The following essay on leadership is an edit and update to one published here about 18 months ago as a podcast episode. Given it is such an important subject to business and broader life, leadership has become a core topic I have become interested in and offers a title to the forthcoming book Workplace Leadership to be published in June. More on that in a later post. Thanks for reading.

Little holds more importance to us human beings than how we are perceived. The image we present through our words, physical appearance, and behaviour tells the world who we are and what we stand for. It influences our worldview, the decisions we make in work and business, and how we see and treat others. In that sense, the world in all its beauty and depravity mirrors what we perceive and project ourselves to be. The centrality of the image is paramount and holds centre stage in all areas of life, including work, sport, religion, business, etc. In other words, it is the surface-level personality, the ego, and its collective forms that create the world we see. But we are not alone in its formation.

Consider our Western consumer culture, for example. Everywhere we look, advertisements are vying for our attention and hard-earned cash. Corporations spend hundreds of billions each year creating images that capture our interest, and in doing so, they have successfully identified and commoditised our deepest fears and desires. They present us with the perfect image of fulfilment and happiness and offer answers to our most burning questions. In Pavlovian terms1, they ring the bell, and we salivate. Our concept of work and who we should be in the workplace is also heavily influenced by the images they sell us. They insist that if we are to succeed in the dog-eat-dog competitive marketplace, then we must embrace the culture of hustle and adopt a persona that is perhaps, not our own.

Never waste an opportunity to put yourself out there, they say, because the competition will get ahead. Therefore, you must be bright, shiny, loud, and above all, noticed. And so, we fill every moment of our day in active pursuit of the ideal. We wear a red tie with our power suit, tweet about entrepreneurial things, set goals, become productive, make money, accumulate toys, and measure success. If you want something, as the explicit message goes, you must go out there and get it. However, these ideals and images are liabilities sold as assets, and we spend lifetimes in the mode of accumulation of what, in reality, are fake plastic representations of life and the self.

In leadership, this imperative toward the centrality of the image is also dominant. Many scholars insist that our addiction to pursuing the image is indicative of a broader social ill with detrimental consequences for human relations. Just as Narcissus was drawn to his own image in the lake, human beings are increasingly oriented towards the image of success. In her work on the paradoxes of leadership2, Slavica Kodish cites Psychoanalyst and anthropologist Michael Maccoby3, who says, for example, that the story of the contemporary business world is a story of narcissistic leaders on the hunt for power and glory. For philosopher Michael Buber4, it was a case of seeming rather than being, where seeming to be this or that tends towards a false image and prevents genuine relationships. We are prominently outcome-oriented and from that angle, we create and present a fake plastic form of ourselves. The actor puts on a show.

“All Sizzle And No Steak”

In many human relations, we find a gulf between what we say and do. We like to think we are altruistic and caring for the needs of others, for example. We paint that picture because we like to think of ourselves in the best possible light and deny our darker side. But I wonder if our motivations are misplaced. I wonder if we are really just out for our own thinly veiled self-interest. In our everyday conversations, we are often prone to exaggeration and a certain casual representation of the facts in an effort to make ourselves look better than we might otherwise be. In business this is also true, and perhaps to an even greater extent.

Is that not what marketing is–to present ourselves and the products or services we sell in the “best” possible light? Is there, not a slight tendency to overstate the facts? Where is the line between authenticity and fantasy? As one of the dominant premises in sales departments throughout the capitalist world goes, “Sell the sizzle, not the steak.” In other words, it is the promise of a future experience that we are sold rather than the facts of the matter. It is the anticipation of our problems being solved or our desires being met that is sold to us. Strangely enough, we might even be aware of this yet still allow ourselves to fall into the honey pot. And so, in the world of business and indeed leadership, it is often more about impression management than truth, honesty, integrity and authenticity.

A few weeks ago, I wrote about Collins’ Level 5 Model of leadership, where five years of research by Jim Collins and his team into the top-performing corporations in the Fortune 500 highlighted only 11 exceptionally performing companies. These 11 transitioned from what Collins and his team termed “good to great”5. Most corporations examined in the study had sporadic periods of superior performance, whereas the 11 identified sustained their success over the long term. According to Jim Collins, this success was primarily influenced by a particular leadership style. It seemed that grand visions and purpose statements influence innovation, achievement, and healthy organisational culture only if the accompanying action and behaviour are congruent. In other words, there must be authenticity. The leader must walk the walk. Selling the “sizzle” isn’t enough.

