisenhower as a leader in World War II and as President of the United States, but I knew little about his life before he was on the world stage. The book is less a traditional biography that only goes through Eisenhower’s life chronologically and more a study of what shaped and influenced Eisenhower. So, in being true to the title, Becoming Eisenhower is more focused on decisions, mentors and experiences, that led to Eisenhower’s development as the Supreme Allied Commander. The author did a great job of providing background and making the material relatable. There were times when Eisenhower felt frustrated by the assignments he received, and the author helps us feel and understand that frustration. But in many of those frustrating assignments, Eisenhower was learning what would make him the right fit for his future roles.

I would recommend this book to those interested in history or leadership. There were several experiences in the book that were very interesting and really stuck with me. One of those was the experience Eisenhower had with Xenophon Price and how Eisenhower interacted with him later in life when the tables were turned. The author also adds a nice section at the end of the book that gives a paragraph or two about what happened to those that influenced Eisenhower later in their lives.

The Right Temperament: Leadership Lessons from George C. Marshall and Dwight D. Eisenhower

The Making of a Leader: The Formative Years of George C. Marshall by Josiah Bunting III (Knopf, 2024)

Becoming Eisenhower: How He Rose From Obscurity to Supreme Allied Commander by Michael Lee Lanning (Stackpole Books, 2024)

Reviewed by Elizabeth Stice

When we think of famous World War II heroes, we often first remember those whose large personalities paired with their accomplishments. We might think of George S. Patton or Douglas MacArthur. These are the kinds of men you make movies about, movies that can star men like George C. Scott. But, during the war itself, two much less temperamental men had the right temperaments to oversee all the operations and to lead the U.S. to victory. Operation Overlord was commanded by the imminently likeable, and less intimidating than Patton, Dwight D. Eisenhower. George C. Marshall was the chief of staff, behind his desk in Washington, not MacArthur who strode ashore in the Philippines.

Americans love to refer to the generation that fought the Second World War as “the greatest generation” and Marshall and Eisenhower were two of its greatest leaders. Marshall was chief of staff of the Army during World War II and was the creator of the Marshall Plan. Eisenhower was commander of Operation Overlord, the invasion of Europe. He went on to become chief of staff, to lead NATO, and to serve two terms as president of the United States. Though their personalities were very different, Eisenhower and Marshall had much in common and very little in common with today’s model of a charismatic leader.

In The Making of a Leader, Josiah Bunting III skillfully recounts the “formative years” of George C. Marshall. Marshall was not considered marked for greatness from a young age. Before he went to VMI—where he never had a single demerit—even his family did not expect anything out of the ordinary from him. He soon showed himself capable of excelling in academic environments and in all his military assignments, consistently out-performing his peers and even superiors. But throughout his life, as Bunting writes, “his reserve, his air of cautious reticence, created an aura much less of palpable militarism—bearing, ‘affect,’ abrupt assertiveness, et cetera—than of steady dutifulness. He was a vir bonus: upright, honorable, frank, calm, quiet” (32).

If Marshall’s personality did not fit the image of the fearsome frontline commander or the soldier who would wield great power, his career path also did not seem to fit his ultimate destination. Though he was stationed in the Philippines and had experiences with troops, he barely made it to France for the Great War, where he was aide-de-camp to Pershing. Throughout Marshall’s career, he seemed destined for a desk job that would limit his horizons. He was successful enough at the Staff College at Ft. Leavenworth to lead his class and stay on as an instructor. In France, his role in the Meuse-Argonne offensive was chiefly organizational and he became known as a “wizard” when it came to logistics and information. Nearly everywhere he was stationed, he ended up re-organizing something or doing instruction, as he did at Ft. Benning Infantry School.

While Marshall did not especially connect to peers and subordinates through humor or readily available intimacy, he very much understood the importance of morale. From his early assignments, he organized athletic competitions and social events for his men. He went beyond athletics to include amateur theatricals. And in a 1920 letter to a friend at VMI, Marshall gave an exceptional outline of how leaders must maintain morale, by remaining optimistic and energetic, by being loyal to their chiefs, by never allowing themselves to be alarmed, and by being determined and always ready to attack (and never ready to ask for relief). Being the right kind of leader mattered more to him than being in the lead.

