A few weeks ago over the Fourth of July, I found myself thinking about American leadership. It was probably a result of the 250th anniversary, but I was thinking quite a bit about George Washington. Such things as the Continental Army, the Revolution, and the years of the early republic ran through my thoughts (I fully admit to not being the coolest guy at a barbecue). As the day went on, though, I ended up thinking about the leaders I admire and noticed that many of them share a quality that doesn’t always get much attention.
They understood that the office was bigger than the person occupying it.
That sounds obvious but I can assure you it is not. Leadership comes with authority, attention, and sometimes prestige. Over time, it can become remarkably easy to confuse being responsible for the organization with being the organization.
The best leaders resist that temptation.
Washington Knew When to Leave
George Washington may be the most important example in American history.
Washington certainly had an ego. He cared deeply about his reputation and how history would remember him. He also understood the nature of freedom, while being a slaveholder (remember that no person, ever, is perfect). But he also understood something remarkably sophisticated about leadership: the presidency did not belong to George Washington.
He was its temporary steward.
After two terms, Washington voluntarily walked away from the presidency.
Today, that doesn’t seem particularly revolutionary. In the 1790s, it was.
There was no constitutional requirement limiting him to two terms. Washington almost certainly could have remained president had he wanted to, provided he won the election. Instead, he established the precedent that presidential power was something entrusted to an individual temporarily and then peacefully handed to someone else.
Perhaps one of the greatest demonstrations of Washington’s leadership, therefore, was not something he did while exercising power. It was his willingness to give it up, and the fact there had not been someone occupying the office before him made his act all the more remarkable.
Eisenhower Didn’t Need to Be the Smartest Man in the Room
Dwight Eisenhower demonstrated the same principle differently.
Eisenhower commanded perhaps the most complicated military coalition in history. The Allied war effort in Europe included enormous armies, navies and air forces; competing national interests; difficult personalities; political pressures; and commanders with considerable egos of their own.
Eisenhower’s genius wasn’t that he was the best battlefield tactician among them. He wasn’t – not by a longshot. But that wasn’t his job. His genius was his ability to make the organization work.
He surrounded himself with talented people. He listened. He mediated disputes. He possessed a deft diplomatic touch. He was likable. He absorbed criticism. He gave subordinates room to operate. And perhaps most importantly, he understood that his job wasn’t to prove that Dwight Eisenhower was indispensable.
His job was to accomplish the mission, and that’s a very different, albeit profoundly significant, conception of leadership. Some leaders want to be the person everyone turns to for the answer. It feels good to be indispensable. But indispensability can actually be evidence of poor leadership.
If every important decision must pass through you, if nobody can act without your approval, and if the organization struggles whenever you leave the room, you may have created something impressive—but you haven’t really done a good job in leading the organization.
Eisenhower’s approach was different. SHAEF existed to accomplish something larger than Ike, and his job was there to help the organization accomplish it.
The Same Test Applies in Business
The business world has its own versions of the indispensable leader.
We celebrate transformational CEOs. Business books turn them into celebrities. Their personalities become intertwined with their companies until it becomes difficult to imagine one without the other. Think Jack Welch at GE, Steve Jobs at Apple, or Warren Buffett (and Charlie Munger) at Berkshire Hathaway. However, I’m increasingly convinced that one of the best tests of executive leadership happens after the executive leaves.
Consider Costco.
Jim Sinegal was one of the defining figures in the company’s development. He co-founded Costco in 1983 and spent decades helping create its distinctive culture—one built around employee compensation, customer loyalty, operational discipline and an almost obsessive focus on delivering value (while still keeping hot dogs at $1.50).
When Sinegal stepped down as CEO in 2012, Costco was already an extraordinary success. In fiscal 2012, the company generated about $97 billion in net sales, earned $1.7 billion in net income, and operated 608 warehouses worldwide. But what I find particularly interesting is that Costco didn’t need Jim Sinegal to remain Jim Sinegal’s company. His vision remained, and what he built remains to this day and continues to grow, but Sinegal didn’t have to remain in the chair for that to happen.
By fiscal 2025, Costco’s net sales had grown to nearly $270 billion and net income to $8.1 billion. The company had expanded to 914 warehouses worldwide, while membership-fee revenue had grown to more than $5.3 billion. In other words, after one of the most important leaders in Costco’s history left the CEO’s office, annual sales nearly tripled, profits increased almost fivefold, and the company added more than 300 warehouses.
That’s not an argument that Sinegal wasn’t important. I think it’s evidence of just how important he was. He helped build something that didn’t require him to remain at the center of it. The culture, operating principles and organization were strong enough to continue under the leaders who followed him.
That may be one of the greatest compliments we can give a leader: What you built kept working after you left.
Leadership Is Stewardship
I’ve spent much of my career around organizations in small towns and rural communities. In those environments, the line between a leader and an institution can become especially blurry. A CEO may serve for twenty or thirty years (my father ran Kanza Coop in south-central Kansas for thirty-six years). A general manager may know generations of the same families. Employees and customers may come to associate the organization with one individual.
That longevity can be an enormous strength, but if not respected, it can create a dangerous illusion. None of us owns an organization simply because we lead it (especially in farmer cooperatives – it belongs to the farmer).
We are stewards. Our responsibility is to take whatever has been entrusted to us, make it stronger, and eventually hand it to someone else. That means developing people who might someday replace us. We need to build systems that don’t depend upon our personal involvement. We must allow talented people to receive credit. We absolutely have to protect the credibility of the office even when doing so conflicts with our personal interests.
Sometimes, it means recognizing when it is time to leave.
What Happens When You’re Gone?
Ask yourself “what happens to this place if I’m not here?” If it completely goes away or falls apart, that’s not evidence of your importance…..it’s evidence that you don’t have a resilient structure. Your organization is not built for the long haul.
Washington understood that the American presidency had to survive George Washington.
Eisenhower understood that Allied victory couldn’t depend upon Dwight Eisenhower personally solving every problem.
Successful business leaders understand that a company must eventually operate without the person currently sitting in the CEO’s chair.
Will it look different under new people in charge? Absolutely, but looking different and success are two different things.
I’ve said for years that for a person in a leadership role to earn my respect, they must first respect the office they hold. I don’t care if you’re the local football coach, a GM at the feed company, or the President of the United States – you had better respect the role you’re in. It’s my foundational approach to leadership. Think about it in the places we live. Our role in the chair is temporary – time is undefeated. But organizations, institutions and communities can last much longer.
Leadership isn’t about making yourself indispensable. It’s about accepting responsibility for something that existed before you and, hopefully, will continue long after you are gone.
The office is bigger than the person, and the best leaders never forget it.