(This essay is largely adapted from a retreat I led this week with a group of non-profit CEOs focusing on today’s disruptive leadership challenges.)
“Zuckerberg says most companies need more ‘masculine’ energy” Headline, Fortune, January 13, 2025
There is a different leadership wind blowing across the landscape. The headlines proclaim it and we can feel it. Donald Trump, exerting a ‘masculine’ leadership style cheered by some and disdained by others, is re-elected President. In his first month, he signs a slew of executive orders. He makes comments regarding retaking the Panama Canal, buying Greenland, making Canada the 51st state and taking over Gaza. Simultaneously he proposes a myriad of steep tariffs and negotiates to end the war in Ukraine with Russia while calling Ukraine President Zelensky a dictator. Along the way he fires the Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the top Navy officer and the vice chief of the Air Force. Getting all of this done creates quite a firestorm.
A parade of so-called ‘tech bros’ CEOs – Tesla’s (also SpaceX and X) Elon Musk, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Meta’s (Facebook) Mark Zuckerberg along with Apple’s Tim Cook – visit President-elect Trump in Mar-a-Lago, contribute to his inauguration and occupy a prominent position at his inauguration. Soon after, Zuckerberg announces the elimination of fact-checkers on Meta in favor of user driven “community notes” much like X – to the approval of Trump and his supporters.
Elon Musk is deputized to lead a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) charged with cutting government waste and regulations. His ‘move fast and break things’ ethos is reflected in firings and proposals to dismantle whole departments like the Department of Education. It’s an interesting irony, amassing power to dismantle power. DOGE winds are spreading. Florida governor DeSantis announces a “DOGE” task force noting one of its priorities: auditing universities.
President Trump wields a level of power – and at a speed – that is jolting. Abigail Schrier calls Musk and other members of President Trump’s senior administration leaders the Cabinet of the Cancelled because so many of them were “cancelled” or attacked previously by Trump’s political opposition.
Outside the U.S. strong aggressive leadership is also on the rise. Russia’s President Putin’s Ukraine invasion now enters year four. Prime Minister Netanyahu aggressively attempts to destroy Hamas in response to the October 7 attack on Israel. China’s President Xi continues aggressive actions toward Taiwan. By contrast, Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, called out as weak, after visiting President-elect Trump at Mar-a-Lago, resigns. German Chancellor Scholz loses a no-confidence vote and his successor, chancellor-in-waiting Friedrich Merz, vows a more assertive foreign policy and stronger leadership.
The horrible fires in Los Angeles focus questions on local leader strength and competence to deliver core functions of government: protection and safety. Recent elections and political events have been about many things, but an overarching theme, has been criticism and rejection of “weak” leaders. If leadership strength to get things done were a Wall Street stock, its value would have risen decidedly in recent months.
This shifting leadership wind now blows strong and broadly across the business and non-profit world too. Jamie Dimon, CEO at JPMorgan Chase and a number of other big company CEOs assertively order the end of Work-From-Home (WFH). Numerous government, company, university and non-profit leaders reduce or eliminate diversity, equity, inclusion (DEI) efforts – from the FBI closing of its DEI office to actions by McDonald’s, Amazon, Walmart, Google and John Deere. In what is often tagged as a battle between hyper-inclusivity and pure meritocracy, meritocracy in this moment would seem to be surging.
In academia University Presidents at Penn, Columbia and Harvard all step down in recent months as the political winds shifted. Their isolation and misalignment from powerful stakeholders became terminal. It’s not just eastern Ivy League. Resignations in the past few months at state universities – like the University of Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma State University – also appear to involve political power struggles. Meanwhile, the average tenure of college presidents on the job has fallen from 8.5 years to 5.9 years since 2002. Through November of 2024, CEO departures across industries were the highest total on record since Challenger began tracking CEO changes in 2002, with government/non-profit leading the way. These winds are a disruptive leadership force. “You’re fired” and “I quit” have gone global.
