Why Are Our Political Leaders Failing?

It can be argued that U.S. political leadership is, and has been, undergoing some significant changes. First and foremost, there is increasing division and polarization in our two-party system. As a result of this political divide, congressional members are increasingly unable to arrive at any form of collaborative solutions. Second, elected officials are increasingly focused on acquiring more and more power. Whether it is increasing their personal power and wealth or keeping their elected positions at all costs, this focus leads to a decreased concern with serving their constituents.

As a result, the public’s approval of its elected representatives is consistently low; around 30 percent approval. Why is this the case?

Let’s look at our political leadership through the lens of leadership and followership.

1. They don’t understand their roles.

Our elected representatives in the House and Senate (as well as state and local representatives) are supposed to be responsive to their constituents and their needs and desires. The term “servants of the people” implies that their role is to work toward the best interests of the collective that they represent. Although they are leaders in name, they are more like servant leaders (Eva et al., 2019) who should put the needs of the followers above their own.

Yet, elected officials are also followers of their party’s leadership, whether that is the president or the higher-level leaders within their legislative body. As with most leaders, elected officials alternate between leadership and followership roles. But how should those two different roles be enacted?

As noted, in their leadership role, political leaders need to be responsive to their constituents and work toward outcomes that benefit all. In their follower role, political leaders should not blindly follow along with the president and their party, particularly if they believe the course of action is the wrong one. As followership expert Ira Chaleff emphasizes in his book The Courageous Follower, the representative should “stand up for” the leadership when it is on the right track, but “stand up to” the leadership when it is going in the wrong direction or doing something unethical.

2. They fall prey to the intoxication of power.

Politicians have always been prone to trying to hold onto power, usually by getting reelected. We see this with all kinds of elected officials, from the president on down. Leaders simply try to stay in charge. Another aspect of this preoccupation with power occurs, however, through the building of coalitions, which is more of a follower strategy of strength in numbers. In recent years, we have seen an increase in partisan politics whereby the two parties strive to have a tight coalition—with few or no dissenters—in order to make the collective stronger. When this occurs even when the party may be going down the wrong path, it is problematic.

3. They are victims of the worst of group psychology.

When groups get together to make important decisions, a number of problematic group processes can derail successful decision-making. Foremost among these is the concept of groupthink (Janis, 1972). Groupthink occurs when a highly cohesive decision-making group (think congressional members of a particular party) suspends the critical process of decision-making in order to arrive at an early, and often erroneous, decision. The group insulates itself by discounting contrary opinions and evidence, and they arrive at a premature, and unvetted, decision. Moreover, group polarization can lead to extreme decisions—where the group either arrives at an extremely risky or extremely cautious decision.

The powerful in-group, out-group bias also leads to viewing the opposing party as “the enemy” and inhibits the ability to work together toward shared, common goals.