The world often equates leadership with extroversion and loud volume, yet someone like Dag Hammarskjold stands as a remarkable example of how quiet strength and introspection can guide even the most complex and demanding organizations. As the second Secretary-General of the United Nations, Hammarskjold led the UN through some of the most turbulent international crises of the last century, all while remaining true to his introverted nature. In her upcoming book, author Sara Causey explores how Hammarskjold’s thoughtful, reflective approach to leadership not only defied conventional expectations but also offered a powerful model for companies everywhere. We sat down with Sara to discuss how Hammarskjold’s style allowed him to lead with a calm, decisive hand, proving that introverted leaders can be just as effective – if not more so – than their extroverted counterparts.
What sparked your interest in this topic?
My own introversion certainly played a part. I’ve heard it said before that all biographies carry at least a whiff of autobiography, and I think that’s probably true. As an introvert who’s been in management roles myself, I know what it’s like to get the standard corporate speech: “No, Sara, you don’t have to go to Billy Bob’s barbeque get-together on Saturday, but it would really look good if you did…” and so on. Every self-described introvert that I interviewed for the book had at least one absolute horror story of a boss who treated them like a second-class citizen for not wanting to play the social game at work. It’s really a shame because the workplace does not have to be that way. It’s wholly unnecessary and it’s framed by the notion that extroversion is the ideal human temperament and anything else is aberrant. In Dag’s case, he was portrayed by the media and contemporary biographers as cold, distant, unknowable, and downright weird, which is untrue. In modernity, it seems to me that current writers focus on Dag’s massive intellect, which – perhaps inadvertently, I’m not sure – furthers the image of Dag as some snooty academic who looked down his nose at everyone else. This stereotype is also false. As I got to know Dag and I was able to see Dag Hammarskjold the human being, I wanted other people to see the amazing person that I saw.
What qualities do you think made Dag Hammarskjold an effective leader? Was it because of his introversion or in spite of it?
Dag understood that diplomacy was very often a fragile process, and it could be destroyed if someone stomped around and bloviated to the press like an angry bull. He was living in the atomic age and there was great fear that the Cold War would escalate into nuclear cataclysm. Later, during the 1960s, we see this terror portrayed in dark satire by Kubrick in Dr. Strangelove and more seriously by Lumet in Fail Safe. Where other leaders opined to the press and tried to play nice with the gossip columnists, Dag kept his mouth shut. So I think if we’re summarizing it, we could look at traits like discretion, patience, and empathy. Within the UN, Dag had inherited a bit of a mess when he took the job of Secretary-General. He went through the building and met with every employee individually. He also instituted informal coffee hours for his staff where people could come in and express their opinions, criticisms, and ideas with no fear of reprisal. We have to remember that Dag assumed the role of Secretary-General in 1953. This was long before terms like psychological safety and workplace belonging became part of normal parlance. But Dag was leading with those concepts in mind. People who think introverts are incapable of any type of social interaction are mistaken. Dag wasn’t the loudest, wildest person in the room, but he certainly possessed emotional intelligence, which is much more important.
Many people assume that leaders need to be extroverted to succeed. How did Dag challenge this stereotype during his time as Secretary-General of the United Nations?
Oh yes, we definitely see this idea in Corporate America. But I would say we likewise see it in the political arena. It’s like, “Whoever shouts the loudest and gets the most obnoxious wins!” There’s an interesting juxtaposition, I think, between Dag and his predecessor. Trygve Lie, the first UN Secretary-General, was more of a quintessential extrovert. He freely gabbed to the press and liked to rub shoulders with the swells at the local tennis club. Conversely, Dag was quiet and much preferred to spend a free evening curled up with a book of poetry in his study. But it was Dag who really defined what the role of UN Secretary-General could be. In many ways he became the gold standard, and I remember Kofi Annan once describing Dag as a “lodestar.” Dag himself believed that the Secretary-General should inspire UN member nations to settle their differences via negotiations rather than warfare. As I mentioned, Dag also took it upon himself to meet every single UN employee from the basement to the top floor. He traveled all over the world including to active hot spots throughout his tenure, so the idea that an introverted manager cannot interact with people enough to lead them is total hogwash.
How did Dag balance that introspective, poetry-reading side of himself with the public nature of his role?
I’m sure it probably felt like he was walking a tightrope at times. In press conferences, he would say what he felt was appropriate and refuse to leak information that could interfere with diplomatic relations. He took the idea of impartiality seriously and he did not wish to say anything that could even slightly be framed as playing favorites. Remember: he was working during the Cold War. The US and USSR were both lying in wait to pounce on any comment perceived as favoring the other superpower. When Dag had leisure time, which admittedly became less and less, he liked to read, bicycle, hike, climb mountains, and go camping. He was also an accomplished translator who spoke Swedish, English, German, and French fluently. The newspapers frequently mentioned that he was a bachelor who should hurry up and get married, but he refused to get in the mud and play that game with them. Dag led a monastic life, devoted to his work, and he didn’t feel that his privacy should be compromised for cheap tabloid fodder.
Given that you identify with Dag’s introversion, how did your own personal understanding of introversion shape the way you wrote about him?
That’s a great question. To give you an example, Dag was at a cocktail party one evening after he had become Secretary-General, and it was painfully obvious that several unmarried women were after him. It was also clear that they didn’t care about Dag the person but were jockeying to become “Mrs. UN.” I think probably every introvert has been in a situation where they looked at the clock and wondered what the magic amount of time was to not appear rude at an event but to also escape with their sanity intact. I know I have been! I think a lot of introverts also have a built-in detector for things like false flattery and people who are running their own agendas. So while I can’t identify with running a massive organization with thousands of people, I can identify with the discomfort of being tossed into awkward situations with individuals who have their own schemes. Dag always handled it with aplomb.
What advice would you give to introverts today who aspire to lead in large, influential organizations, based on what you’ve learned from Dag’s life and work?
Never allow someone to convince you that you’re unable to step into a leadership role because of introversion. As a society, we need to move away from this archaic idea that unless a person is loud and overly gregarious, they cannot be an amazing public speaker, a talented manager, an agent of change. Know yourself. Know your strengths and lean into them. They will serve you well.
Sara is gearing up for the release of her book later this year or early next. In the meantime, you can keep up with her at https://saracausey.com/.