Bob Dylan’s lyrics endure, ‘The times, they are a-changin.’ In a story titled “Gen Z is Embracing Dictatorships,” Newsweek reported on a poll that found 40% of Gen Z Americans (ages between 13—27) agreed: “Rule by a strong leader, where a strong leader can make decisions without interference from the legislature or from the courts” would be a good system of government for the U.S. versus 27% who thought it would be bad. Similarly, in the UK, a recent poll found 52% of Gen Z thought the country would be a better place if a strong leader was in charge who does not have to bother with parliament and elections.
Some are elated with this stronger leadership, some are petrified, some are livid and some are just numb – but all are challenged in one way or the other as to how to respond.
In these Shifting Leadership Winds, What Does Strength Look Like?
While politics in this country and globally appear to have moved to the right for now, in my opinion the bigger issue going forward, and the one I want to address here, is the changing role of leadership. Today’s real hunger – even crisis – seems to be for leaders who will get things done. Yes, we cheer-on strong leaders from our side especially when we are winning. But we fear and feel oppressed by strong leadership from the other side – especially if they are getting things done we don’t like.
The very founding of the United States was based on a desire to greatly limit or weaken the power of centralized leadership. We very specifically did not want a King, but it took some very arduous work to come up with our brand of representative government augmented by our Constitution. Our distrust and disdain for concentrated leadership power was elemental – we chose distributed and dispersed power across three separate branches of government, disseminated into state and local governments, emanating from “we the people.” Our first president George Washington purposefully stepped down after two terms, long before the 22nd Amendment was passed in 1951, setting an example of a leader – not amassing power – but peacefully relinquishing it.
Abraham Lincoln famously said, “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.” Indeed, power too often corrupts – and unbridled weakness can also invite and enable bullying and abuse of power.
Two and a half centuries later, we struggle to find the appropriate level of leadership power to be exerted on behalf of “we the people.” As Ross Douthat has pointed out, a key question is: do we want leaders who will rule over us or do we want leaders who give us freedom?
One of the reasons we struggle is the emergence of a newer source of leadership power now that changes the calculus. This newer technology-enabled, instantaneous and global power heralds: media (mass/social), images, sizzle, hot takes, instant headlines, influencers, number of followers/likes and social media fights. It is highly potent and its attention-seeking focus reinforces political extremes. This newer form often overwhelms an older, quieter leadership world of: substance, core mission, strategic direction, getting things done, being accountable for results, growing a productive culture, taking on hard tasks, being financially sound, working through stakeholder differences. The result is often a disconnect between the image of this newer, more glamorous source of leadership power and the reality of a more substantive leadership effectiveness.
Our founders thought deeply about both empowering and limiting power – and their re-invention of the relationship between the governing and those governed helped produce the most powerful nation on earth.
The world has now changed and so have the demands on leadership. How are we to respond?
Leadership: Three Keys for Navigating Today’s Shifting Winds
Most of us are not in political leadership even though these changes touch us all. But we are leaders and stakeholders at work, at home, as citizens, in houses of worship and in our communities. These shifting leadership winds and gale-like forces, present us with a defining question: How shall I lead – now? Love or hate today’s environment, and regardless of how these political waves land on us and our organizations, we must assess how we will alter our own approach to leading – or not. A key risk is that we allow all this noise and chaos to distract us, dilute our efforts and blow us off course. Remember the British WWII banners: Stay calm and carry on. We must ask: How can we lead in a way that helps us transcend the vagaries of today’s ever-evolving leadership culture?
There are 1,000 answers and no single good answer. It is simple, but not to be confused with easy. I believe navigating these shifting winds is less about adopting some shiny new leadership model and more about re-dedicating ourselves to reapply our leadership approach – to this new world.
Let me suggest a three-point leadership checklist to help examine your leadership priorities for addressing today’s shifting winds. It is about getting:
- Right things
- Done
- Right.
Let’s break it down:
1. Right Things: Directional Pitfalls. Here’s the first question: Is our leadership direction keeping us focused on right things – that align with our purpose, core mission and priorities (PMP)? As former British Prime Minister Tony Blair states it, “Clarity of direction is the most important quality for a leader in any organization to have.” It sounds so simple, but a changing world and changing winds serve up constant challenges for leaders to operationalize our purpose, mission and priorities.