The Inauthentic Leader

The centrality of the entrepreneurial image, the larger-than-life, red tie-wearing, rock star CEO has dominated popular culture and business management literature. Entrepreneurial rhetoric is full of sparkle and glamour and is hard to ignore. It encourages young executives and MBA graduates to pursue the ideal, and the ideal becomes ever more desirable. The complexity of personal attributes and the dynamic interaction between the self and its environment are reduced to an overly simplistic either-or scenario. Data, coupled with short-term self-oriented thinking, becomes the overwhelming metric upon which CEOs make decisions. The general thrust of the question is, “will this strategic move work out in our favour, will it make money, and how will I be perceived in the process?” And in this, there is a trade-off that is tied to the tenure of the leader which is often discounted or not at all considered.

The rock star entrepreneurial image is very attractive, but are the boardroom, investors, and aspiring entrepreneurs investing too much in the centrality of this image to be healthy? Consider the 2017 research by Quigley et al.6 that examined shareholder perception of CEO significance. Their research found that investors believe CEOs have a substantial degree of influence on the share price. This might be expected, so what’s the problem? Well, if the CEO garners unsubstantiated trust from shareholders based on his or her personality, this can create a significant weak point.

Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos

Consider the case of Elizabeth Holmes7, the 19-year-old entrepreneur who founded Theranos in 2003. Holmes dropped out of Stanford University to pursue her dream of revolutionising the medical industry by creating a device that could run a range of medical tests for ailments such as cholesterol, diabetes, and cancer from only a tiny blood sample. With the support of her Stanford professor Channing Robertson, the company gained attention and financial backing of over $700 million from high-profile investors such as the Walton family and Rupert Murdoch. Theranos was subsequently valued at $9 billion, making Holmes one of the youngest self-made female billionaires in history.

She was said to have worshipped Steve Jobs and sought to emulate the image he portrayed by hiring former Apple designers, wearing black turtle neck sweaters, and developing a deeper tone to her voice in interviews. She became a media sensation and a celebrated visionary, appearing on the cover of Fortune, Forbes and Inc. magazines and was featured on Time’s list of the 100 most influential people. That same year, then Vice President Joe Biden visited the Theranos lab in Palo Alto and praised Holmes as an inspiration. Oh, the blessed lure of fame! She had arrived.

However, things were not all so rosy in the garden. The dream started to unravel when a Wall Street Journal investigation revealed that the technology behind the Theranos devices did not work as they said. The devices were not reliable or accurate, and the company was using standard blood testing equipment to perform many of the tests. The company was also engaging in unethical practices such as using misleading marketing materials and manipulating data to secure partnerships with major pharmaceutical companies. Holmes was subsequently accused and charged with fraud in 2018 and she was sentenced to more than 11 years in prison in mid-November 2022. After the birth of her second child, Holmes requested unsuccessfully to remain free while she appealed her conviction but was ordered by a federal court to begin her sentence on April 27 this year.

One former employee, Erika Cheung, testified that she and other employees were afraid to speak out or question Holmes because of her reputation for being ruthless and vindictive. Holmes' leadership style was described as authoritarian, secretive, and obsessive. She was also known for being a demanding boss who expected complete loyalty and dedication from her employees. Many workers spoke out about the toxic work environment at Theranos, describing long hours, high levels of stress, and a culture of fear and intimidation. Another former employee, Tyler Shultz, became a whistleblower after he discovered major issues with the technology and raised concerns with Holmes and other executives. Shultz faced retaliation from the company and from Holmes personally, including legal threats and attempts to silence him.

The downfall of Theranos and the legal troubles of Elizabeth Holmes offers a cautionary tale about the dangers of unquestioned trust in personality as a measure of leadership capacity. The case has also raised questions about the role of Silicon Valley and a trend of "fake it till you make it" in the tech industry. The rise and fall of Theranos and Elizabeth Holmes serve as a reminder that successful leadership is not about any individual and the image they present. It is also about personal and collective ethics, honesty, responsibility, and the effort of the entire organisation and the conditions in which they find themselves.

The Authentic Leader

I don’t know about you, but I’d rather a low-key and understated CEO driving moderate share growth over a long period than a superstar personality risking it all for a big win. Quigley and his research team seem to agree. They suggest that because CEOs are increasingly incentivised to go big or go home but are not fully penalised when they miss the target, executives are more likely to take unmitigated risks.

