Is it possible for a leader to be both humble and confident? At what point does confidence become arrogance, and perhaps dangerous? In a very unique conversation, this episode is the result of a very thoughtful email Russ received from an avid listener, David Deppner. A veteran leader himself, Deppner inspired some self-examination on Russ’s part, and the two explored the dichotomies of leadership in trying to maintain intellectual humility and still convey the confidence people need.
1- What did you learn about Churchill’s leadership style from last week’s episode? Would you now dub him a good leader? Why or why not? When does a leader need confidence? Arrogance?
2- How does good leadership compare across different sectors, such as business, medicine, and politics? To what extent should we admire people who aspire to leadership?
3- Roberts and Deppner spend a good bit of time talking about lying. When is it appropriate for a doctor to lie to a patient? How much lying is prompted by malpractice? Should a doctor or surgeon ever say they’re sorry for a bad outcome?
4- What does Roberts mean when he says, “a rule of thumb can be incredibly unjust and still be the right rule?” What examples does he use in the context of this claim, and how convincing did you find them? Can you provide any other examples either in support of or in opposition to Roberts’s statement?
5- Russ references his previous conversation with Charlan Nemeth on troublemakers in history. Are such ‘toublemakers’ necessarily confident? Humble?
Bonus Question: Should Russ speak out more on policy issues? Why or why not?
READER COMMENTS
SaveyourSelf
Sep 11 2019 at 4:05pm
1a. Churchill was a great leader. One of the greatest in all of recorded history. He was a consummate self-promoter, which is a necessity for leaders in human society—especially large societies where most people will never lay eyes on the leader and where we are constantly forgetting everything we know and must be reminded repeatedly lest we forget. He was also prescient. He knew enough about economics, culture, history, the personalities of the many players in power, and warfare to predict the movements of the totalitarian regimes of his day. He also put in the necessary work. He stood up to opposition. He rose time and again from from the jaws of defeat. He was creative and willing to take enormous risks! He wasn’t arrogant…often. He knew his worth, for sure. He knew his strengths, and that they were considerable.
1b. When does a leader need confidence?
Confidence [Merriam Webster] is 1) a feeling or belief that you can do something well or succeed at something, or 2) the feeling of being certain that something will happen or something is true.
The key words in the Merriam Webster definitions are “feeling or belief”. Confidence, in other words, is not a logical construct. It is emotional. It is a positive optimistic emotion.
Daniel Kahneman also treats confidence as an emotion in Thinking Fast and Slow but he defines it differently. He describes confidence as a feeling of cognitive ease and/or lack of cognitive strain brought on when a solution to a question comes quickly to mind and produces a coherent narrative. The better the story, the greater the confidence we have that it is correct. Which is why, I suspect, academics make lousy politicians. Academics, ideally, think for a living. Trying to get the voting population to think about a problem increases cognitive effort, which, in turn, must reduce their feeling of confidence the potential leader. In that sense, therefore, confidence is a heuristic for both the individual and for the people observing that potential leader. If she is confident, she does not feel compelled to think more on the question. She already knows the answer. It came quickly to her mind and produced a solidly believable, coherent story. At the same time, those listing to her, noticing her confidence, may accept that confidence, invoke their own heuristic, and accept the solution she offered without additional thought. In so far as that is the case, “Neither the quantity nor the quality of the evidence counts for much in subjective confidence (Chapter: “A Machine for Jumping to Conclusions”, Thinking Fast and Slow). The unifying element of Kahneman’s unique approach to subjecting self-confidence is a shared desire to avoid the work of thinking.
If Kahneman is correct—and I think he is—then this presents a dilemma for someone thoughtful seeking a leadership position. The success of the leader is determined by the actual outcomes of her decisions, but the popularity and support for a leader are determined by feelings brought on by easy memories, good stories, and an absence of thinking. How does a leader reconcile these conflicts? I can think of at least four different possible solutions. (The association with past politicians is mostly tongue in cheek.)
Ronald Reagan – Did his thinking in advance. Reagan was an avid reader, and he was familiar, if I recall correctly from his biography, with the work of F.A. Hayek. But when he ran for president he was all smiles, jokes, and easy slogans. He even had Alzheimer’s disease while president, which did nothing to diminish his effectiveness as leader so far as I can tell. Possibly because he laid out his strategies and decision tools long before running for office. Thus, he didn’t have to burden people with the ugly spectacle of seeing him ponder. After laying the groundwork, he didn’t have to think to be effective.
Richard Nixon – Did his thinking behind the scenes and presented a false confident face to the public. He was a professional liar. Brilliant and deceitful. He was confident in his ability to convey confidence and invoke it in others.
Donald Trump – Does no hard thinking. Thinks and speaks in short sentences with small words off the cuff—words that are easy to recall and fit into short stories. Confident and inspiring in the extreme.
Bill Clinton – Did some thinking on his own, but excelled—in my opinion—at listening to the counsel of other intelligent thinkers. Alan Greenspan, for example. I always had the impression that Clinton listened to Greenspan and followed his monetary policy recommendations, even when they conflicted with the Democratic canon. Clinton, in that way, was a kind of a front man for hard thinkers. He was a specialist in a team. He let other do the unattractive hard work of problem solving and championed their causes without the taint of mental strain to burden his composure.
For completeness, Daniel Kahneman also describes a kind of mathematical confidence which I think he calls statistical confidence. Statistical confidence is a deliberate disciplined method of compiling data. The quality and quantity of the data are both included in the derived measure of statistical confidence which is, ironically, the polar opposite of how subjective confidence is deduced.
1c. When does a leader need confidence? I submit the answer is “always”. A man or woman without confidence is not a leader.