When a beloved leader is gone, the eventual successor will inevitably hear about having ‘big shoes to fill.’ We all have an understanding of what that means – whether we are the one filling said shoes or are just a bystander hoping the new person can actually do the job.
Yale professor Jeffrey Sonnenfeld terms these leaders and their exit the “Hero’s Farewell.” Not the sort of hero who rescues a cat from a tree. These are the hero’s of the great epics – the nation-builders, those who have called down fire from the heavens above. They have done and can do no wrong.
Of course this is patently not true.
Leadership is a grouping of attributes on a continuum. And no one is good at all of it, all the time. The great leaders are those whose capabilities have aligned with an opportunity set that is well matched.
When we have to replace these larger than life leaders, two primary dimensions have to be considered – capability and worthiness. Capability is more straightforward – are they able to do the job asked? Do they have the technical skills, background, and requisite training to do the thing we need them to do?
Worthiness is different. Worthiness is a judgement of character. Is this person deserving of the honor and prestige of the office that they are being offered?
Often when the big shoes are not filled well – it is not a capability issue. It is the ineffable dimension of worthiness that really is at play.
We do not like to explicitly discuss worthiness because it feels icky. We hide our views about worthiness by embedding our opinions in comments about capabilities. We say things like – does this person have the ‘presence’ or gravitas for the role?
But make no mistake, judgements about worthiness are something we actually do a lot – and not just about leaders. Worthiness plays out in many dimensions in life.
Recall the movie A Beautiful Mind about mathematician John Nash and his battle with schizophrenia. Towards the end of the film, a representative from the Nobel Prize committee comes to visit John before awarding him this most august honor. Nash, played by Russell Crowe, quickly realizes the purpose of the visit, asking “So you came here to find out if I was crazy? Find out if I would screw everything up if I actually won? Dance around the podium, strip naked and squawk like a chicken?”
His academic qualifications were never in doubt – he had made seminal contributions to his field. The question truly being asked was if he was worthy of the honor to be bestowed upon him. Would he uphold the image of the Nobel?
Consider another example. It is commonplace to hear complaints raised about a younger generation as being “entitled.” Entitled simply meaning to behave in such a way so as to expect an outcome for which the inputs do not warrant.
But often when we describe someone as behaving this way, they are rightfully titled aka they have the assets / role that corresponds with the observed behavior. What we are really saying is not that they are not worthy of the place that they are in.
There is a great weight and caution to determining if something / someone is worthy. It should not be undertaken flippantly.
First, worthiness is always evaluated relative to a standard. Far too often the standard is subjective and fluid. It is not well specified beforehand, and may be subject to revision afterwards. If this is the case, these assessments risk being made quickly and instinctively. They can be subject to recency bias. This also means that they are also subject to revision.
In these circumstances, we would do well to consider how well defined our standard is and what are the conditions under which we would change our view. The person being evaluated needs a sense of certainty regarding their position, so to does the evaluator need to know that they have made a wise choice.
Second, the very nature of evaluating worthiness implies a hierarchy of judgement.There is someone who either possesses worthiness themselves or is qualified to make that judgement about another. This is a powerful power dynamic – that should be acknowledged and considered.
We also know that power imbalances are often fertile soil for abuse of varying degrees. We should be on guard to avoid these sorts of dynamics.
Finally, these sorts of judgements can be isolating and it would be good to consider what support or community would be beneficial for the honoree. The headlines are replete with stories of individuals with impressive titles / roles who fall into behaviors they themselves likely would not have supported years earlier.
This is not to support abusive or criminal behavior. But often, many of these leaders end up isolated and without a community around them. To deal with anxiety, pressure, etc. they turn to behaviors that plant the seeds for an eventual downfall. A community with a system of support can be a powerful structure to have in place.
To be found worthy is noble praise indeed. And no doubt, there are roles that offer great esteem and should not be bestowed without great consideration. We should be careful in our assessments of how we do so.
We should also recognize that there are times when we all make these judgements about others. These judgements may be appropriate and justified. But if you are like me, some times they are not. Rather than hiding our comments, there is an opportunity to recognize that we are assessing worthiness and then determine whether that is the right assessment to be making or not.