The myth of strong leaders
We live in a chaotic and uncertain world that could well be defined by the title of the famous action film series 'Fast and Furious', in which the idea of the need for strong leaders seems to prevail. That is, the widespread belief that in the face of a complex political, economic and social situation and growing mistrust of institutions, we need charismatic leaders who act decisively and even with an iron fist if necessary. A highly appealing narrative in times of uncertainty. Human beings need answers and a sense of security in the face of such complexity, which is why we are attracted to figures who make quick, firm decisions and bring order.
According to data from the 2025 edition of the Edelman Trust Barometer, 61% of the global population expresses moderate or high dissatisfaction with both public and private organisations. Those who feel a high level of dissatisfaction distrust the four main institutions (businesses, governments, the media and NGOs), as well as executives and artificial intelligence. And when institutions are not trustworthy, dissatisfaction intensifies and the vision of the future becomes clouded. This is where the political and emotional space is created for the emergence of personalistic, populist or autocratic leadership.
Some may consider that strong leaders are not necessarily a bad thing. The issue is not so much their strength as their praxis. Throughout contemporary history, the problems caused by unchallenged leaders, even in very democratically consolidated regimes, have been amply demonstrated. On the one hand, the dynamics of the concentration of power in a single person weakens our collective decision-making system and weakens organisations. In the medium term, institutions and organisations often enter into a deep crisis because neither the processes nor the collective participation are solid, as everything depended on the will of the leader.
Strong leaders seem to resolve issues quickly, but they often override democratic procedures, rights or diversity of ideas
On the other hand, when all major decisions depend on the decision of one person, it is often associated with false efficiency. Strong leaders seem to resolve issues quickly, but they often override democratic procedures, rights, or diversity of ideas. The result is a lack of nuance and contrast within organisations and institutions, leading to a loss of efficiency.
The antithesis of strong leadership is solid, collaborative leadership. The paradox of our institutions today is that there is a temptation to replace collective leadership based on strong institutions, with clear rules and methods of cooperation and control, with the search for a hero (usually a man) who can save us from our own collective shortcomings. The most obvious and clear case is that of Donald Trump, who shows how no democracy, however consolidated, is immune to the danger of populism and authoritarianism or autocracy in the exercise of power.
Trump is the paradigm of the strong leader that emerges in Western democratic societies. He has a clear and highly emotional purpose: Make America Great Again. He has reached the White House twice after free elections, albeit boosted by massive and sophisticated communication campaigns based on disinformation and fake news. But once in power, he is a machine for eroding the very democratic system that allowed him to come to power, exposing the weaknesses and limitations of an institutional and political system. Despite the long tradition and strength of the separation of powers in American democracy, it is dissolving like sugar in coffee in the face of one of these so-called strong leaders.
New platforms and coalitions that transcend parties and institutions must be created to build new coherence
What is truly worrying is that the Trump style is setting a precedent and inspiring followers throughout the world, including in Europe. A large part of American—and global—society is beginning to justify authoritarian practices in the face of the failures of liberal democracies. The aforementioned Edelman Trust Barometer reflects that so-called hostile activism is perceived as a legitimate tool for change. Four out of ten people approve of one of the following forms: attacking people on the internet, deliberately spreading misinformation, threatening or using violence, or damaging public or private property. This sentiment is growing among respondents aged 18 to 34 (up to 53%). These are signs that should wake up all democrats, whether progressive, liberal or conservative, to an authoritarian cancer that is spreading throughout our societies.
Faced with this reality, we must create new platforms and coalitions that transcend parties and institutions in order to build new coherence. The evident loss of centrality and real power of democratic institutions requires new forms of governance based on a network society in which we all form part of the decision and the solution. The traditional top-down process no longer works; it has been overwhelmed and dismantled by the magnitude and speed of the new problems that are added to the old problems we have to face.
In the face of growing global mistrust, trust is built from the local level upwards
The collective challenge, therefore, lies in designing truly resilient organisations and institutions capable of reacting to and managing systemic crises by working together. Today's world requires new, agile, efficient and supportive responses from the different actors in society, and the responses and methods of the old world are no longer adequate. The institutional rituals of our democracies and our current leaders have become outdated. We need a new culture of public and private management that is not based on the hierarchy of command and control, but on the collaboration of a multiplicity of relationships and actors to articulate a distributed collective intelligence that allows us to deploy all our economic, institutional and social muscle in a coherent and efficient manner.
In short, it is a new collective mission through a re-engineering of processes both inside and outside institutions with renewed energies and methods to reconfigure centres of power into collaborative networks to better cope with the management of new complexity. A culture of management and leadership that goes beyond the capabilities and limits of most current leaders, both in politics and in institutions. Governing and leading today requires a culture of leadership and management that goes far beyond the dialectic of leaders. The prominence or power of each of the actors is not what is relevant, but rather the efficiency, empathy, proximity and collective responses that we are able to offer to the community and society, especially at the local level. In the face of growing global mistrust, trust is built from the local level.
The culture of social innovation must reach and permeate the centres of political power. Far from weakening institutions or political leadership, it enriches, strengthens and legitimises them. It is about opening up spaces for interaction and co-creation with new economic and social actors, as well as with their respective ecosystems and value chains. Only distributed and collaborative talent and the strength of weak ties around major challenges and shared causes can improve our organisations and institutions. Contrary to the myth of strong leaders, collaboration, shared democratic decision-making and participation are the essential elements for survival and sustainability in this new era of uncertainty and upheaval.
Pau Solanilla Franco is a Public Sector Partner at Harmon Consulting and an expert in corporate diplomacy, reputation and governance.
Article previously published in TheNewBarcelonaPost newspaper.