Four Traits
Cowardly Leaders come in all shapes and sizes. Many are elected officials in cities and counties and school boards across the U.S. A good percentage are politically appointed and have as their primary duty the responsibility of saying “yes” whenever asked by the person who placed them there.
Regardless of the position, cowardly leaders have certain attributes in common. If you witness any of these four traits in your local leaders that cowardly leaders possess, you can be pretty confident that they are a Cowardly Leader.
I. Façade Leadership
A common tactic from cowardly leaders is to celebrate false issue victories. They elevate, or create, issues that have little importance and minor impact to their community or jurisdiction, and then celebrate those “wins” as if they were important and meaningful.
“Look, we painted the courthouse!” Ribbon-cutting. News Release. Newspaper photo.
So? You ran for office promising change and improvement (all politicians run for office on change and improvement). So what have you done about crime, drug addiction, the tax rate, raising income, improving the quality of life…?
“But, look, we painted the courthouse!”
II. Know-It-All Mentality
Have you ever been at a party where a loudmouth is exclaiming how much he knows about some subject? How long does it take before people stop listening and gravitate to the people who are quietly, confidently, having intelligent discussions? Confidence really IS sexy.
But even more than confidence, knowledge is sexy. Really knowing what you talking about, and shutting up when you don’t. False confidence and bravado? Voters aren’t the smartest subdivision of humanity, but even voters quickly see through someone who doesn’t know what he or she is talking about.
I’ve witnessed too many times people who self-proclaim their “expertise” in areas where they have no experience, no background, and no credibility. Yet, their justification is, “The people elected me, therefore I am an expert.”
III. Yes-Men (and Women)
This particular trait is most often seen in the political appointment. The person who is in their position due to the elected officials in office. They have their position as long as the office-holders have theirs. The criteria for holding their position-usually a high-profile and very well paid one- is their ability to say “yes” to the people who put them there.
I fully understand that these people are there to implement the policies of the elected officials. However, “yes-men” (I’m using the term generically; women certainly are yes-men as well) are too cowardly to challenge unwise and unsound policy directives. Their defense is: “I was ordered to make that happen.” That defense has not worked very well throughout history. Dedicated and committed professionals will challenge policy directives that they see problems with. They will offer counter-arguments, and introduce data to show why other courses of action may be appropriate. The military expects three courses of action for any operation being planned. Three different ways of getting the final result accomplished.
The “yes-man” offers no alternatives, no suggestions. It’s all about keeping that cushy, politically appointed position.
IV. Abdicate Authority
Cowardly Leaders exhibit two common traits: They declare that certain employees or positions are exempt from review due to being “indispensable,” and, they too often give their power and authority to others. In either case, they are declaring that others have unnecessary power and authority.
No employee is indispensable. The President of the United States is not indispensable, that is why we have a line of succession- the Vice-President, then the Speaker of the House, etc. No one is indispensable. Anytime you hear an elected official state that a person or position is indispensable, he or she has just shown that she is too insecure and ineffective to figure out how to govern on their own.
The second aspect is abdicating their authority. Again, any elected official who voluntarily turns over fundamental aspects of their position- aspects and responsibilities that are assigned to them- have become a cowardly leader.
Delegating is one thing. Delegating is necessary and expedient. All effective leaders delegate.
However, there is a fundamental difference in delegation and abdication. With delegation, the leader keeps the responsibility. He or she assigns a responsibility, but keeps final approval and authority. He or she makes the final call. With abdication, an official walks away from his duty and responsibility and turns it over to a subordinate with no oversight or final review. The subordinate makes the final determination.
Any of these four traits exhibited by those who manage our local government on a day-to-day basis can cause a voter to wonder about cowardly leadership tendencies. However, witnessing two or more, especially on a regular basis, and you probably have a real live cowardly leader on your hands!
Next, we will discuss what you can do about it.
II-33
