Over the past six weeks, a repeated question has appeared at my leadership development sessions with leaders. It takes different forms, but the essential investigation remains the same:
“How do we reconcile the focused leadership in the man you defend with the leadership we see playing in the global political phase?”
Oval office confrontation
I am neither a political commentator nor an analyst of global affairs. My focus is leading – what works, in which contexts and why. This is what I will explore here.
For years, I have defended the next appropriate leadership, which is fundamentally focused on people (an approach I explore deeper into my book Human lip)). This model is built on curiosity, purpose, openness, respect and empathy – the qualities that promote trust, cooperate and encourage innovation. It is about flattening the hierarchy to bring out the best thought in the room and make smarter, faster decisions.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, we see a different pattern of leadership that is emerging. It is embodied by President Trump and Vice President Vance in the infamous Oval confrontation last week with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. This interaction relied on a winning mentality, rigid hierarchy and rule. Basic message?
“If I have more power, money or strength than you, I will treat you as an instrument of my will. And you will respect.”
Why does this matter for business leaders?
The question arises because people copy people. We naturally seek to imitate successful behavior. On the surface, Trump’s approach seems to be working. His power-led leadership style, the winner-all is the reformulation of geopolitics and steam supporting his opponents. So, does this mean his approach is worth imitating in corporate life?
Absolutely not. That’s why.
1. The leadership is always specific to the context
A leadership style that blooms in one environment can fail spectacularly to another. Geopolitics has always been a ruthless game of power, often without moral or ethical considerations. Even in a political rhetoric political administration, international negotiations often play as high battles, winners-all.
However, this brand of muscular, aggressive leadership has a short shelf life in the corporate world – especially in complex, global organizations.
Consider Microsoft. Under Steve Ballmer (2000-2014), the company headed with a combat, competitive mentality. Ballmer dismissed developing trends like Cloud Computing, and Microsoft became known for internal rivalries and resistance to change. In contrast, Nadella (2014-present) embraced a man-led leadership approach. It promotes curiosity, empathy and cooperation, moving Microsoft’s culture from competition in cooperation. His mantra?
“We’re switching from a group of people who know them all to a group of people who want to teach them all.”
This leading mentality contributed to the business to become a leader in Cloud Computing, he and enterprise solutions. During Nadella’s stay, Microsoft’s market lid increased from about $ 300 billion in 2014 to exceed $ 3 trillion today, a growing up 10 times. This great growth has to do with a psychological evolution as much as technological innovation. Taking for corporate leaders: Dominance -based leadership can work in politics, but businesses flourish over the versatility, confidence and common goal.
2. Organizational leadership requires another score
Excellent drivers ask:
What is the answer I want from the people who experience my leadership?
Trump and Vance require absolute loyalty and submission – as seen in their interactions with zelensky. Because they keep all the cards, they are likely to get them – or at least one facade of compliance.
But business leaders at all levels need something fundamentally different:
- Commitment, not just compliance
- Approximation, not forced appearance
- A labor force that is essentially motivated – not just responding to rewards and penalties
Human engagement is not only motivated by juicy carrots and large scary sticks. Stems from people to to follow the vision and goals of the leader and the organization they represent. Fear can cause short -term conviction, but it kills long -term engagement.
3. Businesses need agile decision -making
The organizations I work with is not only dealing with political and economic uncertainty – they are being caught with him, digitalization and other megatters that accelerate the pace of change. To survive, companies must be:
- Niggardous
- Fast
- Decentralized in decision -making
This means to push power away from the center and towards the first lines – powerful middle managers and front line employees to think creatively and act firmly. This is simply not possible under a fear -based leadership model, driven by compatibility.
4. Innovation requires psychological security
If you want people to develop new ideas and ways of working, take risks and think independently, they cannot act in a sales submission environment. Fear -based leadership may command short -term conformity, but it suppresses the initiative.
Smart leaders today realize that power is not something to accumulate at the top – it is something to be strategically distributed. The impact does not come from the predominance, but from the possibility of others to succeed.
Trump’s PlayBook book: a finished business strategy
President Trump’s leadership style can be effective in the political arena – for now. A part of global anxiety and concern is uncertainty about what comes next. However, for business executives, copying the Trump-Vang model is a straightforward road. The future belongs to them:
- Benier
- Empower their teams
- Build cultures of curiosity, resistance and adaptability
The world is changing with an exponential rate. The new American administration is accelerating this paradigm displacement in some areas. Leaders need to evolve and adapt – but they also have to be careful about the lessons they receive from the chaos that unfolds around them.
Not all power leads to progress.