When a Leadership Defect Becomes a Feature

I have spent considerable time examining leadership behavior through a particular lens, one grounded in the assumption that certain values are non-negotiable: basic decency, respect between human beings, and a minimum standard of conduct we expect from anyone in a position of authority.

My operating assumption was straightforward. Leaders who were intentionally abusive, greedy, narcissistic, or genuinely pathological would not last. The collective, whether employees, voters, boards, or markets, would eventually reject them. It was a hopeful belief. It was also, I now recognize, a naive one.

What I had not fully reckoned with is this: what happens when those assumptions are not widely shared? What happens when large groups of people do not, in fact, place a premium on kindness, generosity, or decency in those who lead them?

Put plainly: what if the behaviors I considered leadership defects have become desired features?

This is not a partisan observation. Across all contexts, we have seen individuals with criminal records, documented moral failures, and open contempt for ethical norms win elections, hold office, and build loyal followings. In the corporate world, we have watched certain founders and executives accumulate extraordinary wealth and influence, not in spite of financial misconduct or public cruelty, but sometimes because of the persona those behaviors project. Labeling basic decency as “soft” has become, in some circles, a competitive advantage. Shareholders invest. Audiences grow. The feedback loop reinforces itself.

This matters at every level of organizational life, not just at the extremes. Consider the manager who schedules a non-urgent all-hands meeting at 5 p.m. on a Friday, a small act, but a signal. How about the executive who consistently crushes people to hit quarterly targets and gets promoted for it? These are not aberrations. In too many organizations, they are the operating model.

So what do we do with this?

First, organizations must look honestly in the mirror. Purpose and values are only meaningful if they govern behavior when it is costly to do so. That is the standard. Too many organizations fall well short of it, and most know it.

Second, and more personally, there comes a point in every serious career where you have to take a stand. When the behaviors you consider fundamentally unacceptable stop being tolerated and start being rewarded, when defects become features, that is a decisive signal.

The temptation at that moment is seductive and dangerous. You begin to wonder whether adopting those very behaviors is the price of staying relevant, staying in the room, staying on the team. That is the moment things become genuinely corrosive. The friction between your values and the culture surrounding you will not stay abstract. It will make you unwell, professionally, and eventually physically.

The answer is not to adapt. The answer is to exit.

You are worth more than the compromise.

Think Big, Start Small, Act Now,

- Lorne

Garrett’s View: Give your good intentions some grace. Perhaps it’s less naivety, and more a matter of jurisdiction. It’s difficult to project our standards beyond the organizations and relationships we're personally involved with. The extent of "human decency" the world can reliably enforce is roughly "don't break the law." Everything beyond that is our own definition. Which means those blanket slogans like, "Be Kind," "No A**holes" aren't breakthroughs. They're cloaks. Dangerous ones, because they create the appearance of standards without defining them. If we want our versions of decency to prevail, we have to name it exactly, hold people to it, and prove it scales. Thankfully, we can do that within our own worlds. The reality check is expecting it everywhere else will disappoint us.

- Garrett

AI Response: The numbers make the case. The research on ethical leadership isn't soft -- it's financial. Companies with highly engaged employees outperform competitors by 21% in profitability, and engagement lives or dies with leadership behavior. On the flip side, poor leadership costs American companies an estimated $630 billion per year in turnover, lost productivity, and hiring costs -- and toxic culture is now 10 times more likely to drive employee attrition than pay dissatisfaction. The leaders who "win" through intimidation and contempt aren't actually winning -- they're just making someone else pay the tab. Organizations with ineffective leadership experience a 29% reduction in productivity and a 23% increase in employee turnover. Decency isn't naive. It's the more defensible business model.

When a Leadership Defect Becomes a Feature

Search Blog Posts:

Follow Us: