The question of whether history hinges on the actions of singular, irreplaceable leaders is a complex one, explored in depth by Pulitzer Prize-winning geographer and historian Jared Diamond. In his latest work, “The World Until Yesterday: What Can We Learn from Traditional Societies?” (translated into Korean as ‘When Do Leaders Make a Difference?’), Diamond delves into the profound impact individuals can have on the course of events, while also challenging the notion that certain leaders are entirely unique and indispensable. His research suggests that while leaders are influential, the idea of a truly “irreplaceable” leader is exceedingly rare.
Challenging the ‘Great Man’ Theory
Diamond’s inquiry into the role of leaders was sparked by a hypothetical scenario: what if Adolf Hitler had died in a traffic accident in 1930, years before his rise to power led to World War II and the Holocaust? As a descendant of Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe, Diamond has a personal connection to the devastating consequences of the Nazi regime, with many of his relatives perishing in Auschwitz. This personal history fuels his academic pursuit of understanding how individual actions intersect with historical forces.
Historically, Diamond’s work, including seminal books like “Guns, Germs, and Steel” and “Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed,” has focused on the broader environmental, geographical, and institutional factors shaping human history. His shift in focus to the individual leader represents a significant, yet complementary, dimension to his scholarship. In recent interviews, Diamond stated, “The influence of leaders is significant. However, there are almost no ‘irreplaceable’ leaders.” He elaborated that truly unique leaders, capable of achieving in a specific time and place what no one else could, are exceptionally scarce.
Diamond posits that leaders often emerge as a result of a confluence of diverse factors, rather than solely due to their inherent qualities. He dismisses the simplistic idea that charisma alone defines a great leader, humorously remarking that such an easy answer would only hold up in the Andromeda galaxy. Instead, he developed a methodology, which he calls the “Hamlet Test,” to assess a leader’s indispensability. This test involves examining various fields—history, business, sports, and religion—and considering who might have filled a leader’s role if they had been removed from the equation due to circumstances like early death. The results consistently show that few individuals, if any, could truly pass this test.
The Case of Hitler and Other Historical Figures
Even in the case of Adolf Hitler, Diamond argues that his impact might have been replicated. He points out that the young Hitler did not exhibit the extreme malevolence that later defined him. Furthermore, the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles following World War I, coupled with the pre-existing anti-Semitism in Germany, created a fertile ground for extremist ideologies. Diamond suggests that had Hitler died in that traffic accident, a similar historical trajectory might have unfolded, driven by these powerful societal conditions.
The same logic applies to modern figures like Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, and Elon Musk. While acknowledging their unique achievements and indelible marks on their respective industries, Diamond believes that other leaders could have achieved similar successes in their absence. He notes that in the tech industry, figures like Mark Zuckerberg might have had a particularly high degree of substitutability. His research indicates that, on average, the impact of an individual leader on a company’s performance fluctuations ranges from about 6% to 29%.
Diamond also considers religious figures, suggesting that if Jesus had not risked his life by preaching in Rome, he might have been one of many influential leaders within various Jewish sects of his time.
Identifying Truly Indispensable Leaders
While the vast majority of leaders appear to be replaceable, Diamond identifies a rare exception in Seretse Khama, the first president of Botswana. Unlike many of its neighboring nations, which were ravaged by war and instability, Botswana, under Khama’s leadership, became a stable democracy with a low corruption index and the most stable legal system in Africa. Diamond argues that this unique achievement was possible specifically because of Khama’s leadership.
Khama, who came from a royal lineage but was not initially the chief of a wealthy diamond-mining nation, successfully nationalized the diamond mines. He then channeled these revenues into long-term investments in education, roads, telecommunications, and healthcare. Having received an elite education in Britain and married a white British woman, Khama navigated the international stage with diplomatic skill. Despite immense pressure from foreign powers to relinquish control of the colony after independence, he maintained foreign administration until local administrators could be adequately trained and invested heavily in the education system.
Diamond presents a list of 16 political leaders who contributed to national economic growth between 1951 and 2014. He examines whether significant economic growth would have been possible in their respective countries without them. Notably, leaders like China’s Deng Xiaoping and Germany’s Konrad Adenauer, credited with economic revitalization, are absent from this list. Diamond explains that their countries experienced economic growth during most of their tenures, making it difficult to attribute the success solely to their exceptional leadership.
However, the list does include former South Korean presidents Chun Doo-hwan (ranked 6th) and Park Chung-hee (ranked 12th). Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew is ranked 8th, and Japan’s Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone, less known in Korea, is ranked 2nd. A total of seven Asian leaders are included in this ranking.
Diamond acknowledges that leaders associated with economic miracles, like the two South Korean presidents, are often criticized for authoritarian rule. He poses a critical question: “Is it possible to separate economic growth from authoritarianism, democracy, and human rights?” He emphasizes the complexity of the world, where simple answers to intricate questions are often insufficient.
Factors Contributing to Great Leadership
Diamond outlines three key factors that contribute to a leader’s significant impact:
- Being in the right place at the right time: Even figures like Winston Churchill, lauded as a great wartime leader, had a less distinguished record as a finance minister. Similarly, Genghis Khan could establish the largest land empire in history partly because the Mongolian steppes were experiencing a period of abundant rainfall, leading to lush grasslands that facilitated cavalry warfare.
- Having the authority to implement decisions: This is exemplified by Seretse Khama’s position as paramount chief, which granted him the power to enact his vision.
- Founding a nation or major corporation: This allows for the creation of enduring institutions that can last for decades or even centuries, as seen with figures who established long-lasting systems.
Diamond also highlights the ability to push followers to do what is necessary, even if they are initially unwilling. He cites Franklin D. Roosevelt’s decision to enter World War II and Charles de Gaulle’s granting of independence to Algeria from French colonial rule as examples of leaders making difficult, yet ultimately beneficial, decisions for their people.
About Jared Diamond
Jared Diamond, an 89-year-old world-renowned cultural anthropologist and professor emeritus of geography at UCLA, is widely recognized for his Pulitzer Prize-winning book “Guns, Germs, and Steel.” His extensive research explores the geographical factors that have shaped the rise and fall of civilizations, the development of human societies, and the dynamics of environmental influence.
