A Comparison of Two Leaders
His upbeat personality and gentle style has made him one of the great leaders of the NFG. Although Ben Franklin lived a very long time ago, people still speak highly of the man and his accomplishments. English historian Lewis Simpson stated about Franklin that he was “always terse, luminous, simple, pregnant with meaning, [and] eminently persuasive” (Stout 613).
or any similar topic only for you
Eugene Weber describes Franklin as “urbane, tactful, [and] dedicated” (Weber 19). Franklins good humor and outgoing personality helped him to be elected and selected for many different public offices during his life.
Franklin was a man of few failings, but the ones he had caused him some serious trouble. While serving as the envoy to England, he would not listen to public opinions about America that did not fit with his views (Weber 19). This got him into trouble with the English and he left the country bitter towards Its citizens. Franklin also spent many years from home and away from his family. HIS relationship with his son deteriorated until his son joined the British to fight against America and his father. Although I could not find anyone who had anything bad to say about Tony Dungy, he, eke Franklin, spent a lot of time away from home.
NFG coaches spend many long hours at the office and many days away from home. This time away caused strains in his family relationships and may have been a contributing factor in the suicide death of his son Jamie In 2005 (Morning 34). When it comes to leadership styles both men continue to have a lot in common. Tony Dung’s leadership style is a blend of both consideration and initiating structure styles. Tony likes to work with his followers leading them in the correct direction, but he also gives them lee way to make their own decisions.
When off the field he uses a lolling approach to maintain order and keep his players in line. Jim Caldwell, Tony’s Mentor Leader”. In the example Jim recalls Tony telling players to be good role models while showing clips of athletes that had run against the wrong side of the law (Dungy VII-VIII). While on the field he would use various styles from telling, to selling, and even a participating style allowing players to give input on what play to run next. It is this intense relational style that caused Jim Caldwell to declare that Tony Dungy leadership DNA perfectly fit the description off Level 5 leader (Dungy ‘X). While
Dung’s leadership style was a blend, Franklin adjusted his leadership style to fit his role. While in public office Franklin displayed a directive style of leadership to get the job done. When working with the other leaders of the new America, Franklin took on an Advisory role (Lane 42). He used his wit and wisdom to guide and advise them through the new challenges that now faced them. He also used an advisory role while serving as envoy to England and France. In conclusion I would like to answer the question if they could have switched places in time. Even putting aside the vast difference in time and the fact that an African
American would not have been accepted in Franklins position, I think the answer is no they could not have switched. Though both men exemplify what it is to be a leader, their roles in history and on those around them were very different. Franklin is an extrovert and enjoyed the public eye while Dungy is an introvert and would find it difficult to be around that many people all the time. Franklins fame is inexorably tied to his inventions as well, something Dungy could not have duplicated. Franklin, although fond of sports and the outdoors, I don’t would have been happy in Just one career as a NFG coach.