Leadership Is Not a Popularity Contest

Posted on October 22nd, 2024

Why Professional Distance Is Often Underrated

Contemporary discussions of leadership increasingly emphasise empathy, accessibility and harmonious working relationships. These are valuable qualities, but they can become misleading when they suggest that effective leadership should be largely free of conflict. Organisations do not succeed because every decision is popular; they succeed when people understand their responsibilities, exercise sound judgement and accept accountability for results.

Terms such as “New Leadership”, “People First” and “flat hierarchies” have become part of the management vocabulary. Yet the language of empowerment is of little consequence if the organisation denies its people the authority to act. A pleasant working atmosphere cannot substitute for clear decision-making structures.

Responsibility Must Come with Authority

I recall joining an organisation to support a substantial transformation process. Expecting the familiar obstacles of internal politics, territorial interests and resistance to change, I was struck instead by the initiative and discipline of its leadership team. Decisions were taken promptly, problems addressed directly and responsibility accepted without the usual attempts to pass it elsewhere.

The explanation was instructive. Executives possessed genuine decision-making authority, rather than merely symbolic titles. Their participation in the company’s performance also connected individual responsibility to collective outcomes. In such circumstances, ownership was not a slogan imposed from above; it was a practical consequence of the organisation’s design.

Too many institutions demand entrepreneurial thinking while retaining approval procedures that discourage initiative. When people are expected to deliver results but are not trusted to make consequential decisions, a culture of self-protection can readily replace one of responsibility.

Professional Distance Is Not a Lack of Empathy

Leadership requires the ability to listen, support and motivate. It also requires the courage to challenge inadequate performance, resolve disagreements and make decisions that may disappoint colleagues. These responsibilities become more difficult when professional relationships are confused with the obligation to be personally liked.

I used to tell my leadership teams, somewhat provocatively, that “friends are not made inside companies.” The remark was never intended to prohibit friendship or encourage an impersonal workplace. Its purpose was to distinguish personal affection from professional obligation. Fairness, respect and compassion are entirely compatible with clear roles, objective assessment and necessary criticism.

Language can reinforce or weaken those boundaries. In Germany, for example, the choice between formal and informal address still carries cultural significance, although practices differ considerably across organisations and generations. A first-name culture may encourage openness; it does not, by itself, establish trust or equality. Equally, a measure of professional distance need not imply arrogance. What matters is whether the chosen culture supports clarity, mutual respect and responsible conduct.

The Courage Not to Be Everybody’s Darling

Another saying I have shared with executive teams is deliberately sharper: “Don’t be everybody’s darling — because everybody’s darling is everybody’s fool.” Behind the provocation lies a serious point. Leaders who make universal approval their principal objective risk sacrificing consistency and judgement whenever a difficult decision arises.

This is not an argument for authoritarian behaviour. Authority without accountability is as problematic as consensus without direction. Good leadership combines the willingness to hear dissent with the responsibility to reach a decision, explain its rationale and stand by its consequences.

Leadership Across Cultures

International assignments make these tensions particularly visible. The enthusiasm of arriving in a new country can gradually give way to the more demanding realities of cultural adaptation, unfamiliar communication styles, operational pressure and distance from established personal networks. In my experience, some of the most revealing challenges emerge only after the initial period of adjustment.

Technical expertise and ambition are therefore not sufficient qualifications for international leadership. Equally important are cultural humility, emotional resilience and the ability to exercise sound judgement without relying on familiar institutional conventions. Effective expatriate leaders do not simply reproduce the habits of their home country; they learn to distinguish enduring principles from practices that must adapt to local circumstances.

Throughout my career, the most convincing leaders have rarely been those who commanded the most attention. They were the individuals who could assess a situation carefully, take a decision when necessary and accept responsibility for its consequences. That, rather than personal popularity, is a more meaningful measure of leadership.

Originally published on 22 October 2024. Editorially revised in 2026.