“When self-interest is spotlighted, behind-the-scenes trust fractures.”
A bitter brew of headlines and (non) consequences
You can feel it before the story even loads. Another executive. Another scandal. Another moment that makes your jaw clench and your stomach turn. What have they done this time? And will there be consequences?
Whether it’s two senior leaders caught mid-kiss at a company-sponsored event, a CEO’s “personal relationship” quietly influencing vendor contracts, the disgraced “biotech” CEO still proclaiming innocence after defrauding millions, or the electric vehicle CEO-cum-pretend-president antics resulting in a 71% stock price decline, the news cycle seems to have one constant: leaders behaving badly, and organizations paying the price.
What’s harder to name, but even more corrosive, is the ripple effect that follows. Not just the brand damage. Not just the resignation or internal memo crafted by legal and PR. Not the snarky social media posts to regain the spotlight and narrative. But the slow, stomach-knotting erosion of trust among those still showing up to work the next day.
The real headline is this: when leaders choose self over service, they fracture more than just policy—they fracture culture. And those cracks, left unacknowledged, rarely, if ever, stay surface-level.
Selfishness isn’t scandalous. It’s contagious.
Leadership is not what you say on stage at the townhall or in an interview. It’s what you normalize in silence. When senior leaders prioritize personal gain, indulgence, or ego above the commitments they’ve made to their teams, it doesn’t just reflect character, it refracts—into performance reviews, unspoken expectations, and long-term damage to morale and trust.
Research by Büyükyılmaz and Kara (2024) draws a clear line between toxic leadership behaviors and the emotional toll on employees, from increased turnover intentions to emotional exhaustion and diminished organizational commitment. These moments aren’t exclusively PR issues. They become productivity and culture issues, with measurable costs.
But selfishness doesn’t always start with malice. Sometimes it begins with pressure.
A December 2024 Forbes article by Benjamin Laker outlines how “good leaders” can gradually go rogue when stress, culture, and self-doubt combine. Factors like identity threat, unclear values, and a lack of feedback loops can lead to a drift in decision-making. When ambition meets absence of accountability, the risk isn’t just burnout—it’s moral compromise.
- Identity threat, where leaders feel insecure about performance, legacy, or loyalty, and respond defensively instead of adaptively.
- Organizational culture or model norms that reward short-term results over ethical guardrails.
- Impaired self-regulation under stress, especially when coping mechanisms are inadequate or feedback is absent.
Crucially, Laker argues that work environments that lack meaningful accountability, compassion, or challenge can allow smart professionals to slowly opt into defensiveness, or worse, self-protection that looks like self-preservation. The danger isn’t only outright malice; it’s the gradual erosion of empathy and constraint under pressure.
RESEARCH INSIGHT
“Even the best leaders can stray when their identity is threatened or their environment lacks ethical guardrails.”
— Forbes, “Why Good Leaders Turn Bad,” Dec 2024
Selfish leadership isn’t always dramatic—sometimes, it’s a slow fade when growth-enabling checks vanish. The point is not to excuse. It’s to understand. Because what we don’t examine, we unconsciously enable.
The Myth of the Untouchable Leader
“Great leaders are too valuable to be held accountable.”
Let’s cut the niceties. Too often, the myth of irreplaceability breeds immunity, especially at the top. ‘She’s’ the rainmaker. ‘He’ built the system. ‘They’re the only one who understands the board.’ So ‘they’ stay, regardless of behavior. ‘They’ stay and continue to be unchecked, ego expanded, and potentially causing more damage.
But no one is too brilliant to be accountable. When executives operate without meaningful checks—when their title becomes a shield instead of a responsibility—what emerges isn’t excellence. It’s erosion. Erosion of standards. Of safety. Of organizational memory. Or trust. And it doesn’t stay confined to the C-suite.
Drazen and Ozbay (2019) found that being chosen to lead does initially increase reciprocity and pro-social behavior. But that effect only lasts when leaders perceive they are still being evaluated. In the absence of accountability, reciprocity decays. Influence becomes insulation. And the behavior that once inspired begins to alienate.
So the real question isn’t “What did they do?” It’s “What did we stop holding them to?” and “How were they allowed to remain unchecked for so long?”
Another elephant in the room is that not all leaders or CEOs are treated equally when it comes to the consequences of their actions. Privilege plays a role in how boards and executive leadership teams mete out accountability, or not. And if you’re reading this and thinking of a particular someone who got away with it, you’re not alone. The inequity in accountability is wounding and can leave an imprint long after you’ve left an organization.
Integrity Isn’t Performative. It is Foundational.
The damage of unchecked selfishness isn’t always immediate. But it’s cumulative, and far-reaching. When senior leaders misbehave, the first ripple may be a moment of disbelief. The second, disillusionment. And after that? A subtle, widespread withdrawal.
Disengagement begins to rise, quietly. Employees stop speaking up, not because they lack ideas but because they no longer trust the consequences of speaking up. Retention takes a hit—not always from dramatic exits, but through quiet departures of high-performers who refuse to stay in misaligned environments. And culture? It doesn’t collapse overnight. It corrodes slowly. Subtly. Relentlessly.
