Why Reluctant Leaders Often Make the Best Ones
By Tim Elmore
Colleen had just been promoted to vice president of operations when I first met her. She did not possess a charismatic personality; she wasn’t dynamic or talkative; she didn’t appear to be an extrovert, with her quiet and unassuming style. So, I had to ask her how she became vice president of her company at 34 years old. What made her pursue such leadership positions?
Her answer? She didn’t.
Colleen is a reluctant leader. She had to be talked into throwing her “hat in the ring.” She doesn’t fit the stereotypes we have of effective leaders—but I wonder if that’s why she’s been so effective. People trust her. Under Colleen’s leadership, her non-profit organization has improved measurably; teammates interested in becoming leaders has mushroomed and revenue has doubled since she took over.
Hector has a similar story. He is the president of Home Depot’s southern region and is flourishing. His career began as a team member at a Home Depot store, and all he cared about was executing his duties. He wasn’t chasing this dream. When I asked him how he became president, he smiled and said, “Well, they kept training me.”
Reluctance may be a counter-intuitive trait we should look for in leaders.
.
Learning From the Past
In January of 1952, Dwight Eisenhower’s name appeared on the Republican ballot for the New Hampshire primary. Not many Americans cared about which political party he belonged to—they just knew they liked him.
He had served as the Allied Commander in World War II and had been entered in the primary by supporters without his permission. He had no interest in running for president. His candidacy was so popular, however, that 24 newspapers promptly endorsed him as president and Democratic Senator Paul Douglas suggested both parties nominate Eisenhower with two different running mates.
Ike finally acquiesced, realizing his country needed him one more time.
And folks were right about his leadership ability. He oversaw a growing economy, strengthened NATO, appointed five Supreme Court justices, ended the Korean War and leveraged his government to push the civil-rights movement forward. His presidency ended with a 65% average approval rating, the highest of any two-term president. Not bad for a guy who didn’t want to be president.
Wasn’t this also the story of George Washington? Another military leader who didn’t seek to be president, but in fact, was pushed to do so by those who knew him. When he finished two terms, Americans wanted him to serve another. In fact, many Americans wanted him to become “king,” a title he diligently reminded the public we should avoid. Once again, a reluctant leader proved to be perfect for the job.
Today, businesses are learning the same lesson. In 2001, Xerox was in turmoil, and asked Ann Mulcahy to become CEO. Although she didn’t lobby for the job and didn’t believe she was an ideal candidate, she rapidly turned Xerox around, churning out 19 consecutive quarters of profit. Once again, a reluctant leader was effective.
Our Version of Leadership Today
Too often, we assume leaders should not be reluctant. It’s a sign of weakness. We grant leadership positions to people who crave them. In fact, we presume if people hesitate or doubt, it’s a fatal weakness, according to The Wall Street Journal. Yet, I believe one of the traits that made Dick Cheney an effective vice president for eight years was that he never sought a higher office. His motives seemed purer since he aspired to nothing more than executing his job. He couldn’t be bought.
That is rare, however.
Most people, it seems, can be bought. They are actually seeking more followers, retweets, likes, shares and views. They want to increase their own tribe. It is about them and their career, even though they claim it’s about something bigger.
So What Combination Should We Look For?
I suppose the big question, then, is: when is reluctance a good sign and when is it a sign that a person is truly unready to be a leader? I believe the secret is to look for two tandem and simultaneous qualities:
Reluctance – I am not seeking power or platforms.
Responsibility – I am dutiful and take ownership of jobs.
This is the narrative of George Washington, Dwight Eisenhower and Ann Mulcahey. In essence, their mantra was: “I am happy to serve, but reluctant to lead.” I wonder if perhaps we should reconsider what we expect leaders to do; the best ones don’t necessarily seek the limelight; or have an appetite for the marginal activities today’s leaders are required to do like making public appearances and being active on social media. Deborah Gruenfeld, a Stanford social psychologist, believes most people assume a leader must possess “some combination of superior charm and ruthless ambition that the rest of us don’t.”
The fact is—it may be the opposite. Author and researcher Jim Collins describes the highest kind of leader as a “level five” leader. Collins says these leaders display a mixture of indomitable will and personal humility. They furnish a new definition of responsibility: it is about my ability to respond to a need not about my own benefit. According to journalist Sam Walker, a 2014 study by London’s Cass Business School found that reluctant bosses are better at navigating office politics and maintaining control while also promoting autonomy. Their motive is service, not supremacy.
In 2015, 86% of people surveyed by the World Economic Forum believe that we are suffering from a global leadership crisis. I say it’s time we look for some students who are happy to serve but reluctant to lead