Early Concerns About Fitness for the Office
Reports indicated that several psychiatrists expressed concerns about Donald Trump’s mental fitness to serve as president of the United States. Accounts of tense phone calls with leaders of allied nations and his frequent use of Twitter to express policy views drew widespread media attention. Early in his presidency, these actions sparked significant debate about his leadership approach.
A Traditional Leader in a Changing Era
Trump’s leadership can be viewed within a long tradition of leaders attempting to guide societies through increasingly complex environments. In modern contexts, rigid command-and-control methods from the top have often proved counterproductive. Many leaders, however, continue to rely on such methods, either because of long-standing habits or because questioning them challenges established authority. As president of the United States, Trump’s interpretation of political and economic processes carried implications for both national and global stability.
The Leader and Follower Model
For centuries, leadership was shaped by the belief that nations and large organisations should be guided by a small number of individuals at the top of steep hierarchies. Leaders were often rewarded for their perceived ability to navigate complex circumstances on behalf of their societies.
This model rests on a specific conception of social, political, and economic systems. Within it, strong and determined leaders were considered ideal managers, expected to achieve results with efficiency and speed.
Trump’s Background and Beliefs
Trump’s professional background was in real estate deal-making rather than international political economy. His leadership style reflected confidence in negotiation and direct decision-making. While this approach is consistent with specific traditional models, the scale of the presidency amplified its consequences. Debates about his leadership style reflect broader concerns about the transfer of methods from one field to another.
Scientific Management and Its Legacy
The prominence of strong, centralised leadership does not stem only from individual leaders. Influential thinkers developed theories of scientific management that reinforced hierarchical authority. Frederick Winslow Taylor (1856–1915), often referred to as the father of scientific management, and Henri Fayol (1841–1925), who developed principles of administration, significantly influenced generations of management practices. Their ideas reflected the scientific mindset of their time, emphasising predictability, order, and command.
Trump’s emphasis on direct negotiation and zero-sum outcomes echoes aspects of these earlier traditions, where leadership was framed as a contest of authority and control.
A Shift Toward Complexity
Scientific thinking has since expanded to include complex systems that behave differently from mechanistic ones. Politics, economics, and large organisations often involve unpredictable outcomes. Under such conditions, adaptive approaches based on gradual change, experimentation, and continuous adjustment have produced more resilient results.
Examples include the Toyota Production System, reforms within the English National Health Service, and elements of Swiss governance. These approaches rely on distributed decision-making and continuous feedback, features often perceived as weaknesses by leaders accustomed to traditional command-and-control.
Populism and the Rise of Extreme Leaders
The leader–follower model functioned effectively in earlier periods, but modern complexity has outpaced leaders’ ability to control events. Frequent crises, often increasing in scale, have created an environment in which populist leaders gain support by promising a return to earlier conditions. Trump’s slogan, “Make America Great Again,” exemplified this trend, while similar movements have also emerged in Europe and the Middle East.
Trump in a Global Context
Trump’s approach to leadership reflects patterns shared by many contemporary leaders who continue to draw on traditional models. His role as president of the United States, however, gave his style particular significance. The reliance on older methods of leadership in a complex global environment underscores the challenges of adapting governance to contemporary realities.