Leadership today: when “bad leadership” looks like the blueprint

Leadership has always been a mirror of its moment. In stable times, we celebrate leaders who build patiently, who listen, develop others, and make decisions with a long horizon. In turbulent times, we often reward something else entirely: certainty over curiosity, dominance over dialogue, speed over sense-making, and performance over people.

That shift creates a dangerous illusion. Some of the most visible leadership styles today are not good examples of leadership at all, yet they can look effective. They can even appear “strong.” They generate headlines, rally loyalists, and deliver short-term wins. But underneath the surface, they are typically unsustainable and, crucially, they do not benefit followers. They benefit the leader.

This article explores how that illusion happens, why it’s so persuasive, and what sustainable leadership looks like instead.

Why “strong” can be confused with “good”

Modern work (and modern life) is saturated with noise: constant information, competing narratives, reduced attention, and relentless pressure to act fast. In that environment, the leadership behaviours that rise to the top are often the ones that cut through.

They are memorable. They are simple. They are emotionally charged.

And that’s the first trap: we confuse clarity with truth and confidence with competence. When someone speaks in absolutes, dismisses complexity, and appears unshakeable, our brains often read it as authority—even when the content is shallow, distorted, or harmful.

This is especially true when people feel uncertain, overwhelmed, or threatened. Under stress, followers tend to seek a sense of safety. A leader who projects certainty can feel like safety, even if it’s performative.

The leadership style that isn’t leadership: domination disguised as direction

Let’s name the pattern plainly.

A common “bad leadership” archetype today is the dominance leader:

• wins by force of personality

• demands loyalty over truth

• frames disagreement as disloyalty

• uses fear, shame, or status to control

• prioritises image, credit, and control

• treats people as tools, not humans

This can look like decisive leadership—especially at first. Decisions get made quickly. Dissent fades. The leader appears in charge.

But what’s actually happening is not leadership; it’s compliance management.

Followers learn fast: say less, risk less, align more, challenge never.

That is not a high-performance culture. It’s a low-trust culture that temporarily runs on pressure and adrenaline.

Why it “works” in the short term

Bad leadership often delivers early gains because it compresses decision-making. If you silence debate, you move quickly. If you punish dissent, you reduce friction. If you centralise control, you create the appearance of coherence.

It also tends to produce:

• fast alignment (because people are afraid)

• clear messaging (because complexity is excluded)

• high visibility (because the leader dominates the narrative)

• short-term metrics spikes (because pressure can drive output briefly)

In the same way that overworking a team can create a temporary productivity surge—right before burnout—dominance leadership can create a temporary performance surge—right before decline.

The system is being overdrawn. The bill arrives later.

The hidden costs: what followers pay for “strong” leadership

Sustainable leadership improves the capacity, confidence, and wellbeing of followers. Bad leadership extracts those things.

Here are the costs followers commonly pay under dominance leadership:

1) Psychological safety collapses

People stop speaking up. They hide mistakes. They avoid risk. They become careful rather than creative.

2) Trust erodes

When leaders demand loyalty, play favourites, or rewrite reality, followers begin to distrust not only the leader but also one another. Politics replaces collaboration.

3) Talent drains away

High performers don’t leave companies; they leave managers. Dominance leadership creates a quiet exodus: first of discretionary effort, then of the best people.

4) Learning slows to a crawl

If you can’t admit error, you can’t improve. If you can’t challenge assumptions, you can’t adapt. Organisations become brittle.

5) Ethics degrade

When image is everything, uncomfortable truths are buried. Corners are cut. Bad behaviour is rewarded if it serves the leader’s story.

The result is predictable: followers may comply, but they do not thrive. And over time, the organisation becomes less resilient, less innovative, and less attractive.

Why it’s not sustainable (even for the leader)

Dominance leadership contains the seeds of its own failure.

Because it depends on control, it cannot scale. The more complex the organisation becomes, the more the leader must tighten their grip—and the more the system slows down.

Because it depends on fear, it creates a hidden reality: people tell you what you want to hear, not what you need to know.

Because it depends on image, it becomes fragile: any threat to reputation triggers defensiveness, blame, and escalation.

Eventually, the leader is surrounded by:

• yes-people

• filtered data

• performative agreement

• growing resentment

• declining capability

What looked like strength becomes brittleness.

A quick test: who benefits?

When you’re assessing a leadership style, one question cuts through the noise:

Who benefits from this leadership?

• If the leader benefits most—status, control, credit, protection—while followers feel smaller, quieter, and more anxious, you’re not looking at leadership. You’re looking at self-serving power.

• If followers benefit—clarity, development, autonomy, wellbeing, pride—while outcomes improve sustainably, you’re looking at leadership.

This test is important because leadership is not a personality trait. It’s an outcome: the impact you have on others.

What good leadership looks like in a messy world

Good leadership today is not soft. It is not passive. It’s not indecisive.

It’s courageous in a different direction.

Sustainable leaders typically do five things consistently:

1) They create clarity without denying complexity

They simplify after thinking, not before. They don’t weaponise certainty.

2) They tell the truth early

They don’t protect their ego at the expense of reality.

3) They make people bigger

They develop capability, confidence, and ownership in others.

4) They regulate emotion before they lead

They don’t outsource their insecurity onto the team.

5) They build trust as a strategic asset

Because trust compounds. Fear doesn’t.

Good leadership can be firm, direct, and demanding—but it does not humiliate. It does not punish honesty. It does not treat disagreement as betrayal.

The leadership we should stop copying

The danger of bad leadership today is not just that it harms people.

It’s that it can look like the right way to lead—especially when it’s visible, rewarded, and broadcast as “strength.”

But if a leadership style requires fear to function, it is not sustainable.

If it shrinks followers, it is not leadership.

If it prioritises the leader’s image over the group’s reality, it will fail—eventually.

The future belongs to leaders who build capable teams, not dependent followers. To leaders who value truth over theatre. To leaders who understand that the ultimate measure of leadership is not how powerful the leader becomes, but how well the people around them can think, act, and thrive.

Because in the end, leadership that does not benefit followers isn’t leadership at all.