Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Leadership has long been regarded as a critical component of driving change and progress within institutions and society at large. However, in recent times, the concept of performative leadership has emerged as a controversial trend that is causing concern, as discussed in Yuval Levin’s book “A Time to Build.”
Performative leadership refers to a phenomenon where individuals who hold positions of power and influence within institutions use their platforms for personal gain, visibility or performative activism, rather than driving substantive change from within. This has led to a situation where those who should be making meaningful reforms or policy decisions are instead using the institution as a stage, often to the detriment of society.
One of the concerning aspects of performative leadership is when insiders of an institution transition into performing as outsiders. Rather than working diligently within the established channels of their organization or institution to create positive change, they seek attention and validation by publicly expressing their frustrations or grievances about the very institutions they are meant to impact.
This performative approach often involves using social media or other public platforms to voice complaints or criticisms without taking concrete actions to address the problems internally. As a result, the focus shifts from actual reforms or policy changes to gaining popularity or visibility through performative acts, which might yield short-term attention but fail to bring about long-term, sustainable change.
Performative leadership can also lead to the erosion of trust and credibility. When leaders use their positions as platforms for personal prominence, it can undermine the integrity and effectiveness of the institution they represent. It can create a perception of insincerity or opportunism, as their actions might be seen as self-serving rather than driven by genuine commitment to the institution’s mission or the betterment of society.
This erosion of trust can have long-term consequences, both within the institution and among stakeholders and the public, corroding the institution’s reputation and hindering its ability to fulfill its purpose. Performative leadership can result in a superficial approach that prioritizes optics over impact.
When leaders use institutions as stages for performance, it can shift the focus from the collective effort needed to drive change to the actions of individual leaders. This can create a culture of hero worship or reliance on charismatic leaders, rather than fostering a collaborative and inclusive approach that involves all stakeholders. It can also lead to a sense of complacency, as the performative acts of individual leaders might give the impression that progress is being made, even if the underlying problems persist.
To address the detrimental effects of performative leadership, it is important for leaders to prioritize substance over style. This means focusing on tangible actions and meaningful reforms within institutions, rather than performative acts for personal gain or visibility. It requires leaders to be authentic, transparent and genuinely committed to driving change from within, rather than using institutions as stages for personal performance. It also requires a collective effort, involving all stakeholders, to work together toward common goals, rather than relying solely on performative actions of individual leaders.•
__________
Yates is director of diversity for the Indiana Republican Party, a political commentator and a law degree candidate. Send comments to ibjedit@ibj.com.
Click here for more Forefront columns.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.