At the start of the American Civil War, more than 90% of the Union and Confederate armies were volunteers. Reflecting the democratic ideals of the age, many of these units chose their commanders through a popular vote.
Leaders were chosen not for their competence, but for their popularity.
As the war raged on, the brutal realities of battle exposed a hard truth: Being liked is not the same as being effective. The consequences of choosing a leader because you liked them, rather than because of their leadership skills, cost lives.
The armies soon abandoned the approach. Leadership roles had to be earned by performance, not popularity.
Then, the lesson was learned in blood. Today, many organizations are still learning it—just in slower, quieter ways.
Popular leaders fail when they prioritize their image at the expense of their impact. You can see it in small, daily choices:
- Saying what people want to hear instead of the necessary truth.
- Avoiding conflict rather than resolving it.
- Retaining underperformers too long.
- Making the right decision too late.
These are not harmless habits. They erode confidence. They break trust. They waste time. And when left unchecked, they cost jobs.
The line between being liked and being respected can appear blurry. But leaders must define it—or risk having it defined for them.
As leaders, it’s worth exploring: Are we respected for what we deliver or liked for what we avoid?