There’s a tendency to romanticise leadership as a place for charismatic visionaries, people who execute grand ideas and inspire others to greatness. Yet for all those visionary business leaders who have managed to talk their way to the top, far fewer have been able to stay there.
Leadership isn’t just about climbing the hill, but staying anchored—and surviving the decisions that try to drag you down.
In the world of politics, few modern figures exemplify this dynamic more starkly than Donald Trump. Yet despite the seeming dichotomy between his leadership campaigns and his actual leadership, he continues to act in spite of criticism, shaking off the barbs of many prominent donors and voters. Should this be a point of inspiration for leaders with an unshakable vision—or has ‘Teflon Don’ finally met his match?
Leading by example
Heralded by many voters as a charismatic everyman, the job of becoming President has often seemed simpler for Donald Trump than the job of being one. Having ended his first term with the second lowest approval rating in history (behind only Nixon), Trump cruised to victory in the latest election, effectively weaponising Joe Biden’s age despite being just 4 years younger, and successfully overcoming Kamala Harris. His term so far has been chaotic, to put it mildly: axing entire government departments, and enacting a series of tariffs that have drawn complaints from many American businesses.
While this has continued a tradition of provocative policymaking, the speed and scope of the changes has elicited an outcry from some quarters. Initiatives such as renewed trade wars with strategic partners, aggressive immigration crackdowns, the dramatic reshaping of federal institutions, and some testy relationships with old allies showcase a leadership style that’s fundamentally rooted in disruption. Each decision, often announced with little warning and framed in defiant rhetoric, seems almost engineered to deepen the division between his supporters and his detractors.
There isn’t an obvious business to map this kind of leadership style onto (perhaps excepting those of Elon Musk, who’s been a very visible part of the administration). Yet for all the backlash, there will be many curious and slightly envious onlookers. Many leaders dream of being able to make difficult decisions which they see as necessary without immediate reproach, and having the goodwill—and financial headroom—to weather any resulting storms. If all it takes is to secure widespread buy-in through sheer force of personality, that might not seem out of reach for everyone.
Eye of the storm
It’s invariably true that the health of an organisation can sometimes demand decisions that won’t please everyone. Budget cuts, redundancies, and pivots on strategy or a business’ core values can all be necessary under certain circumstances. The difference is that these kinds of decisions often see CEOs and other leaders needing to fall on their swords, and being shuffled along afterwards—not being there to reap the eventual rewards of those choices.
One has to acknowledge the strength of Trump’s base here. His loyal following has allowed him to sustain politically damaging moves without immediate personal consequence. This mirrors a truth in business: if a leader has deep enough buy-in among key stakeholders, they may have more leeway to drive through controversial changes. The only difference is the extent of the structural and cultural protections that are in place to protect them.
However, there’s obviously a darker side to this relationship. Trump’s leadership often operates on a zero-sum basis: galvanise your core supporters, while alienating opponents entirely. In an electoral context, this is sustainable so long as your voting base stays strong, and you’re confident of retaining power. In a business context, leaders lack the benefits of ‘First Past the Post’. While a leader may weather a controversial decision in the short term, the ongoing erosion of morale, productivity, and goodwill among the workforce can sow seeds of resentment, and lead to much deeper and more consequential problems.
Guard DOGE
Nowhere is this perhaps better illustrated than with Trump ally Elon Musk, and his leadership of X. In an echo of his recent work with DOGE, the company effectively purged employees who were not willing to commit to longer hours and harder work, as well as to their new boss’s values. The result may be a leaner and more committed workforce, but it’s also led to a succession of problems that have forced him to rehire some fired employees, and have led to a dramatic decline in the site’s active users.
In Trump’s case, the constant state of political flux in his first term created a chaotic environment for governance. Cabinet members came and went at dizzying speeds, internal leaks and ‘tell all’ books became commonplace, and bureaucratic friction sometimes slowed the machinery of government to a crawl. When businesses operate under this kind of prolonged internal dissatisfaction—even if leaders remain in post—the inevitable consequence is reduced productivity, higher staff turnover, and an increasingly toxic culture.
There’s certainly an argument that some of Trump’s policies had long-term strategic benefits, and the current slate of tariffs (designed to encourage local manufacturing) may be among them. But the short-term costs were, and continue to be, steep. Business leaders face the self-same risks. You can pitch a brilliant strategic pivot that may well prove visionary in hindsight, but if you botch the delivery and mismanage the human costs, you may find your organisation weakened long before the payoff arrives.
Talking the talk
Another critical lesson is communication. Trump’s strategy often leans on blunt messaging and adversarial framing, stoking what’s often termed the ‘culture war’. This can rally loyalists, but it inflames the opposition, and can push away people who might have been sympathetic to some of your ideas.
In any kind of leadership, communication around tough decisions needs to be clear, empathetic, and inclusive to avoid this kind of alienation. A leader should strive not just to announce a decision, but to bring people along for the ride, even if they disagree. Being transparent about the reasons behind a decision and acknowledging the short-term pain it causes can make a huge difference to how it’s received.
The Trump model of leadership may well be sustainable—for a while, at least. But sustainability isn’t just about clinging on; it’s about building a platform for ongoing success. Long-term success depends not just on loyalty from a core base, but on the ability to maintain the health of your organisation, achieve buy-in, and build the resilience to adapt to changing circumstances. Any business leader who consistently alienates parts of their workforce, customer base, or partners puts all of this at severe risk.
The Trump administration’s post-election leadership offers a compelling but cautionary tale. It is possible to carry through unpopular decisions if you have strong foundational support, and if your vision proves correct over time. Yet there are short-term realities that are proving hard for the world (or American voters) to ignore. Even when a leader’s position remains secure, the apparatus around them can seem anything but.
It’s a strange time when business leaders should try to tread more carefully than presidents. Delivering unpopular decisions can’t just be about surviving the backlash; it should be about managing the present in a way that sows seeds for the future. This should mean bringing the whole organisation along as far as is possible—and not creating a level of discord that threatens to tear it apart.
