Toxic leadership

During these last four years, I have heard and read the word “sycophant” more times than I ever wished to. Its definition reads “a person who acts obsequiously towards someone important in order to gain advantage”. This word has become a mainstay in the daily media reporting of the Trump administration and is used to qualify the attitude of the president’s entourage and to understand how one of the most corrupt occupants of the White House has been able to yield so much power and influence. For Trump does not act alone.

Voters are not sycophants but indirect accomplices and Trump has attracted many. In fact, he received more than 72 million votes in the general election, by far the most votes ever received by a losing presidential candidate in US history. What is it about this man that fascinates and attracts so many voters? James Carville, Bill Clinton’s chief strategist in the 1992 presidential election famously offered the principal explanation for all election outcomes: “It’s the economy, stupid.” This “one size fits all” explanation is attractive but not convincing. The US economy has performed well for decades apart from the financial crisis in 2008 from which it bounced back with surprising speed. Economic success is thus not a Trump achievement. And then there is the pandemic which has so far killed more than 250.000 Americans during his presidency. Even for this failure, Trump has been largely absolved by his base. So what’s cooking?

In 2004 the American leadership scholar Jean Lipman-Blumen penned a book with the title “The Allure of Toxic Leaders” where she reminds us that leadership is an interaction; a sophisticated dance between leaders and followers. In this interaction, perception is what counts, not facts. Leadership is all about the ability to create an identification between the leader’s persona and the values and yearnings espoused by followers. And on this point, the principal component of any leadership, nobody can deny that Trump has been a grandmaster politician. So, while main street media continue to hurl well-founded accusations and proofs, such accusations only embolden Trump supporters in their conviction that their vision of America is under attack. So beyond this identification which bonds together leaders and followers, what is the difference between toxic/destructive leaders and “constructive” counterparts? Lipman-Blumen outlines six main characteristics of toxic leadership:

• Lack of integrity and honesty. Lying to followers to bolster a powerful vision.
• Outsized ambition that puts the leader's quest for glory above the well-being of others.
• Egotism and arrogance that foster incompetence and corruption.
• Actions that "intimidate, demoralize, demean and marginalize" others.
• Breaching opponents' and followers' basic human rights, and stifling criticism.
• Holding tight to power by undermining potential successors.

The phenomenon of toxic leaders forces us recognize the great ambiguity we all entertain in regards to leadership as such. On the one hand, we want strong and charismatic leaders in government, public administration and business who are capable of formulating new visions and ambitions, and inspiring followers to take on new challenges. Indeed there is a whole leadership industry, of which I’m a part, that trains managers in the art of becoming just such transformational leaders; bold leaders who are willing to accomplish much and not afraid of challenging the status quo. At the same time, we want to retrain our autonomy and ability to criticise leaders and, if need be, replace those who infringe upon our rights and threaten our self-determination. It is perhaps precisely this ambiguity that we need to uphold in order to maintain a critical distance and sound reflection on the kind of leadership our countries and organisations need in the coming decades. For Lipman-Blumen such a critical reflection starts with ourselves and our ability to resist the most deviant and destructive forms. She suggests five strategies to kick the dependency of toxic leaders:

• "Matriculating in the school of anxiety" – Confront the fear and worry of challenging a toxic leader. Exercising courage will make you stronger.
• "Seeking the leader within and strengthening democratic institutions" – Become independent. Use democracy to foster good leaders and vote out bad ones.
• "Demanding leaders who disillusion us" – Toxic leaders spread false comfort through their visions. Instead, embrace reality and live up to the demands of authenticity.
• "Kicking the vision habit and the we/they dichotomy" – Be willing to strive without being reassured that you are extra special and that a happy ending is in sight.
• "Drafting the next generation of leaders" – See leadership as a duty, not a privilege.

More recently, the American historian Timothy Synder has formulated “Twenty lessons from the Twentieth Century” in his little book “On Tyranny” which offers a fine complement to Lipman-Blumen’s reflection. In the book’s final section entitled “Be as courageous as you can”, Snyder warns of what he terms as the “politics of inevitability”, i.e. the conviction that history moves unrelentingly in the direction of liberal democracy. This conviction is a self-induced intellectual coma, he argues, which disengages us from our responsibility of resisting the worst and contributing to furthering the best possible way forward. In the final analysis, we have the leaders we deserve and come to accept. Toxic leaders need to be called out for what they are: a mirror of our lesser selves that we have a responsibility to confront and redress.