Trump, coronavirus expose a flawed definition of leadership

What is leadership?

Apparently, it’s where Donald Trump earns his highest marks from American voters in a recent AP-NORC Center poll.

According to the poll half of Americans say the term “strong leader” is a very good or moderately good description of Trump.

But Trump’s idea of a strong leader appears to be someone who does what he wants, when he wants. That’s what outright and de facto dictators like Vladimir Putin (Russia), Kim Jong Un (South Korea) and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (Turkey) do. Trump has praised all three. Their approach appeals not only to Trump, but to supporters who hate red tape, bureaucracy and anything else that limits them from doing ... well, whatever they want to do.

This is their concept of liberty or freedom. It had absolutely nothing to do with the concept of representative democracy. This system, under which we’re supposed to operate, is designed to protect everyone’s freedom by balancing the rights of some interests against those of competing (or opposing) interests.

In a time of political polarization, however, those “opposing interests” aren’t viewed as checks and balances, they’re seen as “evil” and “the enemy.”

Freedom doesn’t mean freedom for everyone. It means, “freedom for me to do whatever I want, and to hell with everyone else.”

Silencing those who disagree

That’s where the whole system breaks down, because the minute we see the opposition in that light, we dismiss their point of view and even their right to express that point of view. That undermines one of the core values we claim to hold — it’s even in the Constitution: freedom of speech and expression.

It’s no coincidence that dictators seek to limit speech and rein in the expression. In an outright dictatorship, it’s done by arresting people, sending them to gulags, confiscating their property, and torturing them. Because our system still has some checks and balances in place, Trump does it by demeaning his opponents through name-calling and seeking to discredit the media (who, sadly, don’t really need much help).

There’s that term “checks and balances” again. Trump doesn’t like them, and neither do people who want to get things done quickly.

Damn the red tape, full speed ahead.

Of course, they’re an intrinsic part of our constitutional system, because the people who wrote that Constitution didn’t want a dictator.

The power of disinformation

He may not be able to do whatever he wants, but he tries. He issued more executive orders during the first three years of his presidency than Barack Obama, George W. Bush or Bill Clinton. But checks and balances can’t keep him from saying whatever he wants, and that can be nearly as damaging.

Trump doesn’t agree.

The number of lies he’s told since being in office has been well-documented. But the nature of those lies, at times, makes them even more dangerous, especially in times of crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic. Hydroxychloroquine can work on coronavirus. Oh, not so much? Well, try injecting bleach? Sure, that’ll do the trick.

The thing is, even though Trump can’t do everything he wants, he still thinks he’s knows more than scientists, generals, business experts ... just about anyone about just about anything.

No matter how absurd his claims might be, no matter how often he contradicts science (or even his own previous statements), it doesn’t matter. Why? Because studies have shown that “confidence, even when unjustified, leads to higher social status.” Even when it’s bullshit, people believe it.

Trump realizes this, and acts on it. In doing so, he’s tapped into the same psychology used by despots for centuries: Fake it until you make it, because even if you never make it on your merits, you’ll eventually convince people that you have. So you will. That’s how a con man operates — how someone who has repeatedly failed at business gets elected, simply because he says he’s a successful businessman.

Bias toward tyranny?

But there’s more to it than this. Apparently, we in the U.S. are particularly prone to swallowing this kind of B.S. — despite our constitutional separation of powers, and despite the fact that we broke from England because we have a distaste for tyranny.

But do we, really?

A Harvard Business Review analysis presents an alternative, and disturbing conclusion.

The analysis asks what constitutes leadership. In response, it points out that studies have shown a dichotomy, depending on where you live. Places like East Asia and Latin America value a “synchronized leader” who builds consensus, then follows through. Northern European nations and their former colonies (including the U.S.), by contrast, value “opportunistic leaders” who are “more or less individualistic” and “thrive on ambiguity.”

Sounds like a synonym for “self-serving egotists” who “like to have their cake and eat it, too.”

Not a pretty picture.

Another dichotomy: Some nations prefer “straight-shooting” leaders who get straight to the point, while others prefer “diplomatic” leaders who “continually gauge audience reactions.”

The missing piece

What’s missing in all this is one key component: Facts.

The ability to quickly gather, interpret and effectively act on those facts is what makes an effective leader. Not polls, not spin, not self-aggrandizement. A leader is, very simply, someone who was out front. The first person to perceive a problem, and to grasp both its nature and scope. The person most capable of formulating a response, making sure it’s implemented, and ensuring it’s effective.

This has nothing to do with:

• Pretending to know everything about everything, when you really don’t. This can lead to catastrophic mistakes, especially during times of crisis. The Donald Trump method.

• “Continually gauging audience reactions,” which is just another term for “governing by polls.” This can lead to popular but equally flawed conclusions, because they’re based on popularity contests. The Bill Clinton method.

Either way, the facts are conveniently left out of the equation. In the first case, decisions are based not on facts but on one person’s (self-serving) opinion. In the second, decisions are based not on facts, but on public opinion. The latter is at least more democratic, but as the founders recognized, public opinion can lead to conclusions that are just as faulty as a dictator’s — which is why they wrote the Constitution.

Decisiveness is not leadership

Why does Trump get higher marks as a leader than he does for anything else?

Because we’re mistaking decisiveness for leadership. You can be decisive about anything. You can be hell-bent on jumping off a cliff into a pile of quicksand with an anvil tied around your neck. That’s decisive. But it doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. And it doesn’t make you a leader — unless your followers are a bunch of mindless lemmings.

True leadership requires much more than being decisive. It requires being decisive in the right ways (effectiveness) for the right reasons (reliable information). Trump is neither. The COVID-19 crisis has further exposed him as an ineffective leader who makes decisions based on what he wants to believe, rather than the facts. He leaves scientists to try to clean up his mess, then blames them when he’s wrecked things beyond repair.

That says something about him, and it says a lot more those of us who consider him a strong leader.

He’s anything but.