Over the past twenty years, research has been building in support of an alternative; authentic leadership. Researchers suggest that in a business environment that promotes style over substance, the need for individuals to honour their true selves has never been greater. The results of inauthentic results-driven leadership, the authors say, have brought a slew of ethical meltdowns and corporate misconduct, such as that by Elizabeth Holmes, to our attention. Not only does this behaviour bring a quick end to centuries-old organisations, but also a dramatic financial loss to ordinary Joe soap investors and damage to the environment.

Here’s what former Chief Justice of the Delaware Supreme Court, and Senior Fellow of Corporate Governance at Harvard Law School, Leo E. Strine Jr., had to say on the matter in 20128. [You should absolutely read this article].

Not only do corporations have incentives to disregard risks for the sake of profits, but there is a natural tendency to pay attention to short-term profits over long-term risks. In fact, most of us place a higher value on immediate satisfaction than on the long-term risks created by such satisfaction. If we can get all the benefits of the immediate satisfaction for ourselves, and know that the longer-term costs will be shared with a lot of others, we go for today over tomorrow even more. And, when an industry is among the leaders in having lobbyists precisely for the purpose of minimizing governmental regulation of its activity, trusting that industry to balance environmental concerns and worker safety responsibly against the prospect of immediate profit would seem even more naïve.

A Definition of Authentic Leadership

In spite of the narcissistic self-image portrayed by leaders that so dominates business and many other areas of life, some stand out for the right reasons. Perhaps it’s better to say they stand out by not standing out. According to 2003 research by Gardner, Luthens and Avolio, organisations and society in general, turn to leaders for guidance and direction in volatile and uncertain times. Under rapidly changing conditions, the authors suggest, leaders must be transparent, genuine, reliable, and trustworthy, and display congruence between their espoused values, actions, and behaviours.

The authors define Authentic Leadership as follows;

Specifically, we define authentic leadership in organisations as a process that draws from both positive psychological capacities and a highly developed organizational context, which results in both greater self-awareness and self-regulated positive behaviours on the part of leaders and associates, fostering positive self-development. The authentic leader is confident, hopeful, optimistic, resilient, transparent, moral/ethical, future-oriented, and gives priority to developing associates to be leaders. The authentic leader is true to him/herself and the exhibited behaviour positively transforms or develops associates into leaders themselves. The authentic leader does not try to coerce or even rationally persuade associates, but rather the leader’s authentic values, beliefs, and behaviours serve to model the development of associates.

How To Develop Authentic Leadership

Research shows that the key aspects of developing authentic leadership come from the individual’s personal history and key events in their past. Family life, role models, early life challenges, education, and work experience all contribute to forming the leader’s personality and worldview. Both Gardner9 and Collins point towards the impact of dramatic life events in facilitating personal growth and development. Gardner suggests that these components serve as catalysts for heightened self-awareness and the ability to self-reflect.

In certain respects, it seems that the conditions required for authentic leadership cannot be manufactured at will or even acquired through leadership training. Instead, they seem to be the consequence of living a certain kind of life. Authentic leadership doesn’t come in a packet on the supermarket shelf ready-made for use. The self-awareness required for authentic leadership comes from a willingness to address one’s shortcomings, reflect critically on our decisions, test our own hypothesis of life and analyse our self-schema. The leadership skills required for successful operation in a dramatically changing environment come from learning who we are fundamentally and connecting to our intrinsic core self.

The centrality of the entrepreneurial image is born from the idea that we must prove ourselves to the world. It says, “look at me, I am important, I exist, I am real, take notice of me.” As it is when we stare in the mirror, the image must be reflected back to us; otherwise, we cease to exist. And so, everything the ego-based self does in the world is an effort to reinforce its legitimacy, vitality, and value further. What it really reflects is a fundamental character structure weakness. For this to change, that thin image must be destroyed, leaving space for the true self to emerge. This is what both Collins and Gardner suggest when referring to the impact of dramatic life events.

I am hopeful that things are changing for the better rather than changing to more of the same. That we can move towards a system of living and working that comes from a more authentic self rather than the inauthentic self that currently dominates. Given the destructive nature of the capitalist system and our ever-heightening need for short-term gratification, failing to do so will surely mean the end of this version of the human race. Authentic leadership is imperative not only for business success but for the survival of all life on the planet. I don’t think that is an exaggeration.

