Why Fear-Based Leadership Doesn't Work on Political Campaigns: Part 1/5

Despite the cowardice of American politics in general, campaigns continue to churn out resilient professionals. Professionals that, essentially, fear...absolutely nothing.

Although fear-based messaging is a tool that mass media attempts to leverage for manipulating American voters, leadership by way of an iron-fist is not one that candidates typically employ with their staff. And it's a reason why many political operatives find the transition to corporate America challenging if they ever attempt to bridge that gap. I did. And so, the idea for this five-part article was born of a conversation with my friend, Nic.

I was an outdoor cat that was brought inside. And sometimes, outdoor cats have a hard time adjusting to being indoors. More on that below...fans of "The Office" will understand.

My friends and colleagues that served on campaigns or in political organizations and have gone out into the corporate world - because eventually you have to feed yourself and your family - are the most formidable professionals I know. They are courageous, forthright, decisive, and willing to take risks. They absorb an organization's mission as their own. But above all - they are resilient. They bring great value to their employers because they work out of a sense of freedom (that is not reckless but measured and strategic) that comes from being unafraid of loss.

Over the years, I have had the professional privilege of being exposed to a multitude of leadership styles. Sometimes I was on the receiving end, and other times, I was simply observing how others responded to being led. What I observed on campaigns (as both beneficiary and spectator of political leadership) was that:

Fear-based leadership is useless when the people you are leading have no fear.

Political operatives will roll the dice on pretty much…anything, brace for impact, and absorb whatever the outcome.

The transient nature of political work and the waxing and waning of election cycles forces operatives to find new jobs or clients regularly. This creates a resilience in political professionals that I believe goes unmatched in other sectors. Whether they remain in the public sector or are transplanted into the private, these individuals are simply unafraid of "an end." And when you're unafraid of an end, the threat of an end ceases to be motivating.

It is my experience that when political operatives leave their work, they tend to do so confirmed in their decision, with confidence in reorienting and redirecting themselves, and generally optimistic about alternative options now open to them.

They land on their feet.

Veiled threats of benefits being revoked, downsizing or layoffs, performance plans that hinge on circumstances outside of an employee’s control, and other fear-based motivation tools just aren’t in a candidate's leadership toolbox. And if they were to be experimented with - operatives would walk out the front door of a donor-funded store front serving as a campaign office, and not look back.

In Episode 18, Season 7 of "The Office" (I know them all...) Michael Scott considers assigning his traveling Dunder Mifflin salesman Todd Packer, to a desk. When addressing the "behavioral" transition that needs to take place from the road to in-house, Michael says to Packer, "You've been an outdoor cat. And now, you gotta be an indoor cat."

Political operatives are outdoor cats. And for an outdoor cat, acclimation to an indoor environment can be hard. The resilient and resourceful survive outside. Being fired in a word-of-mouth, reputation and referral-based business is simply not an option. Relationships amongst political operatives can be extrapolated like Kevin Bacon's Six Degrees of Separation. Good operatives don’t want to work for fearmongering, abusive, or difficult candidates – and so they don’t. And candidates who want to be successful know this and employ more effective leadership styles that don’t include exerting fear-based pressure so that operatives want to work for them.

This entire line of reasoning presumes the productivity of operatives since the relationship between them and their boss is truly symbiotic. I'll cover that in Part 3. But long story short, your boss won’t get elected or survive re-election without a team worth their salt.

Operatives land on their feet. But like anyone else, we'd all prefer to not take a tumble in the first place.

As a campaign staffer or consultant of any political sort, your candidates win and lose. Your boss is loyal to their staff and takes you for the ride, or they don't. Your horse is challenging an incumbent with no chance of success, but their opposition has immense importance from a value/ethics-based perspective and you're willing to support their sacrificial lamb candidacy.

Operatives take a lot of heat for being "hacks."

But for the most part, we are all hacks with heart. And at the end of the day, everyone is a hack for something. But you don't make politics a career if you don't have the heart. Whether you allow it to become corrupted along the way...that is another matter altogether. But having served many first-time candidates - most hearts don't come to the game corrupted, in my experience. And that's also true of staff.

When people have heart for what they do, they cease to perceive professional realities with dread: losses, highs and lows, or the need to leave a job for any given reason. Fear loses control over the decision-making process.

Resilience that comes from "having heart" keeps operatives hopeful when traversing uncertain terrain. And that’s a valuable life skill, not just a professional one.

When the boss can’t threaten you with "an end" that you're afraid of, wielding fear-based leadership tactics doesn't come into play.

Fear-based leadership in politics serves neither the candidate nor staff. Both parties recognize this.

It is strikingly ironic that in a business where mutual agreement almost never takes place (anymore), this unspoken rule seems to govern the relationship between candidate and operative on functional campaigns.

It is my great hope that leaders in other industries will one-day forego all forms of fear-based leadership. Ultimately, it doesn't work and everyone loses.

The resilience in this article mostly refers to a state of mind and an attitude. But there is also a resilience that comes from having nothing.

When you have nothing, you have nothing to lose. Now, I'm mostly referring to the physical reality of cash. When you have a lot to lose (money), that's where fear-based leadership tends to rear its ugly head...

And that's for Part 2....