Hubris, Trump, and Leadership (2 of 2)

Given the dangers, sometimes very significant, of hubristic decision making and leadership, what can minimize or prevent dangerous overreach by leaders? Unfortunately, the very adverse consequences of hubristic leaders are often not known ahead of time, which makes for a particularly difficult challenge. Also, the past successes of hubristic leaders often make them unwilling or unable to change.

In political circles doubt often becomes a luxury the hubristic leader sees as unaffordable. This adverse belief about doubt becomes compelling when the leader surrounds himself or herself with “yes” persons. Trump faces an especially difficult situation because he operated his real estate and branding businesses as a small family business where he alone made all the key decisions. He never oversaw a large complex bureaucracy, nor did he ever report to a board of directors or face a good deal of public scrutiny. Additionally, he often was quietly backstopped or bailed out of difficult situations by a wealthy father.

The individual leader

Research suggests two tracks for minimizing the dangers of hubristic leadership. One track focuses on the individual hubristic leader. Hubristic leaders value intuition. Intuition can be an important and effective aspect of decision making. But successful hubristic leaders also understand the dangers of intuition and the need for reason and analysis. They acknowledge that intuition and reason are not total alternatives. Some leaders can simultaneously and effectively use intuition and analysis. They have the cognitive versatility to switch gears.

But the power of intuitive decision making, especially if there is a felt need for rapid decision making, can be seductively overwhelming. In these instances, a hubristic leader, perhaps unconsciously, does not use reason to check intuition but only to provide an after-the-fact rationale for the decision.

If a hubristic leader can control a desire to make decisions quickly, he or she can consciously slow down the decision-making process. He can do this by calling a time out in the process to mull over or ponder a decision. Although such a pause is not intended to allow for explicit reasoning or analysis, it can engender a review of a wider range of considerations. Some leaders might jog, take a long walk, or listen to music to provide an opportunity for thoughts to percolate. One might call this entering a contemplative frame of mind that can help prevent hasty or biases decisions.

Finally, a hubristic leader can entertain private discussion, debate, and dialogue with a small circle of trusted advisers to help counter intuitive certainties. Trump does seem to do this once in a while. But this small group seems much like Trump, older white mails with backgrounds totally in the private sector.

External Guardrails

This social or interpretive approach can be formalized as in the “devil’s advocate” approach used by the Roman Catholic Church or the similar “red team” approach used by the military.

This approach confronts the hubristic leader with people who try to find weaknesses in the leader’s intuitive not-already-made decision. This often includes a contrary analysis of the situation in which the decision may be made. The hubristic leader must buy into this approach and treat it seriously. It is more useful or successful when those presenting the opposite point of view are also senior leaders.

Famously, President Kennedy instituted such a process after the Bat of Pigs fiasco. This process can be more formalized by using independent participants who would be less swayed than participants who would be direct reports of the leader.

In the private sector an independent board of directors can play a role similar to the devil’s advocate or a red team. The board can be effective in this role especially if the leader is not both the chief executive of the organization and the chairperson of the board.

In the public sector, these guardrails can be institutional. The U.S. Constitution is designed with a system of checks and balances, the most prominent being the independence of the three branches of government. The institution that is most readily capable of creating guardrails or enacting bridles as necessary is Congress. Yet, Congress has consciously decided not to play this role. It either reinforces Trump’s decisions or remains silent. The 2018 mid-term elections gave control of the House of Representatives to the Democrats. The House now seems to be making a strong effort at oversight.

The courts have been most effective in blocking or altering his quick decisions. However, this channel takes time and may become less important over time as the Republicans fill the large number of unfilled federal judgeships at their disposal. Federalism has been a somewhat effective institutional guardrail. Some states and state attorneys general have slowed or blocked some presidential initiatives.

Comment

Given the depth of President Trump’s hubris, his lack of impulse control, his fondness for gut or intuitive decision making, and his age, he is most unlikely to become either cognitively versatile or consciously succeed in slowing down, percolating, his decision making.

The high significance Trump attaches to personal loyalty and his high degree of narcissism make it difficult for him to seriously entertain opposing points of view. He seems driven to seek out confirming points of view and tends to respond antagonistically to contradictory opinions. To people that Trump may in some way consider peers or people he respects, such as “his generals,” he may at times bend to their direction.

But as he appears to gain more confidence and less doubt about his decision making in what is a very different and new context, he seems to be actively seeking more loyalists, people who reinforce his perspective. Thus, dialogue and debate with others seems increasingly ineffective in harnessing his intuitive/gut-based quick decision making.

Further, neither media, other than Fox Broadcasting, nor public opinion seem to interfere in his hubristic decision making. Trump appears to use  social media very selectively and prmarily reinforce his positions.

In the end, I can only hope that (1) Trump’s hubris does not result in significantly adverse outcomes or (2) Congress begins to act as a effective check on his hubris, which may be improbable given the behavior of the Senate Republicans or (3) key officials within the administration have the courage to challenge his judgment when they believe those judgments are contrary to the nation’s interests.

Given this set of circumstances the most effective guardrail may be continuous and strong transparency brought about by an active free press.