When leaders are chosen by lottery instead of election, they are less likely to feel they are "the chosen one." This fosters a sense of duty, humility, and servant leadership because they recognize their position is due to chance, not special merit. This structure serves as a protective mechanism against the selfishness and hubris often seen in politics.
Related Insights
Washington's repeated hesitation to take on power, seeing himself as reluctantly drawn to public service, resulted in a more effective leadership style. This reluctance fostered humility and prevented him from being autocratic, leading him to empower talented subordinates.
Our default method for promotion—open competition—is flawed because it disproportionately attracts and rewards individuals who most desire power, not necessarily those best suited for leadership. The Founding Fathers understood this, preferring reluctant leaders. Alternative models, like deliberation by a select body, can produce more competent and less self-interested leaders.
Contrary to the popular belief that power corrupts, research suggests it acts as an amplifier. If a person is already "pro-social"—oriented towards helping others—power can increase their empathy and effectiveness. If they are selfish, power will magnify those negative traits.
Unlike the agent-controlled casting in Hollywood, "Kill Tony" gives any comedian a chance by randomly pulling names from a bucket. This democratic process ensures a meritocratic and unpredictable show where genuine talent can emerge without industry connections.
Electoral systems have an adverse selection problem, favoring narcissistic, Machiavellian, and psychopathic individuals who seek power. A lottery system, by contrast, selects a more representative and less pathologically power-hungry group of leaders, avoiding those who excel at manipulative charm to get elected.
Great leaders demonstrate humility by surrounding themselves with people who might be more skilled in certain areas. They are drawn to talent that makes them smarter, whereas narcissistic leaders are threatened by it and want to be the smartest person in the room.
The Catholic Church's method of selecting a Pope—a secret, deliberative process where cardinals vote repeatedly until a supermajority is reached—is a powerful example of an "election without candidates." This bottom-up meritocracy prioritizes finding a formidable, consensus candidate over rewarding the person who campaigned the hardest, a model that could be adapted for political and organizational leadership.
If a decision has universal agreement, a leader isn't adding value because the group would have reached that conclusion anyway. True leadership is demonstrated when you make a difficult, unpopular choice that others would not, guiding the organization through necessary but painful steps.
When leadership is seen as a duty to serve rather than a chance for personal gain, the weight of responsibility can suppress feelings of self-doubt. This selfless framing fosters a healthier, more resilient leadership style, particularly for reluctant leaders.
The original meaning of "meek" or "humble" is akin to breaking a wild stallion—not crushing its spirit, but harnessing its immense energy for a positive purpose. True humility in leadership is redirecting your strength and influence for constructive outcomes, not destructive ones.
