Blog

About a year ago I posted a piece titled, “A Radical Relook at the Gender Gap.”* “We pretend that differences between genders do not exist, or that they do not pertain,” I wrote. But they do. “Women’s minds, and their bodies, impact what they (we) want to do and can do their entire professional lives.” This includes both women’s ambition to lead – and their ability to lead.

How could it be otherwise? How could menstruation, fertility, pregnancy, breastfeeding and menopause, and the signs and symptoms associated with each, have no impact whatsoever on why still so few women are in top leadership roles? This is not, obviously, to suggest that other factors do not pertain. But it is to insist that having a conversation about gender and leadership without taking account of the physical and psychological differences between women and men is ridiculous.

Still, in general, the subject remains taboo. When I recently asked an ambitious young (in her thirties) woman friend if she would ever tell her boss that she couldn’t make a meeting because she had menstrual cramps, she looked at me as if I’d lost my mind. So out of the realm of possibility was the idea that she would provide what she considered personal, and potentially detrimental, information.

Nevertheless, I predict that in the next few years will be a cultural change – one more conducive to women speaking truth to power. To women being more open and honest about how they feel personally and how this affects them professionally.

How can it be otherwise when at least in America and Europe women are becoming less inhibited than they were about, to take one example, menopause. In the last few years menopause has gone from being largely a private matter to one more freely discussed. Among other signs a spate of new books that have joined an “expanding shelf of menopause-related publications, among them a pair of best sellers.”** Nor are most of these books by bystanders; they are by and about women who professionally are highly successful but who were “blindsided by the onset of an inevitable hormonal change.”  

None of this is to say that discussing menopause is entirely new. Rather it is to point out that the context has changed: that our culture is far franker than it used to be, and that whatever is said can be amplified countless times over by social media.

The signs and symptoms of menopause, which range from minor to major, can last for up to a decade. This decade – let’s say between the ages of 45 to 55 – happens to coincide with when career trajectories reach their peak. How is it possible, then, for menopause and leadership to be in no way related? How is it possible, then, for women who want to lead menopause is never a factor?

——————————————————————————-

*https://barbarakellerman.com/a-radical-relook-at-the-gender-gap/

** All quotes in this post are from Rebecca Mead, “If You Can’t Stand the Heat” in The New Yorker, March 10, 2025.

In a piece I posted Monday I pointed out that to some male leaders – specifically to those with authoritarian preferences and proclivities – size matters as much as or even more than anything else. Before you leap to any conclusions, please note that I was referring to the size of their domains, the bigger the better. Case in point: the war in Ukraine is all about Russia’s President Vladimir Putin wanting greatly to expand the size of Russia by annexing Ukraine. Another case in point: President Donald Trump who in last night’s State of the Union speech reiterated his intention to take back the Panama Canal – and somehow to acquire Greenland. (Mercifully he did not repeat his vague but real idea of making Canada the 51^st state.)  

Given that this same State of the Union speech was the longest in presidential history, it’s clear it’s not just overall size that matters, length matters too. Specifically, the length of time that these sorts of leaders can dominate a space, command a room literally and figuratively just by publicly speaking. By publicly speaking far, far longer than usual, forcing those in attendance to, if not pay attention, at least to remain in place. And forcing those not in attendance to consider that by not knowing what their supreme leader said they will miss out.

In 2024 Putin’s State of the Union speech lasted two hours, which for him is typical. In 2017 China’s President Xi Jinping gave a speech that lasted three-and-a-half hours. (The Guardian commented he was testing “eyeballs and bladders.”) But neither holds a candle to another Strongman, Cuba’s legendary Fidel Castro. Castro famously spoke endlessly. He delivered the longest speech ever at the United Nations, clocking in at four hours and 29 minutes. But his personal best was in Cuba, where he once gave a speech that lasted the better part of a day – seven hours and 30 minutes.   

Just like bigger is considered better, longer is considered better. Longer is considered better by leaders who have insatiable appetites for more of everything than they already have.

Think Trump knows that the Gettysburg Address was 272 words? Think Trump knows that it was delivered by President Abrham Lincoln in less than three minutes? Think Trump knows that Lincoln’s Second Inaugural address was 701 words? Think Trump knows that Lincoln delivered it in under seven minutes? Probably not.

Size matters to leaders – especially to male leaders, though only to some male leaders.

In an earlier post titled “Male Leaders” (link below), I pointed out that even eons after humans separated from other great apes, mostly it was males who led. I further pointed out that mostly it was males who sought to lead, to control, to dominate not just their own groups and organizations but others as well.   

This particularly pertains to leaders at the national level where proxies serve as warriors. National leaders have at their disposal militaries, intelligence services, and weapons, many of which are deadly. So, in our own time it is male leaders at the national level who are most likely to emulate their great ape analogues.

While in the past males were prone to aggression either because they wanted more sex or because they wanted more territory, now sex is less of a factor. Not only is it much more freely available than it used to be, but procreation, having as many offspring as possible, is less desirable.

But the appetite to acquire more territory continues unabated. Leaders, though only some male leaders, continue to want not only to dominate their own domains but to acquire other ones as well, all of which they then can control.

Safe to say that some male leaders feel more powerful and successful – more manly – if the domain they dominate is larger as opposed to smaller. Enlargement, expansion, and extension are good. Stasis, not speak of shrinkage, are bad.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is an obvious example of the syndrome. Three years ago, Russia invaded Ukraine. Why? To acquire it, to swallow the country whole so that Russia could get significantly larger and Putin could feel significantly more virile.

Another example is China’s president Xi Jinping. Why did China undertake its Belt and Road initiative, considered one of the most ambitious infrastructure projects ever? To gain geopolitical and military influence in far flung regions of the world including Africa, Oceana, and Latin America. Why did China seek to reassert control over Hong Kong? To make clear to Hong Kongers as well as to the rest of the world that the island was an integral part of China. Why does the West worry that someday not far into the future China will compel Taiwan to become part of the mainland? Because Xi has made clear he considers Taiwan to be part of China, which is to say it has no business really functioning as an independent state.     

Finally, there is President Donald Trump, who recently floated the idea that Canada should become the 51^st state. Who recently indicated his interest in purchasing Greenland from Denmark. And who recently suggested that under American leadership Gaza become “the Riviera” of the Middle East. All of these and more gestures toward American enlargement, American expansion. All of these and more indicators that if only the United States could grow in size so, as Trump sees it, he would grow in stature.

The bigger the better. To some male leaders – specifically to those with authoritarian preferences and proclivities – size matters as much as or even more than anything else. Lebensraum anyone?

—————————————————————-

Male Leaders

          Yesterday’s Oval Office shouting match – between the President and Vice President of the United States on the one side and a foreign head of state on the other – was unprecedented. It was certainly unprecedented as a performance that anyone anywhere who chooses to see it, can see. It was yet another apparent astonishment in a series of apparent astonishments – all of which materialized in the last one month and one week.

          The changes wrought by Donald Trump have been, no doubt about it, dizzying. In a stunningly short period of time, he imprinted himself not just on American politics but on world politics. Never in America – and not all that often anyplace else – has one leader done so much so fast to redraw the landscape not merely in minor ways but in major ones.

No need for me to summarize what Times columnist Peter Baker already did.  Here’s what he wrote about Trump’s revision of the national order:

The news media is being pressured. Lawmakers have been tamed. Career officials deemed disloyal are being fired. Prosecutors … are targeting perceived [Trump] adversaries and dropping cases against allies or others who do his bidding. Billionaire tycoons who once considered themselves masters of the universe are prostrating themselves before him. Judges [who block him] are being threatened with impeachment. The uniformed military … has now been purged of its highest- ranking officers and lawyers. And a president who calls himself “the king,” ostensibly in jest, is [suggesting] that he may try to stay in power beyond the limits of the Constitution.  

