Except you can invoke other leadership principles to counter that.
You are not "waiting around for someone else". You are "being right, a lot" and "insisting on the highest standards". It's just about how able you are to use them in your favor.
In a sense, it is all bullshit. Just like a theological debate.
I think, just like theological debate, it looks arbitrary from the outside trying to reconstruct the whole discipline from first(/leadership) principles and ignoring the scholarship that has been done in the past couple thousand years/implicit understanding that has been built in years of meetings.
When you have two or more parties saying diametrically opposite things, each citing the same texts to justify themselves, it's pretty damn arbitrary. Each side will say they have so many years of scholarship backing their position, so that turns out to be meaningless.
Reading and citing the same book, Christians have been debating whether Christ was poor for damn near a thousand years. What's more likely, they're getting their opinions from the text, or they're using the text to justify whatever their opinion already was?
You are not "waiting around for someone else". You are "being right, a lot" and "insisting on the highest standards". It's just about how able you are to use them in your favor.
In a sense, it is all bullshit. Just like a theological debate.