The re-emergence of the autrocratic leader: Will leadership regress in 2025?

Since we started penning this article at the beginning of the year the floodgates have opened.

Lord Stuart Rose is the latest leader to pin their colours to the mast by saying that working from home is not work.

What is happening?

Suddenly a whole raft of leaders feels emboldened enough to make regressive statements about the world of work. But there is no hard and fast evidence to suggest that productivity is any lower or higher as a result of flexible working.

One measure might be to look at productivity levels in 2015 (four years before the pandemic and a year prior to the Brexit vote) and 2024.

ONS data suggests a slight increase in productivity. Output per hour worked was 2.0% above its pre-coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic levels. Although our productivity lags behind the US, Germany and France.

ONS

So why are leaders starting to rattle cages? Are they right? Or are they just frustrated that they haven’t done their job and solved the productivity crisis?

What is happening to our leaders? Are they seeing the inauguration of Trump as an opportunity to curry favour? After all, I’m sure Mr Zuckerberg is keen to side up to the President now that Elon’s done the same. And I imagine that whispering in Trump’s ear messages about how Meta will be a great platform for ‘free speech’ once TikTok is out of the way won’t do his shareholders any harm.

Is this just all poor behaviour?

83% of businesses recognise the importance of developing leadership at every level. Yet we’re seeing figures embracing a style of leadership that is raising serious concerns for the future.

What kind of leadership will define 2025?

Enter the ‘Leaders’

Previously mentioned figures like Elon Musk, Donald Trump, and Nigel Farage have sought to shift the Overton window on what is permissible to say and do.

With that in mind, it’s safe to say we risk regressing.

Musk is currently the 7th most popular business figure globally.

He is held in high regard, seemingly because his businesses are prosperous and he has become “symbolic” of the entrepreneurial, capitalist mindset..

While some see Musk as a model of entrepreneurial success, a deeper look might reveal a different story, because it’s important to remember how the media’s framing can impact how we perceive these figures.

So, let’s take a closer look at some of his business ventures.

‘X’

In 2022, Brand Finance valued Twitter at $5.7 billion. Musk then acquired Twitter and renamed it to ‘X’.

By 2023, its value had dropped to nearly $3.9 billion.

By 2024, it fell again, to $673.3 million.

The findings show, at least at this stage, that Musk’s purchase of Twitter, and conversion of the platform into X, has been a disaster for the company’s value.

Tesla

Productivity figures look great at Tesla – in 2023, Vehicle deliveries grew by 38%. But, keep in mind this is in a burgeoning market.

Take a look at one of Tesla’s smaller competitors, Rivian.

In 2023, Rivian produced 16,000 vehicles.

Six months later, it revised that figure upwards to 47,000 vehicles. A near 50% jump. That outstrips Tesla’s 38% significantly.

Morning Star has given Tesla a 1 star rating, indicating that is not a good buy.

And as Motley Fool reports, Tesla’s deliveries are falling.

So after taking a closer look, you start to question whether Musk’s leadership really is the genius we all “know” him to be. Was he just in the right place at the right time?

And what is he doing to his brand? The sticker in the Tesla below is not the only one I have seen: “I bought this before Elon went crazy.”

Cliff Ettridge

The one thing we know for certain though, is that Musk is not a role model.

Since taking over X, Musk has laid off roughly half of Twitter’s entire workforce.

Many of the employees only realised they had been sacked when they could no longer access their laptops. A team of snoopers were ordered to sieve through the employees’ messages and fire those who had criticised him.

As Ronald Riggio writes in Psychology Today:

“Musk’s behaviour is dictatorial: laying off scores of Twitter employees, taking credit for the accomplishments of others, and more recently, belittling a disabled employee (among other misdeeds).”

Rather than building trust and fostering teamwork, he prioritises dominance and sacrifices employee well-being in the process.

Is this the kind of leader to be inspired by?

Unfortunately, as you’re probably aware, Musk is not the only one celebrating this type of leadership.

And with Trump is promising a host of changes that are a major threat to human rights for his second presidency, we have to be on our guard that this does not blur over into the world of work.

As Paul O’Brien, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA says:

“It is critical that President Trump does not continue down this harmful path, not just for the sake of human rights in the United States, but as an example to leaders around the world.”

Men eh!

As Grayson Perry said in his fantastic treatsie on men in ‘The Descent of Man’:

“All over the globe, crimes are committed, wars are started, women are being held back, and economies are disastrously distorted by men, because of their outdated version of masculinity.”

And there are men everywhere who appear to be joining the misinformation bandwagon. Other figures such as Andrew Tate, Joe Rogan, and Steven Barlett, to name a few, appear to be prominent figures on the media with a particular interest in men’s financial insecurities.

These leaders are positioning themselves as an ‘authentic’ voice of ‘realism’, rooted in ideas that are destructive and unsustainable.

The rhetoric seems to be appealing to those looking for a sense of control and guidance in uncertain social and economic times.