And here’s what Baker wrote about Trump’s revision of international order:

Mr. Trump this week had the United Nations vote against a …resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine….Among the countries that Mr. Trump joined in siding with Russia? North Korea, Belarus, and Sudan. Those who stood against? Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Italy, Japan and most of the rest of the world. It would be hard to think of a starker demonstration of how radically Mr. Trump is recalibrating America’s place in the world after barely a month back in office. He is positioning the United States in the camp of the globe’s chief rogue states in opposition to the countries that have been American’s best friends since World War II or before.

What to make of what’s happened – what’s happened so fast it’s difficult to make sense of it? To answer the question, I turn once again to the leadership system. Leadership is not, as I often observe, about single individuals. About leaders in high places. Instead, leadership is a system with three parts, each of which is equally important: 1) leaders; 2) followers; and 3) contexts.

Why does this matter? Because it explains the otherwise inexplicable. It deciphers the otherwise indecipherable.

Here’s the truth of it. Donald Trump, the leader, is behaving in ways that were altogether predictable. First, as I spelled out in my last book, unless it is stopped, bad leadership always, without exception, gets worse. Second, Trump’s politics, policies, selections and decisions all were foretold by Trump himself. Trump’s second presidential term is nothing other than him doing what he said he would do.

Further, Trump’s followers are behaving in ways that were altogether predictable. His tribe, MAGA admirers and supporters, remain on board. And his team – acolytes who include but are not limited to Republican members of Congress and members of the Trump administration – remains abjectly loyal.

What then was not predictable? We the American people knew, or we should have known what we were getting when we reelected Trump president. And we the American people knew, or we should have known the stuff of which we were made. Specifically, more than half the American electorate voted for Trump for president. Virtually every prominent Republican remains as they were before, under Trump’s thumb. And leaders in other places, such as in American business, higher education, and the media are as they usually are, scared to speak truth to power.

The leader then was known. And so were the followers. What we did not however know was the context. We did not understand how quickly and nearly effortlessly America’s over two-hundred-year-old Constitutional system would buckle. How frail it was, how vulnerable to a single strongman and his slavish, silent followers. How dependent the United States of America has always been and manfiestly still is not so much on the division of powers, or on checks and balances, or on the rule of law, as it is on men and women of democratic disposition and good enough character.

It’s been an awakening as rude as sudden.

On December 11 of last year, I published a post titled, “Bad Leadership: Why We Steer Clear.” It was based on my longer article of the same name.*

The point of the article was to ask why. Why, given that bad leadership can be as pernicious as ubiquitous, the leadership industry continues studiously to avoid the subject.** To this question I gave four answers which, together, largely explain why we are where we are. Why the leadership industry generally fails even to address bad leadership, not to speak of analyzing it and attempting to contain it.

In my post of December 11, I provided a link to the article, but did not directly answer my own question. The present post does just this.

Why am I returning to this general subject one month into the presidency of Donald Trump? Because Americans especially though not exclusively are living in a time when their democracy is devolving into an autocracy. Because Americans especially though not exclusively are living in a time when the question of who is a bad leader and who a good one has never been more urgent.  

I do not claim that these four reasons are the only reasons. I do claim that they go a long way toward explaining why the leadership industry continues to seek the light as it continues to deny the dark. As if dark did not exist.

Reason # 1: Follow the money. The leadership industry is like every other industry. People are in it to make money. And there is more money to be made, much more money to be made by professing to teach people how to be good leaders than by struggling to unravel the mysteries of bad ones.   

Reason # 2: The Nature of the Human Condition. Humans are not widgets. We are complex beings who behave in complicated ways, sometimes good and sometimes not so good. The complexities of good and bad, including leaders who are capable of being both good and bad, are daunting. Daunting for researchers and teachers, as for coaches and consultants.

