In September I attended the annual conference of the Bermuda life insurance industry body, BILTIR. 2023's event was fantastic and this year's built upon its foundation, suggesting that hotel rooms in Hamilton might come at an even higher premium in September 2025.

In sequence, attendees were treated to discussions led by the likes of EIOPA Chair, Petra Hielkema, about the dichotomy between a global savings and retirement gap of $106trn*, and a life industry which returns $300bn to shareholders annually whilst pools of capital from private investors sometimes find it difficult to secure entry points into the sector. There was an enlightening discussion on the ways in which (typically) scenario-based regulation in reinsurance jurisdictions is supporting the Japanese underwriting industry. And another session on the ways in which a widening span of private credit assets can be used to support savings and retirement liabilities around the world - more on that to follow in a separate note.

Not personally equipped with the sort of analytical intelligence which I encounter in the clients and candidates I work with on a daily basis, I am perhaps drawn to the less technical discussions! For me at least, the highlight of the day was a discussion with world-renowned historian and author, Doris Kearns Goodwin on Leadership. Ms Kearns Goodwin has written critically acclaimed books on the lives of four US Presidents: Lincoln, Franklin D Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. 

‘Leadership’ is a word which is of course unfathomably hard to define, embracing elements of projection, influence, inspiration, creativity, decision-making and resilience: In 30 years working in the executive search industry, I've spent my share of time pondering how to define this enigmatic word. Since we invariably find ourselves dissecting decision-making and goal-making in these conversations, I was struck by Kearns Goodwin's definition:

“Ambition for Others”

…And I think that what she meant by that is to counter the idea that success is largely motivated by personal aspirations, in doing so separating Leadership from longstanding assumptions around ego, drive and self-will, or more complex societal inferences around concepts such as ‘strength’. The paradoxes of the wise…

In a lifetime which Kearns Goodwin has spent studying and spending time with some of the most powerful individuals on the planet in the last century, here are the characteristics which this great historian has concluded truly define a great leader: Humility, Empathy, Accountability, Resilience; and an ability to separate and detach oneself from one's work.

A number of examples came to her mind, as she developed her discussion: That of former Alabama senator George Wallace, previously a segregationist who Martin Luther King once described as “the most dangerous racist in America”. Following his paralysis in an assassination attempt in 1972, he spent the rest of his life pursuing a path of forgiveness and amends, sponsoring 160 African-American appointments in state bodies and working to double the number of African-Americans registered to vote in the US state. 

Or Lincoln's decision to embrace malice to none and charity to all. 

Iris Murdoch wrote that, ‘The humble man, because he sees himself as nothing, sees other things as they really are’, and I think that most of us can see how having ambition for others necessitates a degree of humility. Indeed, Kearns Goodwin herself equated this concept with the Buddhist philosophy of ‘Not Self’.

Stanford Study, 2024

…so widely held associations between ambition, self will, power and success might not withstand scrutiny. Evidence published just a month before the BILTIR conference, in the form of a published study by Stanford Business School seems to support Kearns Goodwin's perspective: Based on a sample of 472 leaders and ratings gathered through 360 degree discussions with peers, subordinates, managers and the leaders themselves, researchers tested self-selecting views around motivation, collaboration, mentoring and development; and communication/interaction. 

The study found ‘consistent evidence that ambition is related to favourable self-perceptions, but not to favourable third-party perceptions of leader effectiveness’. In other words, there are gaps between the processes and influences which cause effective leaders to emerge on the one hand, and their capability to do the job in question on the other. In short, we pick leaders who think they can lead, not the ones who can lead - ambition for self, not for others.

A contributing factor in this mismatch might be that ambitious individuals appear to perform better in the early part of their interactions with others (the 'Emerging Zone' in relationships), whilst effective leaders repeatedly prove themselves in enduring and evolving relationships.

This has radical implications for the recruitment industry: Early ‘emerging’ human interactions are essentially complex ‘signalling’ processes which rely upon perceptions that connect ambition with other characteristics like ‘dedication’, ‘determination’ or 'agency', so we can erroneously predict that the people who we interview who are manifestly ambitious will go on to become the most effective leaders. Since in most areas of work (and life) selection procedures are essentially funnel shaped, relying upon self-selection in the early parts of a process (whether it be to become Chair of your PTA or or for admission to business school), we need to be cautious about mass communication (advertising/social media etc) as these may secure the interest of the Ambitious at the expense of the Capable. The Stanford study went on to suggest that organisations improve processes which foster ambition in those who, nonetheless, possess significant quantities of other leadership characteristics such as intelligence, articulation and (especially) pro-sociality:

We find that ambition - which is marked by a desire for extrinsic outcomes such as power, status, rank and wealth  - is not related to effectiveness in a leadership role. However, individuals who possess intrinsic motivation to lead, who are pro-social, collectively-minded and more committed to the group's success than their own are more likely to be effective leaders overall.

Back to the wonderful Doris Kearns Goodwin on the key ingredient: