It's not lost on me that the powers that be (Trump, Musk, etc.) are modeling a style of leadership that is in direct contrast to what I teach and promote.
It's disappointing at best, dangerous at worst.
The Trump administration has done many (manyyy) things I don’t agree with – but the leadership style this administration models to the world at large hits home both personally and professionally.
Since Trump took office, we’ve seen a dramatic backlash to the modern, human-centered approach to leadership. Like most things with this administration, it’s a return to the past. Trump himself, and his cronies (Musk, in particular), model a traditional leadership style that dominated much of the 20th century and harks back to industrial-era thinking.
It’s the style we associate with “bad boss” tropes: the commanding, controlling figure who makes top-down decisions and doesn’t care what you think. The boss who yells at employees and fires them on the spot. The boss who rewards conformity and punishes innovation. It’s Pink Floyd’s warning in “Welcome to the Machine.”
But at the start of the new millennium, things began to shift. As Gen X and Millennials entered the workforce, concepts like emotional intelligence emerged. We started to understand the importance of culture, connection, and empowering employees. Leadership became less about commanding and controlling, and more about coaching.
The transition from the industrial era to the information era fundamentally changed how leaders approached their teams. Leaders were taught to value the human behind the employee and to draw on psychology and behavioral science to motivate, engage, and rally people toward shared goals.
Employees were no longer cogs in a machine – they were assets. And a leader’s role was to retain and grow those assets through development, trust, and meaningful work.
Things were progressing in a healthier, more human direction – and then came the backlash.
A Return to Command and Control Leadership
Trump, Musk, Zuckerberg - they’ve all expressed nostalgia for more “masculine” ways of leading. But why?
I have … so many thoughts. (But I’ll save my rant on how their fragile egos play a big part in this for another time.)
What I believe entered the general zeitgeist is the sense that we swung too far toward compassion and diplomacy in the workplace - that we abandoned some valuable aspects of traditional leadership like directness, decisiveness, and control. And honestly, that’s fair.
Perhaps we leaned too far into the “feminine” principles of leadership in an attempt to overcorrect what had become a toxic and outdated model. What we truly need is a balanced blend of feminine and masculine leadership principles. (I write about that here.)
But the problem is: these men are very powerful and incredibly successful. So leaders everywhere, especially women, start to wonder:
Should I be more like them?
What the Evidence Says
Even though the evidence shows that more “feminine” leadership traits—like empathy, collaboration, and emotional intelligence—are tremendous assets, many women leaders have begun to question themselves in the face of this backlash.
Psychologist Adam Grant captures this tension beautifully in his NYT opinion piece, “America Is Learning the Wrong Lesson From Elon Musk’s Success.”
He writes:
“How then do you explain Mr. Musk’s success? With Tesla and SpaceX, he’s built two wildly prosperous companies, disrupting one industry and supercharging another. But those results have come in spite of the way he treats people, not because of it.”
He goes on to explain the concept of idiosyncrasy credit: as people accumulate status, we allow them to deviate from social norms.
“So when we see leaders being uncivil, we often get cause and effect backward. We assume that being unkind makes them successful. In truth, however, success can give them a license to be unkind.”
“The engineers at Tesla and SpaceX tolerate abuse from Mr. Hyde because they admire the vision of Dr. Jekyll.”
But Grant reminds us:
“Leadership by intimidation and insult is a bad strategy. Belittling people doesn’t boost their productivity; it diminishes it.”
And there is plenty of evidence to back it up, a review of over 400 studies across 36 countries with nearly 150,000 people showed:
“In the face of workplace aggression, people are less productive, less collaborative and more inclined to shirk their responsibilities. Abusive bosses break confidence and breed resentment. And ruthless, haphazard downsizing can cause the highest performers — the ones who have the best opportunities elsewhere — to jump ship. Denigrating people is not a path to accomplishing meaningful goals.”
His point is that you are not Musk. If you want to be an unkind and lazy leader, you need to earn it - until then, you'll need another strategy. (But I genuinely hope that's not the goal!)
Soft Power is a Super Power
In a recent podcast, Scott Galloway talked about how dismantling programs like USAID are eroding America’s soft power, a form of influence that comes from trust, credibility, and cultural modeling rather than coercion or brute force.
Soft power, a term coined by Harvard professor Joseph Nye in the 1990s, refers to influence through attraction and inspiration, rather than dominance. When we lose soft power, we lose trust, reputation, and influence - globally or organizationally.
And that’s a big thing to risk – not just for a nation, but for any leader or business.
You need your people to trust you, to work hard for you, and to carry your vision forward. That isn’t accomplished through fear or force. It comes from soft power, which is built on skills like coaching, active listening, and emotional intelligence.
When people feel safe, they bring their best energy. When they feel threatened, they shut down or burn out.
Using the USAID example, you see soft power at work when the US invests in local communities, economies, and institutions and builds goodwill and trust globally. That goodwill often translates into stronger diplomatic relationships, support for U.S. policies, and stability in regions important to U.S. interests.
In business, soft power might look like taking the time to hold an emergency huddle with your team to address concerns after a major disruption. It could mean owning a mistake publicly or modeling healthy boundaries - like taking breaks - so others feel safe to do the same.
Practically, it looks like:
Being someone people come to for guidance so that issues get solved faster.
Creating psychological safety so your team feels brave enough to challenge ideas and contribute their best thinking.
Modeling integrity and consistency, so your influence carries weight, even when you're not in the room.
Leaders who cultivate soft power don’t need to micromanage. Their presence sets the tone, their words carry weight, and their team moves with aligned momentum.
Final Thought: Don’t Be Like Them
The danger in devaluing soft power is that we’ll pile more onto a workforce that is already disengaged, burnt out, and, as the Wall Street Journal put it, miserable. Fear and force won’t fix that – they'll just further erode an already fragile workforce and decimate the wellbeing of our fellow citizens. I honestly cannot see how this is a win for anyone.
So, my advice for any leader during this time – especially women – is to ignore the strong man leadership style of Trump and Musk. It’s an outdated model that only works for a very small percentage of leaders (who ,frankly, aren't getting great results lately anyways).
Instead, lean into the leadership style that feels intuitive, relational, and human. Use your innate ability to read a room, tune into others, and show up with both clarity and care.
You do not need to be a hard ass to get results. You do not need to be a robot to be a boss. You can have expectations and high standards - and you can lead with your heart.
That is powerful and effective leadership. And lord knows we need more leaders like that in the world right now!
____________________________________________________________________________
👉 Want to lead with more confidence and clarity?
Download my Coaching Conversation Guide—a practical tool to help you have better 1:1s and tackle tough conversations with care.
 | A guest post by
|
I agree with you Shawn. A balance of trust, decisiveness, attentiveness to team members’ input & needs, and openness to admitting mistakes will get the best results. I think we have have over corrected on the sensitive side of leadership but brutal my way or the highway styles will fail in the long run (most of the time).