Reason # 3: The Matter of Meaning Making.  What does being a “good” leader even mean? A leader who is ethical? A leader who is effective? A leader who is both? What about a leader like Elon Musk, who can fairly be said to have been a “good” leader at some points in the last two decades and a “bad” leader at others? It’s complicated.

Reason # 4: The Breaches Between Us.  Maybe you and I agree on who is a good leader. But maybe not. Chances are good that we do not – even if we’re both from the same country and culture, and both white women. Which leaves us with a problem: how to address bad leadership if we differ even on what constitutes bad and good and how bad and good even pertain?

Granted. The problems associated with addressing bad leadership – even discussing it! – are formidable. Should this stop us from tackling a problem endemic to the human condition? It should not.

————————————————————

*This is the article referred to above.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/17427150241272793

** For my definition of the leadership industry and related discussions, see my books, The End of Leadership (HarperCollins, 2013) and Professionalizing Leadership (Oxford University Press, 2018).

OK, I admit that Winston Churchill did not say it about Vladimir Putin. He said it about Adolf Hitler. But the point’s the same.

In the mid-1930s England was asleep. The British were vaguely aware that Nazi Germany presented a threat. But neither they nor their government wanted to believe it, and so they chose largely to ignore it. To ignore the danger presented by a rearmed and obviously aggressive Germany led by a fascistic and obviously aggressive Hitler. Which was when Churchill’s light began brightly to shine. For he foresaw more clearly than did nearly all his contemporaries that Hitler was a menace not just to Paris and Brussels, not just to Prague and Warsaw, but to London.

Though Churchill’s rhetoric went unheeded, he nevertheless reiterated it. In 1938 Churchill delivered a speech in Parliament – “The Threat to Czechoslovakia” – that echoed his previous warnings and that urged Europe to resist the Nazi menace.

But the story of this year is not ended at Czechoslovakia. It is not ended this month. The might behind the German Dictator increases daily, His appetite may grow with eating. The forces of law and freedom have for a long time known nothing but rebuffs, failures and humiliations. Their influence would be immensely increased by any signs of concerted action and initiative ….

I have bolded the line that stands out. That is a deep psychological insight and, to boot, a literary masterstroke. It applies across time and space to bad leaders who, instead of being stopped, are appeased. It applied in 1938 to Adolf Hitler. It applies in 2025 to Vladimir Putin.

It’s so simple a concept. But the idea that unless it is checked bad leadership always gets worse is, apparently, difficult to grasp. Right, Mr. President?   

          Despite his total lack of recent responsibility, and despite his total failure as recent prognosticator, James Carville remains one of America’s most popular political gurus. His heyday as Democratic consultant was the heyday of Bill Clinton. But because of his over-the top good ole’ boy demeanor, and his over-the-top good ole’ boy speech, Carville remains a media favorite. Just yesterday MSNBC anchor Ari Melber gave the man airtime.

          Carville’s last major foray into the public debate was in October, shortly before the presidential election. The New York Times published his guest essay, memorably titled, “Three Reasons I’m Certain Kamala Harris Will Win.” Well, give the man credit for sticking his neck out. But OMG was he wrong! Not only did Harris suffer an ignominious electoral defeat, but the reasons why Carville calculated she would win even then seemed a bit ridiculous. (Reason # 1 she had lots of money. Reason # 2 Trump had been a “repeat electoral loser.” And Reason # 3, feeblest of all, “It’s just a feeling.”)

Still, here is Carville again, this time advising Democratic elites, primarily elected officials, to do nothing. To do nothing no matter what President Donald Trump or his sidekick Elon Musk does or says.

Carville seems not to object to ordinary people doing something, specifically demonstrating against the administration. But he is in no uncertain terms telling Democratic politicians to “Play possum. Just let it go. Don t get in the way of it. Or as we like to say, don’t just stand there, do nothing. Let this germinate…. We don’t need to get in front of it. This freight train is moving. Let’s just get out of the way and then we’re gonna have time.”       