Thanks for taking the time to read this week’s Sunday Letters. If you enjoyed this article, consider becoming a supporter.

Subscribe now

A few weeks ago, I mentioned that I’m working on some new non-fiction titles for self-publication later this year. The first one in the series is Workplace Leadership: A field guide to effective leadership in the contemporary workplace. It is an account of how our concepts of leadership in the workplace have evolved over time from the earliest ideas of The Great Man, to more contemporary ideas of leadership such as Authentic Leadership and Tripartite Leadership. I’ll also be examining the fascinating dark trait personality types and their role in positive and negative leadership outcomes. This short extract is taken from the introduction and adds a little personal context to why I believe this topic is worth discussing. Leadership has been covered many times by many learned people more qualified than me. However, I think my personal experience may add some colour and texture to the conversation. The book covers classic theories of leadership, contemporary theories, and offers a new theory of leadership which I believe may take our understanding of this phenomenon to a more effective level. In short, the books argues that leadership is much more than the individual and their personal traits and capacities. Leadership is a combination of things that go beyond any single person. In that, success is not bound to the exalted few, but is available to everyone who will embrace this new idea of leadership. The book intends to be a helpful guide for self-employed people, business executives, managers, students, and teachers wishing to develop their understanding of the psychology of leadership. The below is subject to editing and probably a few rewrites yet.

As a teenager in the workforce for the first time, no one ever told me what leadership was. Like many youngsters, I had to figure it out for myself. It was a case of knowing it when you saw it or, indeed, when you didn’t. Young and impressionable, my workmates and I picked up the idea of leadership from our superiors as absolute, and we assimilated it. It seemed that whatever leadership was, it had little to do with those being led, or the conditions in which we found ourselves, and everything to do with the one doing the leading. We learned to do what we were told and shut up—to work from the neck down. They showed us the way, and for better or worse, we followed. Later, as we learned the game, further responsibility was afforded to some of us. But it was not based on specific training or development but rather on a whim, the impression we made and the mould we seemed to fit. With little more than a wet finger in the air, unqualified workers like me were selected for leadership roles, so the status quo remained for another generation. We believed we knew what we were doing by virtue of their investment in us. We thought we knew how to direct the work and get the best out of people. However, as I discovered later in my business career, those ideas were flawed.

On the construction sites of the 1990s, I found myself under the control of bosses who demanded compliance. Without it, they usually became animated, red-faced and loud. This was the leadership strategy they inherited from their bosses, and it was simply how things were done and how order was kept. It was purely transactional in its orientation and was familiar to me and my peers, given how we were educated. Our teachers were Christain Brothers, or the remnants of them given the order had begun to die out, and some were brutes of men. They weren’t shy of giving a lad a few clouts around the ear or something more severe to get our attention and maintain order. Often, lads were slapped or beaten for incomplete homework, talking in class, or not sitting right in their seats. But not all lads—only those who were weakest. I remember one, a small lad, one of the smallest in our class, was grabbed by the scruff of the neck one day by a teacher and flung from his desk across the floor. God only knows what he did wrong. If those teachers thought you could take care of yourself, however, or you were on the school football team, they held back their persuasion tactics. In that, we learned that certain advantages could be gained from talent. If you impressed the leader with your skills, you could get off the hook on many misdemeanours. This was to also prove itself true later in my working life.

We learned this was how the ones in charge looked, sounded and behaved. They were harsh, brutish, and direct and were capable of silencing a room of thirty-plus teenage lads by merely entering through the door. A hard stare would serve as a warning. Further disruption and the atmosphere went from zero to a full-blown ten in a heartbeat. Woe betide you if you crossed them. Well, except for Brother Reilly, he pretended really hard to be hard but put not an ounce of fear into any of us. We just took the piss out of him. For those who were truly hard-core bad bastards, you knew where you stood. Tolerance or leniency was a sign of weakness, and weak ones were never promoted, let alone respected. And forget about telling your parents about the abuse because they’d likely say that you brought it on yourself.

