Last week, I attended the 40th-anniversary reunion of my undergraduate university, a celebration of its journey from humble beginnings to becoming an established institution. The ceremony, which spanned over three hours, was followed by a pleasant reception, and throughout the event, there were various highlights. The department president delivered a well-historically, politically correct, rounded speech, supported by videos and images showcasing the university's early days, particularly the first decade of its existence. Several alumni and faculty members took the stage, offering greetings and speeches, but the panel with the founding faculty member from 40 years ago left a lasting impression.

The panel consisted of four individuals, all of whom had been part of the original faculty that rained the first two decades. Now, in their 75-85+ age range, each of them had played an active role in shaping the university, and all had served as president of the department at some point during their tenure. The first of these men, the youngest of the group and probably closer to 70, assumed the role of MC. He gave a short, polite speech expressing thanks and acknowledging the contributions of those who had come before him, though he didn't seek much attention.

The second speaker was renowned for his expertise in the field and, perhaps more notably, his deep knowledge of the technical side. He was passionate, yet his words felt like they needed to be more focused despite his enthusiasm. His eagerness was palpable, but it lacked direction. Even at his age, the fire of passion still burned brightly, but his message lacked a clear plan for how to move forward.

The third speaker, a professor during my time at the university, was more practical. As a former department president, he offered advice grounded in specific feedback and an action plan. While his advice wasn't cohesive enough to inspire a grand vision, it was practical and direct enough to give a sense of direction, potentially motivating others to follow his guidance.

The fourth individual, who had kept a relatively low profile throughout the event, was the one who caught my attention the most. His demeanor was calm and fatherly, with a gentle, grandfather-like voice. Unlike the others, he didn't praise his past accomplishments or offer unsolicited advice. When asked about the future of the department and the university, he simply said, "You're doing well. You're on the right track." He didn't offer any patronizing words or prescriptive solutions. Instead, he attributed any success during his tenure to the dedicated "lieutenants" who had supported him. He was content with where things were and seemed to have no desire to exert further influence over the institution. His message was one of quiet contentment and acknowledgment of the efforts of those who came before and after him.

I still reflect on these four men and their leadership styles a week later. What struck me wasn't just their advice about the university's future, how they delivered themselves, and the values they embodied in their leadership. Each man, in his own way, exemplified a different facet of legacy leadership.

The first leader, who stayed in the background and offered a simple thank you, may have been mediocre. His impact, while generally positive, could have been more grand. He didn't seek recognition, and his contributions, though appreciated, were manageable. But that's the beauty of his leadership: it wasn't about making waves or seeking glory but simply about making a steady, dependable impact over time.

Still eager but without a clear plan, the second leader displayed the passion that ignites others. His enthusiasm is contagious, but with a roadmap for the future, his leadership can be directionless. Nevertheless, his willingness to stay passionate in his twilight years speaks to the enduring value of energy and enthusiasm in leadership, even if it doesn't always manifest as an ideal strategy.

The third leader, who offered practical advice and clear guidance, embodied the role of a hands-on leader. His focus on details and actionable advice reflected a leadership style that values pragmatism and concrete results. His leadership had tangible value in providing actionable wisdom and guiding and reassuring those around him. However, his lack of a big-picture vision limited his ability to inspire those around him to think beyond the immediate tasks.

Finally, the fourth leader, who remained calm and content with the progress made during his time, demonstrated a different kind of leadership—one rooted in humility and appreciation for others. He didn't feel the need to impose his vision on the future; instead, he acknowledged that the current team could continue the assignments he had started. His leadership was not about creating change or making his mark but about fostering conditions in which others could thrive. In many ways, his leadership was the most profound—he didn't need to give advice because he trusted in the abilities of those who had followed in his footsteps.

Reflecting on these four figures, I'm struck by the different ways leadership can manifest and the diverse legacies that can be left behind. In this case, the future of any institution, like my university, depends not only on grand plans or visionary ideas but on many individuals' quiet, steady contributions over time. As someone still years away from having the chance to stand before a similar audience, I think about what kind of leader I want to be and how I might carry these lessons into my future.

As time allows deep reflection, leadership becomes understood more than offering flawless advice or creating numerous groundbreaking initiatives. It's about understanding one's own limitations, recognizing the contributions of others, and leaving a lasting impact in the way that feels most authentic to you. Whether through passion, practical advice, or quiet contentment, each of these leaders left their mark in a way that speaks to the diverse ways legacy leadership can shape the future and inspire us forward.

‍