The Making of a Leader offers a well-written look into the early life of a very significant historical figure. It also makes a strong case for the importance of that early life in shaping the character of the man who Marshall was for the world. His early career may have been quiet compared to some, but it his strengths and abilities were quietly blooming all along.

Dwight Eisenhower also had a personality not initially thought fit for a general, as is clear in Michael Lee Lanning’s Becoming Eisenhower. Eisenhower was always pleasant and good company, perhaps too pleasant to be taken seriously sometimes. Lanning writes that “his agreeable nature made him seem generic and interchangeable” (6). His prowess at sport and coaching caused him to nearly be pigeonholed as a football coach early in his Army career. Despite being a West Point grad and eager to encounter real challenges, his superiors often tasked him with coaching a football team, sometimes soldiers on base, once the Peacock Military Academic. Many of his superiors considered him more valuable to the back field than in the field with troops.

Even more than Marshall, Eisenhower seemed doomed to desk jobs. He unsuccessfully attempted to join Pershing’s Mexican expedition and was also unsuccessful in getting to France in time for the Great War. He continuously got instructor jobs, at Camp Oglethorpe, at Ft. Leavenworth, and at Gettysburg. As his talents became known, he was retained by the War Department, serving under Pershing for a time and later under MacArthur. Throughout his career, Eisenhower was nearly always a staff officer and had very few opportunities to serve with troops—despite his efforts and requests and his early interest in and attention to tank warfare. No one would have predicted that one day he would become the head of Operation Overlord, including himself.

In contrast to Marshall, Eisenhower was very social. Marshall had close friends and interacted with others, but Eisenhower and his wife hosted so many social events at home that they invariably called their house “Club Eisenhower.” Eisenhower enjoyed poker and bridge and bathtub gin. Becoming Eisenhower covers Eisenhower’s professional development but also highlights his personality and describes family dynamics without becoming a drawing room drama.

They had different personalities, but Marshall and Eisenhower faced some of the same challenges. The Army of the interwar years was not an easy environment to advance in and men like Marshall and Eisenhower had to build reputations and abilities that stood without much reliance on rank. After the Great War, America kept the Army small, which meant very few opportunities for promotion. Pershing had recommended Marshall become a general at the end of World War I, but Marshall had to wait seventeen years for it to finally happen. Eisenhower graduated West Point in 1915, made it to lieutenant colonel in 1918, but was bumped down to captain in 1920 (with all his peers) because of the National Defense Act. Though he was quickly promoted to major, he did not make lieutenant colonel again until 1936. He only became a full colonel in 1941. Who would have expected that he would be a brigadier general just five months after that promotion?

While waiting for opportunities to come their way, Marshall and Eisenhower kept themselves busy studying and preparing. Bunting describes Marshall’s genius as the “tautly focused disciplining of an ordinary human capability: that of being able to concentrate, in solitude, for long periods, on an essential to be mastered. It is a quality that exists at the intersection of intellect and ‘character’” (73). He became known for having a remarkable memory. Marshall studied history, walked battlefields, and kept himself physically fit, wherever he was. Though Eisenhower was initially an indifferent student, during his time in Panama under Fox Conner, he learned to love reading history and philosophy, he developed as a writer, and he began preparing himself for a future conflict. Eisenhower was interested in emerging military technology, he studied war plans even when he was not in school (sometimes with Patton) and he, too, walked battlefields. He enjoyed golf and horseback riding and other outdoor pursuits.

A commonality between Marshall and Eisenhower is the way their superiors developed a dependence on them. While he was only a lieutenant, George C. Marshall took the lead on maneuvers in the Philippines when his general was physically incapable of leading. As his “genius” became more recognized, others relished having him as a subordinate. Eisenhower was even more troubled in this way, unable to get out from Pershing for a time and MacArthur for some time, when he wanted a troop assignment. Both Eisenhower and Marshall were sometimes the man behind the curtain for their superiors, doing the planning or writing that someone else got credit for. Marshall often got superior evaluations but Eisenhower often only average, despite his high quality of work.