Clarity, even when we disagree, can be really valuable. As a university president shared this past week, when President Trump issued the “No Men in Women’s Sports Executive Order,” what had taken countless months of wrangling and indecision for us and the NCAA, was over in a matter of minutes. It was done – we moved on.
Distraction is the enemy of purpose. Many believe President Biden and leaders in LA allowed “woke” issues to distract them from their core mission. Trump now seems obsessed with “anti-woke” issues. Woke and anti-woke are two sides of the same ideological coin that risk undermining the direction, core mission and productive capability of organizations. Surely Tesla stakeholders are wondering if CEO Elon Musk’s work in the Trump administration is central to the EV manufacturer’s core mission – especially given that they missed Q-4 results estimates as their automotive revenue declined 8%, and now January Europe sales are down 45%.
Staying focused on the majors and not getting diluted by the minors requires really hard and intentional work. As one corporate CEO stated it, “The number one thing I do day in and day out is to say ‘no’ to things that would dilute our focus.” Less ideology and more right things, please.
In today’s instantaneous video and social media culture, mobs form and march in record time. Yesterday’s “woke-left” mob demanded open borders, “trans-pronouns,” ESG and DEI – or else. Remember George Floyd? Today’s “woke-right” mob is banning abortion, rounding up illegal immigrants, dismantling DEI and ESG and firing people. Each new leader is typically selected as a correction to the former leader, blowing the pendulum to and fro. What will tomorrow’s mob demand – of companies, universities, school boards, churches/denominations? In an evenly divided country, a 2% voter shift can dramatically and abruptly change the course of a nation – Trump won the 2024 popular vote by 1.5%. Leaders are constantly getting whipsawed and pressured from every direction.
Let me suggest four Directional Pitfalls for leaders to avoid in the battle to keep “right things” a priority.
· Direction Deficit: occurs where direction clarity has not been established even though functions may be being performed and value delivered. There is no sense of where the organization is trying to go, no wind in the sails, no right things that drive the organization forward.
· Direction Drift: occurs when purpose, core mission and priorities have been established but become stale and disconnected from today’s pressing realities, limiting forward movement for key stakeholders.
· Direction Mob-capture: occurs when small, loud, narrowly focused stakeholder groups hijack the attention, resources and the direction of an organization from its purpose, core mission and priorities – while alienating other key stakeholder groups.
· Direction Chaos: occurs when competing pressure from stakeholders and circumstances change so rapidly that plans never get implemented leaving an organization exhausted and confused – movement is circular not forward.
Protecting, fine tuning and enlivening the PMP is your highest calling and your most important leadership job. Where do you need course corrections that reflect today’s disruptive environment?
2. Done!: Political Capital. In the inimitable words of Yoda: “Do or not do, there is no try.” Those words of accountability can sound so harsh because “try” is so crucial to “do.” Yet it seems we have a crisis of “not do.” The inability to get right things done is a leadership killer. Unfortunately, in a world of rapid change, partisan divide, distrusted leaders and gridlock, it feels like our ability to get things done has atrophied.
Peggy Noonan in a word to Democrats on saving their party advised less eloquent talk and more doing: “You run nearly every great city in the nation. Make one work—clean it up, control crime, smash corruption, educate the kids…save a city.” Joe Klein describes the need for leaders “who carry the charisma of getting things done.”
For leaders, what is key to getting “right things” done – these days? One of the keys is political capital, which we might define as some combination of charm, fear and expertise with supporters and opposition stakeholders alike, to get things done. Too often leaders focus on spending political capital – which means they ultimately run-out versus investing it in a way that grows its accumulated value.
The foundation for building political capital to get things done is investing in relationships. The defining question for leaders is: “Are my relationships big enough to get the job done I am here to do?” Prioritizing messages, decisions and actions on “right things” that align with your key stakeholder priorities is central to relationship-building.
Political capital is also protected by minimizing the animus and hate of your detractors or opposition. Inevitably, the power exerted to push through meaningful things can eat up political capital from certain stakeholders. President Trump’s leadership-by-executive-orders and bare-knuckles approach to negotiating the “deal” risks rupturing relationships with allies and opposition alike. It may garner short-term concessions but historically can limit longer-term capability to get important things done. A January CBS/YouGov poll found that 54% of Democrats wanted their congressional representatives to work with the Trump administration and 46% wanted relentless opposition. One month later, only 35% of Democrats wanted cooperation, and 65% wanted all-out opposition.
