The election of Donald Trump for a second term seems like a watershed moment in history, in more ways than one.
The election and events since are only the latest indicators of what feels like a shifting climate around leadership, one that encompasses multiple global elections, and prominent decisions by major business leaders.
With the bravado and bolshiness of Trump now seeming to bleed into leadership at large, are we seeing a genuine sea change in how leaders in all walks of life will conduct themselves? Is this a kind of regression to an older style of leadership, and will it stick around—or is this a blip that most leaders would do better to ignore?
Top Trump
The election of Donald Trump was not exactly unexpected, but it did briefly seem unlikely. The Democratic Party appeared to have successfully rallied around new candidate Kamala Harris, after President Biden was all but forced to step aside. A potential moment of weakness seemed to turn into a strength, as Biden was magnanimous enough to surrender his position to a younger candidate with substantial leadership experience, and a seemingly better chance of winning people over.
This all came crashing down on election day, where Trump ultimately won a convincing majority. While entire dissertations will be written on how exactly this happened, one clear measure was the economy. Despite looking good on paper, the cost of living crisis was still being felt in the pockets of many Americans, with factors such as the high price of eggs becoming a bellwether symbol of American economic decline. The near assassination of Trump also played into his image as a ‘man of the people’, and a rare politician who would always speak his mind, even if that wasn’t always well advised.
The strength of his victory has been read as an endorsement of his leadership style, both as a businessman and a prototypical leader. His brash, no-nonsense style and rejection of many modern ideas (particularly those that relate to inclusion) has been seen as a fundamental rejection of what some consider to be a left-wing ideology imposed on workplaces across the country. From remote working, to diversity and inclusion policies, to gender neutral bathrooms, anything new seems to be roundly rejected by this new class of leader, in favour of good old-fashioned hard graft, and established leadership hierarchies.
Meta-morphosis
None of this means very much when it’s just a political party or their advocates saying it. What’s been interesting since the election is the extent to which major businesses and their leaders—particularly tech businesses—have rallied around the president. The CEOs of Apple, ByteDance, Facebook and X were all notably present at Trump’s inauguration, and several have made overtures to him since then. Elon Musk has gone so far as to be part of his administration, working to form the Department of Governmental Efficiency, or DOGE (typically named after a meme).
Perhaps the most interesting is Mark Zuckerberg. Almost immediately, the Meta CEO shifted his business’ policies, announcing the near-total removal of fact checking and content moderation in favour of a ‘free speech first’ approach. This response feels as much like a cultural shift as a governmental one. Zuckerberg appears to feel that he is suddenly allowed to lead differently and make different decisions not just because the new government will support his actions, but because he feels emboldened and empowered to do so through the message sent by voters, and the cultural moment we find ourselves in.
This sense of a cultural sea change has only been enhanced by the policies already announced or instituted by Trump. As well as ending around a dozen measures against discrimination in federal institutions, he’s also reclassified thousands of people within the civil service as political appointments, making it easier to fire them. He’s also pledged to end remote working in government, and has gone so far as to paint over inclusive language at an FBI training centre in Virginia.
A note of caution
There’s no guarantee that this will start a global movement, but it does line up with sentiments from some quarters even before the election. Momentum has been building against remote working since almost the end of the pandemic, with opinions varying on the extent to which it impacts productivity. Yet at the same time, a converse movement has built for four-day working weeks, with more than 200 firms in the UK adopting the policy, to positive results for productivity and staff wellbeing.
So where should leaders be looking amid this uncertainty? Is this shift, which some leaders are heralding as a return to normalcy, grossly counter-productive and counter-intuitive? Some would point to an interesting recent poll into the political views of younger people, where around half were found to be in favour of dictatorship, as evidence that the dial may be shifting toward old habits. Yet as bizarre (and worrying) as that poll might be, an inclination to support strong leadership decisions doesn’t necessarily mean an embrace of office working.
The modern political landscape is extremely complex, and increasingly appears to be driving people to political extremes. Yet as far as workplaces go, evidence suggests that things are moving in one direction. Corporations such as Amazon are increasingly facing mobilised unions, protesting against unfair working conditions and low pay. The current UK government meanwhile has sought to prioritise employee wages and wellbeing, enshrining a right for employees to request remote working where this is reasonable.
Young people have also shown their willingness not only to drive change within organisations, but also to leave if their needs aren’t accommodated. Over a quarter of respondents in a survey last year said they were planning to change jobs in the next six months, with many citing frustrations over work-life balance in the post-pandemic era. In this context, a reversion by leaders to old strategies and practices may seem politically viable, but could clash with the realities of a changing workforce.
And finally…
It’s still early days as far as the Trump presidency goes, and it remains to be seen whether this apparent shift in leadership takes hold, and how people react to it. The continuing exodus from X to alternative platforms suggests that there will be some resistance—as do the prevailing attitudes of younger generations to the current direction of travel.
There is more than one viable leadership style, and it may be that there is some merit to reappraising where leadership sits in the present moment. For now though, it’s worth being cautious about seeing 2025 as a moment to revolutionise your approach, and sticking with the things that have made you successful up until this point.