That was the late eighties and early nineties, and although leadership and authority were expressed in less than admirable ways, we arguably faired a lot better than our parents. They were schoolchildren of the fifties and sixties, a time when there were few barriers to physical and emotional abuse in education. “spare the rod, ruin the child,” as the brutish saying went. Instigated by the Catholic Church, force was simply the way things got done, and if you were afforded responsibility in education or in the workplace, force and the threat of punishment were the primary tools of persuasion. After all, God’s punishment of sinners was legitimate. Abuse of position and power was widespread, and concepts of justice and fairness became corrupted and obscene. In the workplace, if someone wasn’t performing their role in the way that they should, foremen would prescribe a few kicks. If you were weak, you were destroyed by not only your superiors but by your work colleagues too. And the rest of us had to join in or disappear into the shadows to save ourselves, to reinforce the base of power and our apparently safe place within it. We’d joke about it. That was our way of coping, of dealing with the fact that nobody knew any better. Working in the construction industry was a battle zone, and the harsh reality was that if you wanted to survive and even thrive, you needed to get tough. And so, the tough ones survived, and many became bosses.

Get 20% off forever

Niccolò Machiavelli was a 16th Century Italian philosopher and political commentator, best known for his 1513 work, The Prince. In this infamous text, he outlined his guidance on suitable behaviour for royals and aristocrats of his time, which essentially extended to the premise “ends justify the means”. In other words, rulers' immoral, cruel and criminal actions were justified if their glory and honour were preserved. He proposed that leaders ruled with an iron fist and that mercy was a sign of weakness. Interestingly, some contemporary writers have referred to Machiavelli as the father of modern political philosophy and political science1.

Machiavelli considered the jostling for power of Italian political leaders of the time as “a matter of fact” to be acknowledged, rather than a measure of one’s morality2. A such, his writings ran counter, for example, to the teachings of love, mercy, and humanity promoted by the Christian Church. Rather than resorting to idealistic "imagined republics and principalities", as he put it, Machiavelli seemed to base his philosophy on "effectual truth." That is to say; he encouraged 16th Century rulers to control their fortune “gloriously” and wield their power despite the upheaval and lawlessness that it may bring about.

Machiavelli justified his position by asserting that it was better to be feared than loved, to become the personification of immorality than risk relinquishing one’s power and control over lands and people. He said that a ruler who, in establishing a kingdom, commits atrocities should be excused when their intention is honourable and the results are beneficial. Beneficial to the few perhaps.

“And here comes in the question whether it is better to be loved rather than feared, or feared rather than loved. It might perhaps be answered that we should wish to be both; but since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved.” - Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince

Subscribe now

Robert Greene, in his book The 48 Rules of Power3, said Royal Courts of the time imagined themselves to be the epitome of cultural refinement, fairness, and morality. However, behind the veil of religious idealism, members flirted with deception, treachery and criminal activity. Overt moves to power were frowned upon, so courtiers devised new elaborate and underhanded ways to satisfy their greed, envy, and lust. Greene writes that the successful courtier managed to outwit his opponents through seduction, charm and deception. Life in the Royal Court was a battle of wills and cunning and required constant vigilance. It was a psychological warzone where losing the fight would usually bring about one’s downfall.

Greene says that little has changed in today’s world of business and politics. In the pursuit of power and influence, our arrangements must take on the same superficial appearance. We must seem civilised, decent and fair, not to mention democratic. But if we play by the game's apparent rules, our opponents will take their advantage and leave us for fools. On the contrary, if we can master the art of deception and seduction, manipulate and carefully outmanoeuvre our contemporaries, we can bend others and circumstances to our will and attain the fruits of power. And in the process, if others fail to realise our true intention, then all the better, right? We’ve got what we wanted and offended no one.

Is this the true face of human nature? Is everyone out for their own personal gain at the expense of others, and are those who think differently merely setting themselves up like lambs for the slaughter?

Robert Greene says that for some, the notion of playing power games seems evil and runs counter to their ethical human values. He says that such people may choose to opt-out of the game but warns that they are often the most adept players. They cleverly disguise their true intentions and display their weaknesses as a kind of moral virtue. But real weakness or powerlessness will never be openly on display, he suggests. And I can appreciate this view because if we feel less than adequate in any circumstance, then we are most likely to try to keep it hidden than be open about it.

Consider the current dominant narrative in the online world towards sensitivity, humility and vulnerability. Are we really to believe that the writers are sharing their experiences out of true moral virtue, or have they utilised Machiavelli’s cunning strategy garnering our sympathy for the sake of acknowledgement and personal advancement? Greene seems to think they have, and they take pleasure in the flaunting of their apparent piety and higher moral standing. Wolves in sheep’s clothing, perhaps.