Let’s be clear about who here are the leaders and who the followers: Trump and Musk are the leaders. It is they and only they who are driving the “freight train” to which Carville alludes. Everyone else is a follower, both top Republicans and top Democrats. The very same Democrats who have been driving many of their constituents crazy because they have seemed spineless. Crazy because they have seemed to lack even a pulse. Crazy because they have seemed pathetically weak in the face of overweening strength. When Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer recently told journalist Mara Gay that he finally understood that what the American people wanted from the Democrats – “They want us to beat Trump and stop this shit.” – Gay’s reaction was to write, “It was a welcome sign of life.”

I’m in the same camp. It seems to me that Carville is on the wrong side of history. It seems to me that he’s as wrong about this as he was about the outcome of the presidential election. It seems to me that he should either retire or be retired. It seems to me that the longer we wait to stand up against any tyrant, or any would-be tyrant, the heavier the lift. Finally, it seems to me that what threatens the United States of America is less a crisis of leadership than of followership.

In January 2024, people, some people anyway, took a hissy fit when the CEO of JPMorgan, Jamie Dimon, had the temerity – or maybe it was the foresight – publicly to praise Donald Trump. Dimon did not say Trump walked on water, but he did applaud some of Trump’s positions such as on, for example, trade and immigration.

A year later the tide has turned. Seems America’s CEOs – including some of the nation’s most powerful, who previously spoke against Trump – cannot line up fast enough behind the American president. Either proactively or reactively many of America’s most prominent chief executive officers are bending the knee to – sucking up to – the man at the Resolute Desk. Elon Musk is, of course, an exception to this general rule. But he is alone in his dispensation.

Their subservience has been in evidence since the day after the November election. No time for grass to grow under their feet – such was the alacrity with which many leaders of America’s biggest businesses rushed to make peace with the president elect. Most visibly tech leaders including Meta’s CEO, Google’s CEO, and Amazon’s founder, whose companies contributed handsomely to the inaugural festivities and who promptly were rewarded with box seats at the inaugural ceremony. As they saw it, their task was to make clear to the Big Man that whatever their objections to him in the past, they were out the window.

Their subservience was in evidence again this week. Leaders like Bezos and Zuckerberg stood by and silently watched as President Trump withdrew from or in some cases dismantled initiatives that were aimed at slowing climate change – an issue on which in the not distant past they were at the forefront.           

In my book, Bad Leadership, I identified seven different types of bad leadership. One of these was Insular Leadership which I defined this way:  The leader and at least some followers minimize or disregard the health and welfare of “the other” – that is, of those outside the group or organization for which they are directly responsible.

I grant that dual loyalties present corporate leaders with a dilemma. Is the first loyalty of a chief executive officer to their shareholders, their board, their employees? Other obvious stakeholders? Or is it, instead, to the public at large, in this case a public that obviously would benefit from climate change that is somewhat controlled as opposed to entirely uncontrolled?   

The track record of business leaders who collaborate meekly and mutely with political leaders is not good. More precisely, mixing profits and politics can be good for them personally and professionally and, in fairness, for the companies for which they are responsible. But if the relationship is too close – corporate leaders too dependent on political leaders – the outcomes for everyone else are much more likely to be bad than good. Sometimes even very bad or very, very bad.

To every rule there are exceptions. I have a rule I always follow. Except when I don’t. As today.

The rule is never to post a piece written by someone else. But as this piece by M. Gessen is so important, and so completely in keeping with my previous post – “For Followers Who Want to FIGHT Not Follow” – for your information and edification I am reposting Gessen’s contribution.*

---

*In case the link does not work, the piece appeared in the New York Times dated February 8. It’s titled, “The Chilling Consequences of Going Along with Trump.”

