Leadership is Selfish: An In-depth Look at the Lifestyle

Leadership is Selfish: An In-depth Look at the Lifestyle

Jesse Segers, Ginkgo Consulting

This summer, during the quiet of a trek through Swedish Lapland, countless thoughts on leadership surfaced again, making it difficult to choose which ones to focus on. However, one idea and feeling that has been with me for quite some time now is rising to the surface: leadership is a selfish endeavor.

I know, it sounds paradoxical because we often view leadership as dedicating oneself to something greater than oneself, a form of altruism. Allow me to explain. From the perspective of the life partner of a leader, leadership can seem selfish. Leading something larger than oneself demands a lot from the leader. John Maxwell articulated this well in his famous book: "You must give up to go up." There are only 24 hours in a day. After a 10-hour (or longer) workday, leaders often turn to a "third space" to sustain this high-performance lifestyle. Leaders tend to live to work, with work that never truly ends, rather than work to live. Job satisfaction among top executives has a more significant impact on their life satisfaction than the reverse, which is often not the case for other groups (Judge et al., 1994). Leadership, then, is a lifestyle.

This raises the question: What does this lifestyle mean for the life partner? What role and influence does this person have on the leader? A journalist recently asked me this question in the context of the discussion surrounding Joe Biden: Should he continue or not? And would Jill Biden play a role in this decision? The academic literature on 'spousal leadership' is a relatively under-researched field.

That’s a pity because, through the media and personal stories, we know that partners often play a key role. Perhaps the most famous example is Eleanor Roosevelt, who was often described as the moral compass of President Franklin Roosevelt. She put progressive left-wing and sometimes controversial issues on the agenda, without the political limitations her husband faced. She was deliberately sought out by other politicians and activists because she was known as the president’s sounding board and guiding figure. This role as a moral compass serves as a correction to the corrupting effect of power, and this is also echoed in the limited academic literature (e.g., Kellerman & Rhode, 2007). In this respect, I’ve always found the decades-old stereotype of the male world leader who makes abstract decisions about economics and war daily, and the female partner active in the non-profit world—visiting orphanages, cancer patients, special education schools—a logical and healthy combination. In the evening, her experience holds up a humanitarian mirror to him.

But as Jodi Kantor noted in her book "The Obamas": “One of the dilemmas of being the spouse of someone with a ton of responsibility—whether it’s a president or a CEO—is knowing when to support and console, and when to speak truth to power. When your spouse comes home, you don’t want to say, ‘I really think you could have handled that meeting differently.’ But on the other hand, you can have tremendous influence and arguably a moral duty to use it, to prevent or fix problems where you can.” A friend of mine, who was married to a CEO of a publicly traded company for years, once told me: if I did what he asked, I was his employee; if I did what he needed, I was his coach or therapist. But I just wanted to love him without trying to change him. This coaching and psychological support role is also found in academic literature (Kellerman & Rhode, 2007; Hackney & Sanders, 2003).

The partner also plays an essential role in the leader’s self-image and career (e.g., Ezzedeen & Ritchey, 2008; Owens et al., 2013). Sheryl Sandberg is known for saying that choosing the right spouse is the most important career decision a person can make. Michelle Obama gave Barack the Black Chicago roots he lacked because of his background, and she had a high regard for who Barack was, which boosted his self-image (Kantor, 2012). In that sense, it’s interesting that an American expert and journalist said in late June that “rumor has it… it’s mainly Jill Biden who wants her husband to stay on…”

Despite shared leadership, leadership in the position of ultimate responsibility is often all-consuming. It demands a lot of invisible work from the life partner, who often combines multiple roles, roles that often receive little recognition. Partners of CEOs sometimes feel a calling for the role. They acknowledge that it takes a unique type of person to fulfill it successfully: “You must manage your ego and see the bigger picture.” “You can’t be jealous” (Poza & Messer, 2001).

The long-standing relationships of couples like the Bidens or the Obamas are not something everyone can achieve. Many CEOs and people in top positions are more likely than average to be divorced. Once over 40, divorce is often initiated by the woman when the executive is a man (Meers & Strober, 2010). If the CEO is a woman, the chances of her being divorced after three years in the role are even higher, often due to conflicting gender role expectations (Folke & Rickne, 2020).

Of course, the story is more layered and complex than I can present in this blog. There are, for instance, more roles, more gender differences than I’ve mentioned here, whether the partner has a career of their own or not matters, whether it’s a family business or not plays a role, cultural differences are also to be expected, etc. Additionally, my starting point was the “exhaustion perspective” from the work/family literature. Work and family are seen as two separate and conflicting domains, competing for people’s time and energy. There is also a less common enrichment perspective: the life of the leader enriches family life, and vice versa. But that research is still in its infancy.