The Pursuit of Wealth & Power

I want to believe that we human beings are inherently good, but the more I examine the evidence of our behaviour, it seems to be that many of us are simply bad bastards. I want to think I am a decent human being too; after all, I’ve never killed anyone. But I could be accused of executing a dastardly deed or two in my time despite my best intentions. So am I good or bad? Where do we draw the line? Does a line even exist? What gives us the right to cast an opinion on anyone else? Should we play the game and fuck the consequences, or should we strive to attain the highest of human virtue? What does virtue even mean and are we merely being idealistic? Are we playing even though we pretend we’re not?

Lots of questions to which I honestly don't have definitive answers. However, I know that I have boundaries to what I consider ethical business conduct. I also believe that certain personality types are drawn to the kinds of Machiavellian behaviour of which Greene speaks. Some people who ordinarily hold themselves to high levels of personal integrity can, under certain difficult conditions, fall foul to these behaviours. Call it a kind of temporary pathology. Machiavellianism exists regardless.

In his book, Greene outlines the 48 laws of the power game, and it is a sobering read. But is this not the world of business in a nutshell? Personal experience tells me that it is. Others I have spoken to anecdotally regarding their business experience have offered a similar view to my own; it is cut-throat. If you’re not on your guard, if you are not a “cute hoor”, as they say where I’m from, then you will be eaten alive. This is how the business world operates, and although there are many clever and well-thought-out hypotheses regarding leadership and good business etiquette, the everyday reality is very different.

Business is dog-eat-dog, and it plays out as Richard Buckminster Fuller suggested in “the folly of the selfish and fearfully contrived wealth games humanity plays under a misinformed survival-of-the-fittest ideology.” Corporations are the new aristocracies, and their board members are the modern courtiers. They are at war with one another and all that will stands in their way, yet on the surface, they play the role of the concerned and upstanding organisation. They play the game, which is, as Joel Bakan wrote in 2004, a pathological pursuit of profit and power4. Bakan points out that the modern corporation is a legal institution whose mandate is to pursue, relentlessly and without exception, its own self-interest regardless of the harmful consequences.

As such, Bakan suggested that the modern corporation is a pathological institution. And in his recent publication, The New Corporation, suggests that rather than the situation improving, it has become worse5. The JP Morgan led Business Roundtable comprising CEOs of some of the world’s largest and most influential corporations, Bakan says, have put in place a smokescreen, enacted a marketing exercise by which they may disguise the true extent of their pursuits. Central to his argument is that these same companies, despite their best efforts, are the major cause of the world’s social ills and not, as the Business Roundtable would suggest, a solution.

Have Things Changed?

I believe in some quarters things have changed, but in large part, they have not. Despite any individual’s honest intent to never harm people or the planet, a business's competitive nature lends itself to deceit and mispractice. The purpose of a business is to make a profit, and if it doesn't, it must be wound up as it ceases to be a viable entity. This is a big problem because the endless pursuit of power and profit drives otherwise caring human beings to do nasty things. The old saying comes to mind, “you lay down with dogs, you’ll get fleas.”

What can I tell you? If you are in business for yourself or are a corporate executive, the imperative will always to be profitable, and often you will be asked to forgo your sense of right and wrong to make that happen. I have faced that question also, and I honestly can sympathise with others who find themselves in these situations. I can’t offer you a satisfactory solution other than always try not to put yourself in that situation. There are ways to make money and do well in life without being a bad bastard and sacrificing your own sense of integrity. Life is too short and too precious for that.

Know your values, visit them daily, make them public and be held accountable for their upkeep. When you are concrete in your personal values and have set boundaries on your own behaviour, it’s harder to break them. As a leader, your job is to reinforce these values with your team and ensure everyone is on board. It is the foundation upon which you’ll build your house. Machiavellianism is alive and well in the 21st Century have no doubt about that, and when it has space to operate, then there will be casualties. I believe that Machiavelli and his ideas belong in the past, and that’s where we should leave them.

Subscribe now

Some say Trump is the quintessential grandiose narcissist. In the midst of Covid19, the impact of his flawed personality appears acute.

In 1837, Hans Christian Andersen published his third book in the series titled, Fairytales Told for Children. It contained, amongst other short stories, The Emperor’s New Clothes — a story with which you’re no doubt familiar.

