The Leadership Cowardice Depth Index (LCDI)

4 min readApr 1, 2025

The Leadership Cowardice Depth Index (LCDI) by Karl Bimshas

For reasons unrelated to the news cycle or the current day, did you know that you can calculate a leader’s depth of cowardice by measuring how quickly they deny accountability, their relative level of responsibility, and the number of personal failings or ethical lapses they’ve had before their current role?

Formula for Leadership Cowardice Depth Index (LCDI):

Where:

D (Denial Speed Factor): Time (in minutes, hours, or days) it takes for a leader to deny accountability. Faster denials increase cowardice. (Higher D = More cowardice.)
R (Responsibility Weight): Scaled value based on job title and organizational impact (e.g., CEO = 10, mid-manager = 5, supervisor = 3). (Higher R = More expected accountability.)
A (Accountability Score): Measured using leadership accountability scales (ranges from 0 to 1, with 1 being fully accountable). (Lower A = More cowardice.)
W (Workplace Culture Adjustment): Measures organizational openness to accountability, based on employee surveys (range: 0 to 1). (Toxic cultures increase the index.)
F (Failings Count): Number of known ethical lapses or personal failings. (Higher F = Somewhat expected cowardice, so it reduces the index.)
S (Severity Adjustment): Weighted sum of ethical lapses (e.g., minor missteps = +1, major scandals = +5).
C (Cognitive & Emotional Factors): Psychological measures of moral emotions and perceived accountability (scaled 0–1). (Higher C = More self-awareness, reducing the index.)

How It Works:

Leaders who deny quickly (high D) and have significant responsibility (high R) will have an inflated cowardice score.
Accountable leaders (high A) and those in open cultures (high W) will see reductions in their LCDI.
Leaders with many ethical lapses (high F and S) may already have a reputation, so their cowardice isn’t as “shocking” and is slightly reduced.
Emotionally aware leaders (high C) are less likely to deny accountability, which lowers their LCDI.

Extreme Example (High LCDI):

A CEO (R = 10) immediately blames an intern (D = 1 minute) for a financial scandal in a toxic company (W = 0.2), with low accountability (A = 0.1) and prior ethical violations (F = 2, S = 5).

LCDI Calculation:

Numerator: (1×10)+(1−0.1)×0.2=10+0.9×0.2=10+0.18=10.18(1 \times 10) + (1–0.1) \times 0.2 = 10 + 0.9 \times 0.2 = 10 + 0.18 = 10.18(1×10)+(1−0.1)×0.2=10+0.9×0.2=10+0.18=10.18 Denominator: (2+5)×0.8=7×0.8=5.6(2 + 5) \times 0.8 = 7 \times 0.8 = 5.6(2+5)×0.8=7×0.8=5.6 LCDI=10.185.6≈1.82LCDI = \frac{10.18}{5.6} \approx 1.82LCDI=5.610.18≈1.83

This LCDI of 1.83 places this leader squarely in the Cowardly Leader range — someone who avoids accountability, deflects blame, and works in a toxic culture.

LCDI Range: Understanding the Scale

0.0 or Lower — The Unicorn Leader: Nearly impossible. A leader with a negative or zero LCDI would require perfect accountability, an extraordinary ethical record, and a flawless environment of mutual trust. These leaders are nearly mythical and should be considered aspirational rather than realistic.
0.1–0.5 — The Accountable Leader: These leaders take ownership, make decisions transparently, and operate in cultures that support accountability. They demonstrate a high level of personal integrity and ethical behavior.
0.6–1.0 — The Typical Leader: Most leaders fall into this range. They may take some responsibility but are still influenced by their environment, past mistakes, and internal power dynamics. While not perfect, they aren’t malicious, either.
1.1–1.5 — The Opportunistic Leader: These leaders often deflect blame or shift responsibility. Ethical lapses may exist but tend to be ignored or downplayed. These leaders walk a fine line between accountability and avoidance.
1.6–2.0 — The Cowardly Leader: Leaders in this range consistently avoid accountability, deflect responsibility, and tend to operate in toxic environments. They have a history of ethical violations or have been previously exposed for cowardly behavior.
Above 2.0 — The Unprincipled Leader: This score suggests a leader extremely detached from ethical or moral accountability. They will go to great lengths to deny wrongdoing, take no responsibility, and rely on manipulation or deflection.

Interpreting the LCDI of 1.83

The 1.83 LCDI calculated for our CEO example clearly places this leader in the Cowardly Leader category. At this level, the leader actively avoids responsibility, works in a toxic environment, and has a history of ethical violations, all contributing to the high cowardice score.

An Unfortunate Truth

While the LCDI presents a formulaic view of cowardice in leadership, the truth is straightforward: failing to take responsibility is cowardly and frequently goes unpunished.

As leaders avoid accountability, their actions create ripples, impacting their organizations and the people within them. What’s absurd is that, despite being universally recognized as cowardly behavior, such actions often face no consequences.

You can either try this calculation in your environment or simply have heart-to-heart conversations about the seven variables within the formula.

Effective leaders shouldn’t have to make the calculations obvious, but sometimes, calling out those who avoid taking responsibility requires extraordinary effort.