It’s impossible to be interested in leadership and followership without being riveted by what’s happening and not happening during these first few weeks of Donald Trump’s second presidential term. It’s not like being unable to look away from the proverbial car crash. It’s more like being unable to look away from a series of car crashes, a sequence that’s rapid-fire and never-ending.

This post assumes that what Trump – along with Elon Musk – has done and not done since January 20^th is “bad.” Objectionable or even highly objectionable to some considerable part of the American body politic. It asks what if anything those who object, but who have less power and authority than Trump and Musk, can do to stop the two men from continuing what many consider their unconstitutional power grab.

It’s a question I’ve struggled with for years. How when the need to do so something as opposed to nothing is urgent, do people from all walks of life and every station take on the high and mighty, especially if the high and mighty seem virtually impregnable, untouchable?

There’s a body of literature that addresses this question. But it’s small and it’s not a magic bullet. For once people are in positions of power, they can pull the levers of power. This not only makes it difficult to stop or even slow them, but sometimes it puts those who try to do so at risk, even great risk.

Trump was inaugurated on January 20^th. For some unfathomable reason, during the first few weeks of his presidency the opposition, most obviously the nation’s leading Democrats, seemed stunned. As if they’d been hit on the head with a two by four. Why? They knew damn well what was coming – and if they didn’t, they were idiots.

First, we knew what we were getting. Trump never hid who he was, or with whom he was politically aligned, or what he intended to do if reelected. Moreover, for years we’ve had the evidence we need to know that Republicans, especially but not exclusively congressional Republicans, would virtually without exception be supine. Second, while Inauguration Day was in late January, Election Day was in early November. In other words, Trump’s opponents had not weeks to strategize how they would take him on, but months. Three months! What took the Democrats so long even to begin to get their act together?! To start to figure out how to take on two men in positions of great power who, to boot, have access to two of the biggest bullhorns in the world? Trump the bully pulpit. Musk X.

This post cannot possibly be all-encompassing. For those who want to take on Trump I cannot in a several paragraphs prescribe a course of action. What I can do here, however, is to provide suggestions for followers who want to fight. And what I can do here, however, is to recommend books on how followers – those with less power, authority, and influence than others – can take on leaders they think are behaving badly.

Seven Suggestions for Followers Who Want to FIGHT not Follow

1. Remember: speed is exceedingly important. The longer people wait to object – whether in the streets or in the halls of Congress, whether in a court of law or as a member of a union or any other organization, whether as an individual or part of a group – the deeper their slog, the steeper their climb.
2. Remember: numbers matter. Usually, though not always, the larger the protest, the better.
3. Remember: first be strategic, then tactical. Develop a plan, then decide how to implement it.  
4. Remember: organization is important. There are protests – however defined, whatever their form – that are spontaneous and without an obvious leader or organizer. But in general, these are less long-lived and successful than their more disciplined and coherent counterparts.  
5. Remember: embrace anger. Some of the most successful protests ever, anywhere, everywhere, have been notable for their levels of rage and outrage.
6. Remember: words matter. Don’t shoot from the hip. Think about how to express, how best to communicate, that which aggravates, even infuriates you. That makes you so unhappy and upset that you feel you must express yourself publicly, not just privately.
7. Remember: symbols speak volumes. These include signs, slogans, logos and songs. These include names and nicknames and whatever gimmicks send the message you intend.

Seven Recommendations for Books about Followers Who Want to FIGHT Not Follow

Julie Battilana and Tiziana Casciaro, Power for All (Simon and Schuster, 2021).

Ira Chaleff, The Courageous Follower (Berrett-Koehler., 2009).

Ira Chaleff, Intelligent Disobedience (MLF Books, 2021).

Ira Chaleff, How to Stop a Tyrant (Wonderwell Press, 2024).

Barbara Kellerman, Followership (Harvard Business School Press, 2008).

Barbara Kellerman, The Enablers (Cambridge University Press, 2021).

Barbara Kellerman, Leadership from Bad to Worse, (Oxford University Press, 2024).