Although published long before the science of psychology recognised the emperor’s state of mind as perhaps pathological, Andersen had poetically made an account.

In contemporary times we see this condition play out at all levels of society from governments right down to local community and even family level.

The leader is so caught up in their surface-level personality, protecting self at all costs, that they cannot tell truth from their internally created fiction. This fiction, they believe, is absolute in material reality.

Their followers, the bureaucrats (or priests as Erich Fromm called them), based equally in a mode of self-protection, choose to accept the leader’s position as all-powerful. Anyone who challenges the leader’s views is removed and discredited.

It represents, perhaps, the ultimate failure in leadership.

“The main condition for the achievement of love is the overcoming of one’s narcissism. The narcissistic orientation is one in which one experiences as real only that which exists within oneself, while the phenomena in the outside world have no reality in themselves, but are experienced only from the viewpoint of their being useful or dangerous to one. — Erich Fromm, Psychotherapist

In medical terms, this psychological state is referred to as Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), and although controversial, it tries to account for a state of mind that produces damaging results.

NPD recognises particular patterns of behaviour of heightened self-importance, inability to admit liability, lack of empathy and a relentless pursuit of admiration.

Now, narcissism gets a bit of a bad rap, because every one of us is narcissistic at some level. Young children, for example, are narcissistic in the best possible way.

However, when we cannot develop along healthy psychological lines, when love, support and stability are absent in youth, the narcissistic tendencies can stay with us.

What got me on this topic today is what’s going on on Wall Street. Despite the global crisis, and more pointedly, the exponential crisis is the US, financial markets seem to occupy a different reality.

As the trauma of coronavirus increased over the last week, stocks have been going up. Although, things might change today and later this week when US job numbers come out.

It seems that “the markets” want to believe the bullshit Trump & Co. have been spewing and have little or no regard for the pending medical and social catastrophe. With little accountability built in regarding allocation of funds from the 2 Trillion recovery package, it seems that allaying corporate fears are primary for Trump.

Markets and the survival of corporates appear to matter more than people. And this, from my naive position, seems symptomatic of NPD.

I know many of my readers are based in the US, and I certainly do not wish to offend any of you. But from my position of political neutrality, and taking into account what I have learned about the psychology of human behaviour, it appears to me that your emperor is naked and not many can see it.

Through the development of the global emergency, it has become apparent that Trump is dangerous and grossly incompetent.

I only hope too many people don’t die as a result.

I logged into Evernote today for the first time in about three or four years, and I found things that I had forgotten. There were the seeds of what I’m writing now. This one, which I then called Leadership, was written in 2013, is still valid considering I have spent so long writing and perhaps was not as good then. Assuming that is, I am any good now. In any case, I have cleaned up the original for publication here on The Reflectionist.

Any self-sacrificing person will be prepared to die for the cause; a hero. To the ancient Greeks, a hero was half god, half human. But leadership is not heroics. Something or someone to be worshiped is not leadership. Real Leadership is found in someone who can take insult and injury and keep moving forward toward success. Many will fall before the line. Some will step aside and let the bullet hit someone else. These are paraders, and they think there is great honour in staying alive for one more game to parade their wonderful skills.

But the paraders are really solo players — they are in it for themselves while pretending to be part of the group. They care more about how they look than the combined success of the group. They will never find real success which is found in celebration with the group. Real fulfilment will always evade them. A deep sense of want and need for admiration accompanies their every step. Who’s watching me? What do they think of me? How do I look?

The leader is quiet, measured, assured, unassuming, forthright and confident. There is strength in their eyes. They hold fast to their idea and bring an invisible energy to the group which cannot be spoken of or described. They exemplify the cause for humanity. Without them, there is a vacuum. Words are few and when offered are powerfully delivered. They stay aside for many years awaiting their opportunity. Suddenly they are thrust into the open often without their conscious intent. The group stands and awaits their move, prepared to follow.

Watchers will wish the leader failure, and they get their reward soon along the road. However, failure is short-lived, and soon providence moves to bring the full and unmistakable glory of the completed venture to the group. The watchers live in fear of being exposed for their constant companion is underachievement and fear of failure. They take great comfort in the failures of the leader and of the group for it reinforces their sense of self.

Supporters call supporting energy from all corners to follow the Leader. The Leader leads through action and looks for no praise or reward. There is no mistaking the Leader; theirs is the point of light in a dark place that all others follow.