Gillet, Cartwright, and van Vugt (2011) suggest that leadership itself may have evolved not just for coordination, but for protection—leaders were chosen to look out for the group. When that protective instinct vanishes, followers not only lose faith. They adapt. They withhold. They self-protect.
What’s left is not just a performance gap, but a moral and identity vacuum.
“Selfish leadership significantly reduces perceived fairness and long-term cohesion in teams.”
— Gillet, Cartwright & van Vugt, 2011“Employees under toxic leadership report higher intention to quit and lower emotional engagement.”
— Büyükyılmaz & Kara, 2024
So what does good leadership actually look like?
Let’s get this out of the way. Leadership is not about being flawless. It’s about being self-aware enough to self-correct. It’s about being emotionally mature enough to recognize that power doesn’t exempt you from discipline—it demands it. It’s about understanding that your off-the-clock activities can, and may, have far-reaching consequences for your organization and employees.
Daniel Goleman’s well-established research on leadership identifies six emotional intelligence–based styles: coercive, authoritative, affiliative, democratic, pacesetting, and coaching. Each style has its strengths and shadow sides, but without emotional regulation and feedback, even the most effective styles can turn corrosive.
Let’s take a look at how these styles can either build—or quietly erode—organizational trust:
- The Coercive Leader (“Do what I say”): Highly effective in crisis, but when overused, this style breeds fear and disengagement. Trust isn’t built—it’s enforced. Over time, compliance replaces creativity.
- The Authoritative Leader (“Come with me”): Often the most inspiring when wielded with clarity and empathy. But unchecked, this can morph into ego-led visioning where dissent gets quietly punished.
- The Affiliative Leader (“People come first”): Cultivates connection and harmony—but if used to avoid conflict, it can become a mask for inaction or favoritism, where accountability goes soft.
- The Democratic Leader (“What do you think?”): Builds buy-in and inclusion—but when leaders abdicate decisions under the guise of collaboration, it signals a lack of clarity, not empowerment.
- The Pacesetting Leader (“Do as I do, now”): High performers often love this role—until it burns everyone out. If support doesn’t match standards, resentment brews quickly.
- The Coaching Leader (“Try this”): The most long-term trust-building style, yet underutilized. Coaching leaders ask questions, hold space, and challenge people to grow—if they’ve done their own inner work first.
Goleman’s work makes one truth clear: there is no “bad” style—only misapplied or unexamined leadership. What builds trust is not the style itself, but the intention, awareness, and repair that surrounds it.
“Leaders who switch flexibly between styles depending on context are the most successful—and emotionally intelligent.”
— Daniel Goleman, Leadership That Gets Results, HBR
None of these styles is inherently toxic. All of them can be strengths when harnessed with care. But when left unchecked, or shielded by ego, silence, or status, they begin to mirror dysfunction rather than direction.
Self-awareness is a diagnostic, not a disqualifier. For leaders navigating high-trust environments, it is a requirement.
→ For another look at leadership shifts, see: Five Leadership Shifts That Changed Everything
Small Sips: This Month’s Reflection Practice
Leadership is more than a title; it’s a test. And sometimes the most honest answers come when the cameras are off, the applause has faded, and there’s no one left to impress.
1. Journal Prompts
When was the last time my integrity was tested, and what did I learn about myself in that moment? Not what you would advise someone else to do. What did you actually do? Where did fear, image, or pressure creep in?
Who are you when you’re by yourself?
Does your character slip into performance mode when people are watching?
2. Embodiment Cues
Notice where defensiveness may live in your body. Do your shoulders lift? Does your breath shorten?
The next time someone offers feedback—or the mirror offers discomfort—pause and notice. Your body may reveal the truth before your brain does.
3. Team Conversation Starters
What unspoken behaviors do we reward in this culture, and what systems are reinforcing them?
Who gets promoted here? Who gets protected? Who gets silence?
What conditions in our environment make integrity feel like a risk instead of a value?
Closing Reflection
There’s nothing soft about integrity. It requires grit. Humility. And the courage to choose the long game over the short win—even when no one’s clapping for it.
Leadership isn’t just about what you say. It’s what you do when no one’s watching—and what you correct when someone is.
I’m The Executive Tea Lady™, and I believe in steeping leadership differently. If that’s your flavor too, join the conversation in The Monthly BREW™. Grab a cup here.
References
- Büyükyılmaz, O., & Kara, C. (2024). Linking leaders’ toxic leadership behaviors to employee attitudes and behaviors. Serbian Journal of Management, 19(2). https://doi.org/10.5937/sjm19-43650
- Drazen, A., & Ozbay, E. Y. (2019). Does “being chosen to lead” induce non-selfish behavior? Journal of Public Economics, 174, 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2019.03.001
- Gillet, J., Cartwright, E., & van Vugt, M. (2011). Selfish or servant leadership? Personality and Individual Differences, 51(3), 231–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.06.003
- Laker, B. (2024, December 17). Why good leaders turn bad—and harm their teams. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/benjaminlaker/2024/12/17/why-good-leaders-turn-bad-and-harm-their-teams/
- Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership That Gets Results. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2024/04/6-common-leadership-styles-and-how-to-decide-which-to-use-when