Leading When You Are No Longer Popular
There comes a moment in most leadership tenures when approval fades.
It may follow a termination. A budget cut. A disciplinary action. A policy change. It may follow a decision that is legally sound but emotionally unpopular. However it arrives, the shift is unmistakable. Conversations cool. Support quiets. The room feels different.
For municipal leaders, this moment is inevitable.
Public service positions are not sustained by applause. They are sustained by responsibility. Yet many leaders underestimate how deeply they rely on approval — from employees, from elected officials, from segments of the community.
As chief, I learned that popularity and effectiveness rarely rise and fall together.
Early in a tenure, energy is high. Expectations are generous. Relationships are forming. But as standards tighten and accountability increases, resistance often follows. Employees who once expressed enthusiasm may express frustration. Council members who were comfortable with general goals may grow uneasy when those goals require difficult decisions.
The temptation is to soften.
Delay the discipline. Adjust the standard. Frame the decision differently. Seek consensus where clarity is needed.
But leadership anchored to popularity becomes reactive. It shifts with the loudest voices rather than the strongest principles.
Leading when you are no longer popular requires a quiet recalibration. It forces a leader to ask: Was the decision lawful? Was it consistent with policy? Was it aligned with the organization’s stated values? If the answer is yes, discomfort alone is not reason to retreat.
This does not mean ignoring criticism. In fact, unpopular seasons require greater listening. Criticism can reveal blind spots. It can expose communication gaps. It can uncover unintended consequences. But listening does not require surrender.
One of the hardest realities of municipal leadership is that trust is often proven, not by how leaders act when supported, but by how they act when isolated.
During difficult seasons in my tenure, I learned to narrow my focus. Communicate clearly. Document thoroughly. Maintain consistency. Avoid personalizing resistance. Above all, avoid retaliatory leadership. When approval declines, it is easy to grow defensive or withdrawn. That posture deepens division.
Instead, steadiness matters.
Employees watch closely during these periods. They measure whether standards hold. Council members observe whether pressure alters direction. The community senses whether leadership is reactive or composed.
Popularity often returns in cycles. Sometimes it does not. But credibility, once compromised to regain favor, is difficult to rebuild.
Municipal leadership carries authority entrusted by the public. That authority is not designed to preserve comfort; it is designed to preserve order, fairness, and integrity.
There is a difference between being respected and being liked.
In the long arc of public service, respect sustains institutions. Popularity sustains moments.
Leading when you are no longer popular is not a failure of leadership. It may be evidence that leadership is being exercised.
Bibliography
International City/County Management Association (ICMA). ICMA Code of Ethics and Guidelines. Available at: https://icma.org/code-ethics
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). Ethical Leadership and Organizational Integrity Resources. Available at: https://www.theiacp.org
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office). Building Trust and Legitimacy in Policing. Available at: https://cops.usdoj.gov
Heifetz, R., & Linsky, M. Leadership on the Line: Staying Alive Through the Dangers of Leading. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Walker, S., & Archbold, C. A. The New World of Police Accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
