How to Avoid Ending Up As a "Talk and Badge" Leader

Many leaders hide behind their positions to exert control and power over others, turning their sphere of influence into a veritable fiefdom. I'll explain how to recognize the symptoms of this leadership perversion and why it's never a good idea to adopt this model.

From cinema to reality

In 1987 one of Brian De Palma's best films was released, "The Untouchables", with two giants of American cinema such as Robert De Niro as Al Capone and Kevin Costner in the role of the upright policeman who hunts him down in the setting of a Chicago between the 1920s and 1930s of the last century.

In a memorable confrontation between the two, Al Capone-De Niro insults Eliot Ness-Costner accusing him of taking advantage of his position to persecute an honest citizen without a shred of evidence, hence the famous arrow, "...you're just talk and a badge!"

Reflecting on this phrase, which I have heard repeated several times in different circumstances, I thought about how many leaders there are who fall into this category of "chatter and badge".

The chatter represents the leader's superficiality, inconclusiveness, superficiality, and lack of clarity, the few and confused ideas; the badge represents the power the leader relies on and can count on, without which he would get nowhere.

Do you see any similarities with many realities where leaders operate?

I have already had the opportunity to clarify elsewhere that the term "leader" It is not honorary, but simply describes a role that someone has given themselves or that has been assigned to them: whoever carries it out, regardless of the methods they adopt to do so, is a leader.

Whether he is an effective leader or not, ethical or not, is another matter.

4 categories of leaders

From this point of view, we can list four types of leaders:

1. The leader who is just talk
I don't even dare to imagine how he got to that position (more likely that he gave himself this title): evidently, he has great charisma... but how long can he last?

2. The leader who is only distinctive
His position is evidently legitimized by intrigues or power plays, or by his own merits within a public or parapublic structure. Perhaps he's someone's son/protégé, or he works in a bureaucratic environment (such as, for example, the state) where one can advance through compromises... or perhaps even by his own merits, but in a position that still needs to be validated by the "high spheres".

3. The "talk and badge" leader
This is the category that Al Capone said Ness fell into: someone without art or part, with little or nothing in his hands, but who knows how to sell himself well, who knows his way around and who, thanks to his connections and endless ass-kissing, has achieved a position of a certain prestige.

4. The leader who is neither talk nor badge
This is the leader we would like to be or have: a person with solid skills and abilities, with clear ideas about what to do, and, above all, who doesn't need patrons, recognition, endorsements, recommendations, or anything else.

And now a quick question: In which category would you put Al Capone and Eliot Ness, respectively?

Ethics aside

Al Capone would certainly be placed in the fourth category: very little talk and no badges. Where he got to and stayed is solely thanks to his own efforts and his... skills (if that's what we want to call them).

Eliot Ness would instead fit into the second category: little talk, but "supported" by the strength and power conferred upon him by the state, here represented by the badge.

What do you think is missing from all this reasoning? Exactly, theethics.

How is it possible, in fact, that a mafia criminal like Al Capone is evaluated here? "Better" or even just alongside an honest and courageous servant of the state like Ness?

Simply because, in this one and only circumstance, I have decided
to use evaluation parameters that deliberately do not take into account
no way take into account the moral or ethical aspect of the question, which
in reality it absolutely must be considered and requires a precise
position, but which I have left hanging here for reasoning
solely on the "functional" aspect of the thing.



A questo punto, che facciamo, però?

Come si può essere come Al Capone... senza essere "proprio" come Al Capone, cioè un leader che da una parte non appaia tutto "chiacchiere e distintivo" e, dall'altra, mantenga una solida condotta morale ed etica?

Functionality and ethics go hand in hand

Here are five attitudes I recommend adopting to maintain a fully functional leadership style, while also taking ethical considerations into account. In other words: no small talk, no badges... but the right way.

Continue to learn and implement new paths
The most important state of mind a person wants to be in is security... only after that comes the relationship.
For this reason, the first thing people look for in a leader is his competence and his sphere of control (how far his control reaches).
So the chatter is pointless: it works for a while, but then everything falls apart.
So, keep learning, keep updating yourself, and instill confidence in your team above all else.

Be concrete and follow through on your commitments.
This also concerns the appearance "no chit-chat".
It's fine to have a beautiful vision and it's fine to "sell" it, but the strategies and actions you implement to achieve it must be solid and concrete.
You can experiment, but don't take risks (without a very good reason, at least); you can break new ground, but only if you rely on solid foundations.
Improvisations are not very popular and, above all, they don't get you very far.

Shows character and firmness in decisions and principles
A firm and strong-willed character conveys confidence.
It's true that it may just be a facade and that if it isn't followed up on, trust will quickly erode, but it's still a card worth playing.
Even more important is the firmness shown in decisions made and on matters of principle: it is on these that a leader is truly measured and creates the true glue between him and his collaborators.

Demonstrates intellectual autonomy

Whether you lead a team within an organization/institution or you are a "free hitter", little changes: the point of reference remains you and your team, who measure you on this.
It's true that if you work for a company, you have to follow its policies, but if your team sees you as simply delivering instructions from above, they won't have much respect for you; if you disagree with management or certain decisions/policies, they need to see that you're willing to discuss your views and argue your case.

Always side with your team
Your team is like an extension of you, an integral part of you.
Whoever attacks your team, attacks you, even if it's the mega-galactic CEO of the organization you work for or your most important customer.
If your team makes a mistake, you are held accountable to the world, even if you had no part in what happened.
The consequences may be significant, but your leadership gains considerably.
The alternative is to do as Pilate did... (speaking of chatter and badges!)

Conclusion

There credibility It is the most important asset of any leader: without it, you have nothing, and such credibility is built on firm positions and difficult choices.

Remember: you don't have to be a leader...