I did not enjoy this book, and likely won’t recommend it in the future. But there were some ideas in here that have planted themselves in my brain and won’t let go. So I’m thankful to have read it so that those ideas could expand. The title, and principle of this book, Leading Quietly, comes from the idea that as a culture we value leaders who performed a dramatic action that created a resulting avalanche in which everything changed. We revere the names of Nelson Mandela, Winston Churchill, and Mother Theresa because they led at the forefront of movements that created "capital C" Change. They were bold, uncompromising, and resolute. They faced true injustice or evil, and they didn’t back down. We applaud that.
However, most of us will never be in a position to change a nation. We will likely not lead in a context in which right and wrong are so clearly defined. We will, however, be in a position to stand for justice and do the right thing in small ways in our own contexts, and in the messy and complex situations in which right and wrong are so intertwined that we’ll be confused the entire time if we’re doing the right thing. Stepping up in a muddle of confusion is what the author considers “leading quietly,” basically a cautious forward motion in spite of uncertainty that makes small changes. I completely agree that most of us will absolutely lead in contexts like this. We won’t have the power to change the course of human history, but we can do the right thing today and keep doing it over and over.
The author applauds restraint, caution, and even manipulation as methods to have this quiet leadership. In a nutshell, that’s one of my problems with the book. His principles are vague:
don’t kid yourself, trust mixed motives*, buy time, drill down, bend the rules, craft a compromise, and “nudge” gradually. I agree that to some extent we may have to do these things at times, but few of us consider them the best moments of our leadership. My other issue with the book is that he rests his points HEAVILY on lengthy stories of individuals who had sticky situations. Many of them were indeed complex, and at least a few of them were familiar as things I’ve faced before. However, they were mostly middle managers or salespeople, not executives. So they weren’t in positions in which heavy leadership was even possible. They were just caught in the middle, and yes, most of us reading the book may be in middle leadership positions, too. But calling it “quiet leadership” and creating a whole philosophy of leadership around that …. I’m not sure we need another book on leadership for THAT.
Additionally, I need to say that I personally follow Jesus Christ, and that colors my leadership decisions more than any other leadership theory or philosophy. Most of what the example leaders in this book did was just common sense, treating others fairly, following the wisdom of the Proverbs on how we make decisions, and in nearly every case, the results came down to controlling your mouth and treating people correctly. In a few cases, there were true strategic decisions and higher-level leadership skills, but most of the situations were resolved when the “leader” quit gossiping, took time to listen to others, etc.
So all in all, not a waste of time, but not groundbreaking either. I mostly came away feeling secure in the fact that most of my leadership decisions won’t change the world, but that’s okay, I’m still leading correctly.
*Of these, the one that stood out to me the most was the chapter on mixed motives. Essentially he says that we’ll almost always have mixed feelings about the decisions. If I speak up, it could cost me my job, etc. He writes, and correctly I believe, that we can become paralyzed in our decisions because we’re waiting to have pure motives, and that will likely never happen. We’ll always have some part of us that doesn’t want to do the right thing, because of the loss we risk when we finally act. So we have to be prepared to move forward in spite of the mixed feelings.