Sun Tzu ‘s first fault of leadership, recklessness, certainly is clear in meaning and scope. It is easy to point out examples of immature and lazy behaviors and declare them reckless.
The next fault, Cowardice, is slightly more challenging.
Some leaders would defend their recklessness as a point of pride. They fail to see how their actions affect the totality of the results. However, nearly every leader would deny Cowardice. This hurdle of acknowledgement makes it more difficult to overcome.
Cowardice can mean self-protective. Leaders who are highly risk averse will ultimately fail to achieve a significant vision. Status quo leaders often lose ground, lose followers, and lose to competitors. Fear of fear itself (or fear of failure) are ruinous to the leader and ultimately the organization.
Tzu said the cowardly leader would be captured by the enemy. He meant that such a leader would be so frozen in inaction and indecision because of the fear of negative consequences that he would be overrun by the opposing army. However, cowardly leaders can just as easily be overrun by others inside their own organization. Those vying for promotions and attention (and who avoid reckless actions) that can cope with risk taking serve as better leaders.
The anxiety of inaction can lead to revolt as well. Followers may simply walk away, as cowardice cannot command loyalty.
Is a proclivity to cowardly thinking a product of nature or nurture? It is both? Can it be modified? Neuroleadership studies will help make that call in the future. For right now we know that anxiety of all sorts can be managed and worked on. Leaders must make the first step toward admitting the problem. Only then can this fault of leadership begin to be resolved.
Pingback: The 5 Faults of Leadership – #4 Thin Skin | Matthew Iscoe Articles