Is it enough for leaders to be competent, honest, and principled? Or is something more needed, even if that something comes at the expense of competence, honesty, and principles?

That’s a central question for people like me who are interested in both “what” gets done and “how” it gets done. Usually, this question is framed as whether the ends justify the means (often via an examination of Robert Moses’ career). But, Grover Cleveland – who is pictured on today’s #stampoftheday – is reminder that sometimes the question goes in the other direction.

When scholars rate presidents, very few (if any) contend that Cleveland – who was president from 1883 to 1887 and again from 1893 to 1897 – was a great president. On the other hand, very few (if any) assert that Cleveland – who is the only person to be serve two non-consecutive terms as president and was the only Democrat elected president between 1860 and 1912 – was a terrible president. Indeed, very few think that Cleveland – who had a meteoric rise to power going from being a reformer mayor of Buffalo to governor of New York in a year and then to the presidency two years after that – was a mediocre president.

Rather, most assessments of Cleveland – who is pictured on a 12-cent stamp issued on March 20, 1923 – note that while he wasn’t able to address the economic crises created by the Panic of 1893, he was honest, had integrity, and adhered to his principles. As historian Allan Nevins wrote in 1932, “in Grover Cleveland, the greatness lies in typical rather than unusual qualities. He had no endowments that thousands of men do not have. He possessed honesty, courage, firmness, independence, and common sense. But he possessed them to a degree other men do not.”

In a somewhat similar vein, writing on the website of the University of Virginia’s Miller Center for the presidential leadership, historian Henry Graff, asserted: “Although not a great President, Cleveland almost single-handedly restored and strengthened the power and autonomy of the executive branch.”, positions that left him ill-equipped to respond to the mid-1890s economic crisis. also “laid claim to a strong presidency in ways that had lasting impact,” such as his controversial decision to call out federal troops during the Pullman strike in 1894, sending warships to Panama, and threatening Britain with war over a boundary dispute with Venezuela.” And, Graff notes, while he was honest and principled, he also “comes across as much more racially intolerant,” especially when compared to Lincoln and both Roosevelts – all presidents who didn’t have a pristine record on racial issues.

“In the final analysis,” Graff contends, Cleveland “had no real vision for the future, nor was he interested in articulating one…In his mind, it was enough for him to be hard working, honest, and independent. These are virtues in a small town mayor, perhaps, and necessary attributes in a President in times of political corruption-but no real basis for greatness in an era of severe economic depression, populist insurgency, and increasing prominence on the world scene.”

Of course, we want our leaders to both have vision and be “hard working, honest, and independent.” But which is most important at the margin?

One answer to the question can be found in “From Little Napoleons to Tall Tacticians,” a piece about the five types of baseball managers written years ago by Thomas Boswell, the Washington Post’s longtime baseball writer. In this essay, which is one of my favorite pieces on management and leadership, Boswell asserts there are four basic types of baseball managers: “Little Napoleons,” “Peerless Leaders,” “Tall Tacticians,” and “Uncle Robbies.” None of these is likely to be more successful than the other. Indeed, he shows there have been roughly equal numbers of spectacularly successful managers who fit each category and there also have also been roughly equal numbers of spectacularly bad managers from each category.

He concludes: “to be great, a manager certainly needs a trump suit-whether it be passion, brains, character or wisdom. But to an almost equal degree a manager-or should we say a person-needs to achieve a balance in his ‘off’ suits. He must cultivate secondary strengths while compensating for his weaknesses.”

Cleveland brought an unusual degree of integrity to the presidency. He also began to articulate a more muscular version of the presidency, one that was clearly needed to respond to the changes wrought by industrialization and urbanization. But he apparently lacked both vision and an awareness that he had that deficit and the willingness to do something about it.

In the end, Boswell argues, “however the traces of Napoleon, Leader, Tactician, and Uncle may be woven into a manager’s personality, one trait is essential, that rare appetite for making difficult and public decisions with millions looking over your shoulder.” Boswell goes on to quote Hall of Fame manager Whitey Herzog, who told him: “Don’t hold back. If you’re going to do something, then do it. Don’t apologize. Lose it your way or win it your way.”

“Then,” Boswell added, Herzog, who managed Kansas City Royals teams that lost several American League Championship Series to the Yankees in the late 1970s, “instinctively [thought] back to the worst moment in his career: the ninth inning of the fifth [and final] game of the ’77 playoffs against the Yankees, when his Royals had a one-run lead until he played a hunch and lost the pennant” by bringing in Dennis Leonard, a starter to try and close the game.

“‘Damn,'” says Herzog, ‘I’d still bring in Dennis Leonard.”

Or, as Cleveland said on his death bed: “I have tried so hard to do right.”

Be well, stay safe, “don’t hold back,” fight for justice, and work for peace.