“In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing. The worst thing you can do is nothing.”
~ Theodore Roosevelt
The other day I was asked, “Why do you think there are so many bad leaders?”
It’s an interesting question, isn’t it?
It would be easy to point fingers at these various leaders, but the harsh reality is that it’s not them. Bad leaders only exist because there are followers who enable them.
In other words, if there are no followers, there is no one to call their (bad) “leader.”
So, I think the original question should be reframed. It should be “Why do bad leaders have followers?”
And if I had to choose the two biggest culprits of this particular dysfunction, they would be:
- The social tolerance for ego and fear
- And the decision-making environment.
The Social Tolerance for Ego and Fear
Every organization has a certain “social tolerance” for behavior. When ego-driven or fear-based behavior is tolerated, it creates an unhealthy environment. Leaders fixated on their image or the need to avoid failure become defensive and quick to shut down opposing views. They’re more concerned with how they look than with making sound decisions. And this trickles down through the tribe.
But again, leaders can only go as far as their teams allow them.
When so-called leaders get caught up in an extreme ego-fear loop, their followers can leave. They can become whistle-blowers. They can rebel.
Uber went through this.
As the co-founder and CEO (Travis Kalanick) got more and more toxic, ego, fear, and even bullying were tolerated as long as targets were met. Until his own people revolted. The employees spoke up and exposed the toxicity. Eventually, Kalanick was pushed out of the tribe. And a healthier company emerged.
But the concept of social tolerance is actually a continuum, yes? It’s not a simple binary choice. Maximum tolerance produces dictatorships. Job titles become weapons. At the same time, zero tolerance can produce a major case of conflict avoidance. Bad ideas are not challenged and individual voices are silenced. Both extremes are unhealthy. The healthy target is somewhere in the middle.
Pause.
What is the social tolerance for ego and fear at your company? Is it high, where “anything goes” as long as the numbers are hit? Or is it hyper-low, where nothing is tolerated in the name of “psychological safety”?
I have seen both extremes. And I have seen both extremes destroy a culture.
In exercise, a bit of discomfort is actually ideal. Stress is good. But too much stress – and too little – will only cause problems.
So that’s the real question… how healthy is your social tolerance for ego and fear? Does it allow for independent thought and the challenging of ideas or does it attack such behaviors? Does it recognize that fear is an indicator that something is wrong – or does it simply call fear an enemy?
What does the mirror say to you?
Hold that thought while we go back to the discussion and cover root cause factor number two: the decision-making environment.
The Decision-Making Environment
The environment in which decisions are made directly impacts the execution of strategy. In a chaotic, reactive environment, decisions are based on immediate pressures rather than long-term objectives. It’s survival mode – every day.
But when results keep pouring in, do people really want to challenge that environment? I mean, the salaries are good and the bonus checks are healthy.
The problem is that this kind of atmosphere erodes trust, weakens morale, and eventually fosters a “just do what you’re told” mindset. In this environment, the culture stagnates and will eventually become toxic.
It’s quite easy for us all to call out a weak decision-making environment when the desired results consistently fall short. But what happens when the desired results are good… IN SPITE of the decision-making quality?
The Boeing 737 MAX is a classic case of this.
In the late 2010s, Boeing was in intense competition with Airbus to deliver a fuel-efficient, upgraded aircraft. To meet demand and deliver faster, Boeing developed the 737 MAX, which initially looked like a major win: sales surged, the stock price climbed, and the company posted record profits. On paper, Boeing appeared unstoppable.
However, behind the scenes, there were deep issues with Boeing’s decision-making environment. Some of the key mistakes they made include:
- Cost-Cutting Over Safety
- Poor Communication and Suppression of Dissent
- Reactive, Short-Term Focus
But this environment still produced massive sales of the 737 MAX. And as teased above, the value of stock options soared and bonus checks were still being handed out.
How easy was it for people to walk away from such a broken environment? Yes, a couple of standouts exist (like Ed Pierson and John Barnett), but honestly… how many people left in protest of the dysfunction?
Pause.
The example above is classic resulting – people believing that results are all the proof they need that they are doing great job. And vice versa – people believing that poor results are proof that no one is doing a good job.
How much resulting is happening in your company? How much of the emphasis in placed on “the bottom line”?
Is any attention given to HOW work is done and to illuminating the strengths and weaknesses of those efforts? Or is everything a rundown of lagging indicators?
And ask yourself the bigger question… what is the reaction of folks when the weaknesses are known (and maybe even discussed quietly in the background) but bonus checks still go out? Does anyone truly care?
Is there any attempt to dig into the wins and losses to see whether or not the organization can learn from this? Are there any best practices emerging that could benefit the greater team or is everyone that is currently winning “too busy for that”?
What does the mirror say to you?
Now, back to our core discussion.
Can you see how the social tolerance for ego and fear shapes the decision-making environment? Both high and low tolerance will destroy how (and what) decisions are made. Which then fuels a downward cycle of ego and fear tolerance. On and on it will go, until it’s too late.
Breaking the Cycle
If we truly want to break the cycle of supporting bad leaders, we have to own the responsibility of being good followers. We have to find the courage to define what healthy tolerance looks like. We have to push the curse of resulting to the side and become deeply committed to ensuring a great decision-making environment.
What does this look like? Start with this:
- Practice Self-Reflection: Players who regularly reflect don’t get stuck in resulting. It’s not enough to say, “We succeeded.” Instead, ask: Why did it work? What could have gone wrong? Self-reflection challenges assumptions and keeps you honest about the true quality of your decisions.
- Adopt a Growth Mindset: Forget chasing wins for validation. Players who focus on learning break free from ego-driven choices. When you see every experience as a chance to improve, immediate wins become less important. You start focusing on what will make the organization better – not what will make you feel better.
- Seek Out Diverse Perspectives: People who listen to different views build stronger, more balanced teams. Inviting critique breaks down bias and provides insights that prevent reactive decision-making. Open dialogue isn’t a “nice-to-have” – it’s essential for expanding thinking and staying grounded in reality.
- Hold Yourself Accountable: The best players aren’t just accountable for results – they’re accountable for how they achieve them. Holding yourself to high standards builds trust and strengthens the culture. Accountability forces you to check biases at the door and lead with integrity.
Yes, bad leaders will resent this. But great leaders will appreciate it. They realize that they cannot do everything. It takes the collective tribe to genuinely build an authentic growth engine.
Will you be the follower who makes better leaders?
Holomua. Onward and upward.
Originally published at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-do-bad-leaders-thrive-tim-ohai-3hqfc/
An extra thought:
“Faith and fear both demand you believe in something you cannot see. You choose.”
~ Bob Proctor
Recent Comments