In 1776, the founders of the United States of America wrote that a government derives its power from the consent of the governed. What core leadership principles are necessary for a successful democracy? The characteristics of effective leaders apply well beyond governments to every kind of organization.
On episode 153 of The Science of Personality, cohosts Ryne Sherman, PhD, and Blake Loepp observe the 250th anniversary of the United States by exploring what the American experiment can teach us about democratic leadership principles.
Before it’s possible to discuss principles of leadership, we must first define leadership correctly. So, what does it actually mean to lead?
Core Democratic Leadership Principles
At Hogan, we distinguish between leadership emergence and leadership effectiveness. Emergent leadership has to do with holding leadership titles and seeming leaderlike. Effective leadership means the ability to build and maintain a high-performing team. Thus, effective leaders serve their team and work for their team’s success.
“Key characteristics that show up among effective leaders are competence, humility, integrity, and judgment. These haven’t changed in thousands of years,” Ryne said.
- Competence concerns understanding the organization and the work to be done.
- Humility concerns sharing power and recognition. Humble leaders acknowledge the work of their teams rather than taking sole credit. They don’t seek their own gain but that of their organization.
- Integrity concerns building trust. Someone with integrity does what they say they’ll do. They also reward and punish people’s behavior equally. If a leader rewards one team member but does not reward another for the same behavior, the team may not trust the leader.
- Judgment concerns making sound decisions. This includes a decision-making process that is fair and rational. Someone with good judgment can also acknowledge mistakes and correct a decision.
Effective leaders display these characteristics no matter the size and scope of their organization, whether a youth sports team, a multinational corporation, or a federal government. At the government level, however, the stakes for success or failure are very high. They can easily include life or death. “The leaders of the biggest organizations have the most consequences for the most people,” Ryne said.
Humility
Within groups, people compete for status and its benefits. High status therefore tends to attract people who prioritize individual benefits rather than good of the group. This phenomenon relates directly to emergent leaders who want to gain leadership positions. George Washington, the first US president, was not an emergent leader. Not only did he decline to hold the title of king, but he also chose to step down as president after just two terms. Washington’s behavior as a leader conveyed benefits to the group, not to himself.
Ryne explained the impact of Washington’s decision not to run for president for the third time: “He thought, ‘If I stay on any longer, this is creating the same system of monarchy that the US colonists rejected.’” Despite encouragement to remain in office, Washington set an incredible precedent for letting go of power. Nearly all US presidents after him voluntarily stood aside after serving two terms until a constitutional amendment officially capped the presidential term limit.
Balancing Ambition and Humility in Democratic Leaders
Washington’s example raises an apparent paradox. It can seem counterintuitive to select leaders who are reluctant to lead. “A critical component [for effective leadership] is being both ambitious and humble at the same time,” Ryne said. “Oftentimes those two are at odds with each other.”
Emergent leaders are ambitious for their own gain. Effective leaders are ambitious for the success of the group. “They prioritize the group over their own needs and wants,” Ryne said. Someone ambitious and humble often seems hardworking and motivated on behalf of others. Abraham Lincoln, the 16th US president, was a hardworking, driven leader who formed a cabinet of political rivals rather than those who were loyal to him personally. Lincoln’s approach illustrates what group-oriented ambition looks like in practice. By surrounding himself with people who would oppose rather than confirm his thinking, he challenged his viewpoint to meet the needs of the country.
How Democratic Systems Select Better Leaders
Lincoln’s team of rivals raises a bigger question: how should democratic systems select leaders in the first place? Selection by primogeniture (the right of the firstborn to rule) informed many types of social and political groups throughout history. This method is problematic because it rewards leaders for genetic selfishness, keeping the benefits of status for their descendants.
In contrast, democratic governments—while still fallible—are designed to select the leader who is best, not necessarily the one who is most charismatic. “History tells us that selecting leaders based on their qualities, skills, effectiveness at leading, and ambition for the group is best,” Ryne explained. “Those people tend to be pretty humble.”
