In his latest work, “Profits, Prophets, Coaches, and Kings: (When) Do Leaders Matter?”, author and scholar Jared Diamond seeks to challenge the traditional view of the great leader by introducing what he terms the “Hamlet Test.” Diamond, who has gained acclaim for his ability to weave together science and history into engaging narratives, previously earned the Pulitzer Prize in 1998 for his book “Guns, Germs and Steel,” which explores the reasons behind the dominance of certain civilizations over others. In this new publication, he continues to blend these disciplines; however, his arguments appear less compelling.
Diamond identifies three prevailing theories regarding effective leadership. The first posits that leaders are extraordinary individuals who influence the course of history (the heroic leader concept). The second asserts that leaders have little to no real impact. The third perspective, which Diamond favors, suggests that the effectiveness of leaders varies based on the circumstances, indicating that others might have achieved the same successes, or potentially even surpassed them, under similar conditions.
To evaluate when leaders truly make a difference, Diamond proposes the Hamlet Test, which assesses a leader’s accomplishments by determining whether those achievements could have been matched or exceeded by their contemporaries. The rationale behind this name is that Diamond believes no playwright of Shakespeare’s era could have created a work as exceptional as “Hamlet.” A leader who stands out like Shakespeare would successfully pass this test.
Utilizing this framework, Diamond examines various “natural experiments,” comparing similar historical events to assess the impact of particular leaders in politics, business, sports, and religion. However, merely making a difference does not guarantee passing the Hamlet Test.
For example, figures such as Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, and Mark Zuckerberg are evaluated. While their leadership styles made significant impacts, Diamond argues they do not compare in influence to pioneers like Lynda and Stewart Resnick, who were instrumental in establishing the pomegranate juice market. Additionally, he commends Seretse Khama, Botswana’s first president, for transforming his nation into a notable success story in Africa, contrasting him with historical figures like Adolf Hitler and Winston Churchill. Diamond asserts that Khama’s unique position and education enabled him to accomplish what he did.
According to Diamond, “These five business leaders made a difference, but not in the same way that Seretse Khama and the Resnicks did. Without Khama and the Resnicks, Botswana’s prosperity and the pomegranate juice industry might not exist today. Conversely, our five business leaders’ absence would not eliminate the existence of online shopping, personal computers, smartphones, social media, and electric vehicles.” He acknowledges that while these leaders may not pass the Hamlet Test, their contributions have still been impactful.
“Profits, Prophets, Coaches and Kings” is filled with such evaluations as Diamond analyzes various leaders, their effectiveness, and the possibility that others could have performed equally well.
Although the Hamlet Test appears impressive initially, a closer examination reveals its shortcomings. Diamond’s assertion that no one else could have authored “Hamlet” rests on the belief that Shakespeare was a uniquely gifted playwright. He states, “We can argue convincingly that Shakespeare was one of a kind. We can be certain that no other Elizabethan playwright could have crafted a masterpiece like ‘Hamlet’ had Shakespeare not done so, as we can identify and assess all the limited competitors he had.”
However, this claim overlooks Christopher Marlowe, a contemporary of Shakespeare and creator of notable works such as “Doctor Faustus” and “Tamburlaine,” who many consider comparable to Shakespeare before his early demise at 29. It is widely accepted that Marlowe’s innovations, including the popularization of unrhymed prose, influenced Shakespeare’s later successes, and there is speculation that he may have collaborated on some of Shakespeare’s early pieces.
Given that “Hamlet” was penned between 1599 and 1601, after Marlowe’s death, it seems unjust to state that Marlowe couldn’t have produced a comparable play. Furthermore, using literature, a subjective field, to evaluate the capabilities of various authors poses significant challenges.
Additionally, assuming comprehensive knowledge of all of a leader’s contemporaries can be presumptuous; it is difficult to ascertain whether anyone else in the same era as Bezos or Jobs would have pursued similar paths.
Diamond’s focus on leadership in sports, while neglecting military leadership—which has produced some of history’s most renowned leaders—also raises questions. Though he dedicates substantial space to political figures, he tends to skim over discussions of business, sports, and religious leadership. Readers hoping for in-depth analyses of leaders like Mahatma Gandhi (whose name is inconsistently spelled in the index and text) or Napoleon may find themselves disappointed.
This work might have benefited from broader geographical coverage and a more extensive exploration of diverse leadership styles across various domains.