Different leadership styles produce different types and levels of political capital. Extensive research on leadership style finds little evidence as to one style being most effective or producing the best outcome: some leaders are visionary, some deal makers, some are good operators, some cost cutters. The demands on leadership are often situational and the DNA or wiring of each leader varies.
Bottom line: Growing the will and the skill for building political capital is a primary job of leadership. Here is my leader checklist for building political capital to get right things done:
· Invest in political capital: Be intentional in building relationships with key stakeholder groups – including those who oppose you/your agenda. Think of political capital as an investment – not a cost – that enables getting right things done.
· Keep refining stakeholder alignment: Stay focused on getting right things done that align with your key stakeholder priorities. Identify and address where there is misalignment between yourself and stakeholders and among stakeholder groups.
· Manage opposition: Getting right things done is often off-putting to your detractors. Seek their input, accommodate where you can and avoid disrespecting them and the relationship. Be strong, don’t be a jerk.
· Build on Strength: Build on the particular strengths of your leadership style to grow political capital to get things done. Build and enlist team members and other resources who can help fill the voids to minimize your style limitations.
Consider relationships and political capital just like other assets on your balance sheet. The key to getting things done over time is making those assets appreciate rather than depreciate or even liabilities.
3. Right: Relational Values. There is often a tension between getting things done and getting things done right. In the longer run to quote the Greeks, character is destiny. There are many ways to get things done – that are “not right”: dishonestly, with unacceptable collateral damage, short-cuts that are not sustainable precluding future progress. Getting nothing done is often “not right.” A glaring example: our current $36 trillion national debt serves current generations at the expense of future generations.
Invariably, different stakeholder groups have different views and experiences of what is “right.” Work-From-Home was a great mitigator for addressing the contagious Covid pandemic. For many households WFH is a crucial way of dealing with commuter, childcare and medical issues. Yet a number of CEOs feel that not being physically together contributes to loss of innovation, undermines culture and erodes worker accountability.
Clearly the Supreme Court’s shooting down of affirmative action on the basis of discrimination leaves many leaders and stakeholders with challenges regarding DEI. What one group thinks is a distraction from the core mission others think is the “right” thing to do. Costco is doubling-down on its DEI efforts.
As we have become more polarized in our ideological, theological and political beliefs, our distrust and fear grow that the state will impose their beliefs on us. There is much to distrust these days: the power of an ever-expanding government, concentration of wealth, wealthy tech bros with unprecedented power over today’s politics, imposition of religious or secular beliefs counter to ours. As Yuval Levin and Ezra Klein discuss in an excellent podcast, increasingly our Presidents govern more like heads of their political party than head of the executive branch of government – leaving out much of the country. Today’s what-about-ism is used to justify each side because the other side is “worse,” rather than aiming to move toward what is right.
So, what can help guide leaders and stakeholders to get right things done, right? Here are four key questions to consider:
· Relational wholeness: Is my approach to getting things done bringing my best efforts to retain and build relational “wholeness” – unifying and addressing all stakeholders including my opposition?
· Constructive dissatisfaction: Managing dissatisfaction is a key job of leadership and trying to please everyone is a recipe for inaction. Am I allowing the noise of dissatisfaction to block or delay decisions and actions rather than moving to constructively manage them?
· Culture of Correction: Am I fostering a culture where we act, seek feedback, admit when we are wrong, and act to make it right, quickly? Failing fast often beats failing slow.
· Sustainability: Do I possess the commitment and the resources to sustain getting right things done – right, over time? So much of what is “not right” involves “short cuts for short-term outcomes.”
Each of us use a different prism to assess what we believe to be right – what is ethical, moral, fair, true, what works, produces results. But in the long term it usually gets sorted out. As Caitlin Flanagan says, “The truth bats last.”
Today’s highly disruptive leadership winds challenge leaders – to get right things, done – right. The time to re-examine our own leadership will and skill – is right now.
This article is re-published here by kind permission of the author Robert Hall. The original article can be found here – Navigating Today’s Disruptive Leadership Winds