What is remarkable about these men is how they handled career adversity. Both Eisenhower and Marshall stayed calm and professional, despite frustrations. They were patient, even about lingering at lower ranks. They simply kept learning and developing. They did not insist upon credit, even when it was due. They faced personal challenges stoically, as well. Marshall’s first wife and Eisenhower’s first child both died of illness. Each threw himself into his work and kept his grief to himself. Bunting emphasizes the effect of a VMI saying on Marshall: “He who has obtained the mastery over himself to meet and discharge the smallest duty, has done much to qualify himself for the greatest” (52). Marshall and Eisenhower were men with a great deal of self-control.

Marshall and Eisenhower stood in stark contrast to two of their colorful contemporaries, George S. Patton and Douglas MacArthur. Patton and MacArthur were great, too, but they were also louder and more brash and more insistent upon having their own way. All four men had a deep sense of vocation and purpose in the military and were very much committed to U.S. victory, but for as much as Patton and MacArthur are remembered for their accomplishments, they are also remembered for their larger-than-life personalities. People remember that Patton slapped a shell-shocked soldier more readily than most remember which battles he won. People remember MacArthur going his own way in Korea.

The contrasts in temperament played out in the course of events. Patton believed himself destined for greatness from early in his career and always led that way. In contrast, Eisenhower was surprised when Marshall made him the commanding general of the European theater of operations and surprised again when he, not Marshall, was given command of Operation Overlord. MacArthur was shocked to be replaced by Marshall as chief of staff of the Army. And when Eisenhower was his subordinate, MacArthur worked to frustrate him in the Philippines once he began to see Ike as a rival. Marshall had nothing of the martinet about him and he was not easily threatened. He was a somewhat unexpected pick as chief of staff by FDR, who overlooked higher ranking men because of what he saw in Marshall. When Marshall was chief of staff, he had Eisenhower draw up the mission for the commanding general of the European theater of operations and then surprised Eisenhower by saying the position was his, advancing Eisenhower over more obvious candidates by merit of his abilities.

If Marshall and Eisenhower were in many ways unlike Patton and MacArthur, they are even more unlike many of the people who rise to power today or who are considered as models of leadership. Their talent was recognized by those around them, but neither was in a remarkable position by age 40. Their previous postings gave little indication of how important they would be in World War II. Marshall and Eisenhower were not known for being loud or in front and typically remained respectful and dutiful even when their superiors were difficult. Most of the time, they kept their opinions to themselves. Even when Marshall liked someone, as he did Eisenhower, he remained professional, never even calling Eisenhower “Ike.” When Eisenhower wrote up his message to FDR, Marshall, and everyone else, after accepting German surrender, he simply said: “The mission of this Allied force was fulfilled at 0241 local time” (223).

Yet these were the men who we needed to win the war. What Franklin Roosevelt and Churchill knew was that level-headed professionals who could plan and think and reflect were better overseers than their brash, outspoken, “legendary” peers. These were some of the greatest men of the greatest generation. They defeated the Nazis but they would be considered unusual CEOs today. They were hardworking and serious and could be intense, but they would never go in for some of the bizarre and extreme which passes for intensity today and they would be too old to interest most investors. They would be too boring to be political candidates. Marshall and Eisenhower advanced without constantly advancing themselves.

The Making of a Leader and Becoming Eisenhower are interesting biographies. For people interested in leadership, both books offer a model for developing as a leader even when seeming to be stuck under the radar. These books also offer a model of what we, as a society, ought to be looking for in our leaders today.



Elizabeth Stice is a professor of history and assistant director of the honors program at Palm Beach Atlantic University. When she can, she reads and writes about World War I and she is the author of Empire Between the Lines: Imperial Culture in British and French Trench Newspapers of the Great War (2023).

detailed and informative look at his career and life from Kansas to west point and becoming the president and the struggles he encountered. The book is easy to read and not bogged down with technical talk.