Why the Narrative Can Be Misleading

Naturally, it can be concerning to see figures like such rise to fame.

But it’s important to pause for a moment, and consider how much the media shapes our perception of them.

Musk may be the 7th most popular business figure globally, but his popularity tells a different story, standing at just 26%.

It can be tempting to assume that fame equals admiration, but this is clearly not the case.

More research from young men initiatives present that 50% of young men like Andrew Tate.

Scary, right?

But they also fail to mention that the other 50% don’t.

It might seem simple, but it’s always important to bring to attention – how information is presented has a huge influence on how we construct our worldview, and how we narrate our own stories.

Research from Warwick business school also show how social media make it impossible to show or measure instant disapproval.

“These platforms make it easy for people to signal their approval. Thumbs up! Heart! Retweet! But there’s no thumbs down.”

This has a huge influence our perception of public opinions.

Of course, anyone can leave a negative comment, but that’s a rather awkward, time-consuming way to gauge an opinion.

Research from GWI highlights how over 70% of Americans feel governments should be doing more to address climate change.

So how come we’ve seen Donald Trump, a convicted felon and climate change skeptic, rise to power?

Moreover, research from LSE suggest that human’s have a tendency to pay more attention to negative information than positive.

70.54% of half a million google news headlines across 16 countries, were actually found to be positive.

So not only does the media love to tap into sensationalism, but we tend to ignore the good stuff anyway.

Leadership that’s different

This is why it’s essential to look beyond the loudest voices and explore the quieter, but most inspiring examples of leadership that don’t make the front pages.

In an Interview with Rivian’s leader, RJ Scaringe, he talks about products that are full of “joy, hopefulness and love.”

As Forbes reported, he views his work as something that will benefit not just his generation, but his “kid’s, kid’s, kids.”

And, in answer to a question about Unions he said

“The most effective relationship has a direct relationship. And I believe this, not just with our employees, I believe it broadly”

Scaringe talks about leading holistically; guiding thousands of people in a way that allows them to make thousands of decisions every day.

His leadership style is rooted in care and trust, which is a stark contrast to the top-down, command-and-control style of the autocrat.

Mary Barra at General Motors has been clear on the importance of trust and balance. As she says, “Everybody does a better job when they’re able to balance. It might mean on a certain day I’ve got to leave a little early because I want to see my daughter play volleyball. That doesn’t mean that after we go home, and after we’ve eaten dinner and the kids go to bed, I’m not going to take out the computer and catch up on what I missed. We need to provide that environment. In a world now with our BlackBerrys and our smartphones, we’re always on. We need to find the opportunity not to do everything, but to do the important things.”

Another normal example of leadership is Tim Cook.

After taking over CEO of Apple in 2011, Tim has increased Apple’s market value from $348 billion to over $2 trillion. Cook’s leadership style has been called a “multiplier” – one that actually encourages employees to be smarter and more innovative.

Tim is known for being:

“Calm, steady, but will slice you up with questions. You better know your stuff”

His gentle interrogations motivate employees not out of fear, but out of respect.

Of course he’s done somethings wrong in the past (who can forget the crushing of pianos advert), but unlike many other major corporations such as Meta and Amazon, Apple has recently stood up for its DEI initiatives in a time of backlash.

This shows the company’s deep respect for and dedication to embracing the diversity of the human experience, a value that Apple holds at its core.

Leaders like RJ Scaringe (at Rivian), Mary Barra and Tim Cook demonstrate a more collaborative and human centred approach to leadership. I’m sure neither would want to be put on a pedestal – they’re just being half-decent and trying to do things the right way.

Take a look at IBM and Thomas Watson Jr way back in the 1950s.

Policy No. 4 was a written statement in the face of a backlash from govenors in the southern states of the USA that said that IBM would not discriminate on the basis of race, colour or creed. He was prepared to put a stake in the ground.

An IBM went further. In 1914 it employed the first disabled employees, and in the 1930s IBM also committed to paying women the same as men. The list goes on.

Two years ago we were delighted to help them with their allyship program. Why was it so important? Because it was both right, and made IBM more effective as a business.

What’s the right leadership strategy for 2025?

The future of leadership will depend on how we define it, and the examples we choose to follow.

We can either follow the path of autocratic leadership or embrace the collaborative, empowering leadership of figures like Mary Barra, Tim Cook and RJ Scaringe.

For us, leadership looks like this:

  • Respect: Build mutual respect to foster trust and loyalty.
  • Collaboration: Leverage the collective intelligence of your team.
  • Encouragement: Empower creativity and innovation.
  • Feedback: Stay open to constructive criticism.
  • Have Nous: Having the ability to think and act practically, and good social awareness.
  • Emotional Intelligence: Show genuine care for your people.
  • Motivate and uplift: inspire your teams to achieve their best.
  • Vision: Create a clear roadmap for growth and success.

We are at a crossroads and it’s important for business leaders to decide which way they want to go. Is it the route of command and control, or is it the route of trust and nurture?

What does your plan for culture and leadership look like?