Leading When Authoritarianism Knocks
When authoritarianism thrives on fear and obedience, leaders must turn to courage, care, and accountability
Last week I was in conversation with a leader who asked me:
“What does good use of self as a leader look like when authoritarianism and fascism are right on our doorstep?
It was the first time I had such a focused conversation about leadership intentionality for this specific moment. But, I suspect many people are asking similar questions about what good leadership looks like from here, whether these are asked aloud or pondered silently. We’re in a deepening integrity crisis, where leaders’ personal value systems are out of sync with what feels possible or permissible in organisational contexts. We’re short on role models leading the way, sharing their best practices for others to follow. And much of what we have learned about leadership so far doesn’t feel fit for purpose. This is less about finding a voice to speak up, declaring what you are ‘for’ or ‘against,’ and more about a fundamental reassessment of how to lead when authoritarian, fascist, and racist practices are becoming normalised.
Authoritarianism Is Not Abstract
I don’t know about you, but my LinkedIn feed is full of people grappling with what this means for their personal safety, belonging, community cohesion and, more existentially, for Britain's future. I’m seeing people unsure about how to find steady ground as consultants, and I’m feeling the unease of leaders who worry that what they say isn’t enough. We’re all seeing the stories that are reinforcing a new reality that hate and racial abuse are spilling into everyday life, along with a divisive nationalism visible in the rise of flags.
We’re in times of multiple truths - there are people in need of pride and recognition, fear of difference and blame of the other is being stoked and encouraged, the seductive power of white supremacy culture growing, belonging has become increasingly conditional and dissent is seen as a problem to be silenced and managed when it highlights inconvenient truths (800+ arrests at a protest against genocide, 24 for a racist, nationalist one).
Leaders, authoritarian and fascist dynamics are not abstract risks happening somewhere else. They are shaping the environment your people move through every day. The question is not whether these dynamics will surface in your workplace, but what you will do when they do. How will you bring your leadership - your values, voice, and actions - to respond with integrity when they do.
Why This Matters for Leaders in Social Change
For those working, in or caring about, social change, social cohesion, or social justice, this context cannot be treated as ‘political noise’ outside of organisations. These dynamics shape the air our people breathe. They determine how safe staff feel to bring their full identities into work, whether conversations about justice or global solidarity are welcomed or silenced, how quickly leaders retreat into a posture of ‘neutrality’ when funders, politicians or media stir fear, and how communities read our signals - as gestures of solidarity or as signs of exclusion?
For leaders, the challenge is this - authoritarianism thrives on fear, obedience, and silence. Social change and justice work depend on courage, dialogue, and solidarity. You cannot serve both. Choosing integrity means resisting the pull of authoritarian logics, even, and especially, when doing so is uncomfortable.
The dead leadership ideas that walk amongst us
I recall coming across a brilliant piece of research last year that discussed the phenomenon of zombie leadership, which feels particularly pertinent to return to right now. It’s the concept that modern leaders are guided, consciously or unconsciously, by dead leadership ideas that no longer feel fit for purpose. Haslam, Alvesson & Reicher (2024) call these the “dead ideas that still walk among us” - myths such as the belief that the heroic lone leader will save us, that leadership is an inborn trait that only some of us have, or that leaders are inherently morally good and are deserving of (unquestioning) follow-ship.
These zombie ideas keep organisations hooked on leaders who perform certainty, charisma, or control, even when evidence shows these qualities often reproduce inequality, silence dissent, and, in themselves, have an authoritarian quality.
In practice, Zombie leadership can look like:
Performative values: statements without action, carefully polished comms while injustice goes unnamed
Fear-driven avoidance: protecting comfort, funders, or reputation at the expense of moral courage
Disconnected authority: leaders insulated from staff experiences, who speak for but not with their people
Surface-level fixes: restructuring or culture initiatives that avoid reckoning with deeper wounds or challenges
What worries me especially is that when the wider culture is drifting toward authoritarianism, these dead ideas do more than hold us back - they actually make us complicit. They have trained us to value control over courage, performance over presence, and comfort over integrity. So, when we, as leaders, feel uncertain or afraid, the seductive power of these age-old ideas is far greater than stepping out with braver alternatives.
Integrity-Led Leadership in a Time of Threat
That client’s question has stayed with me, and we talked about how important it is to take an existential step back to be able to connect to the question of how to use ourselves best - our voice, our presence, our positionality, our values and our daily practices - in ways that create meaningful change.
The alternative isn’t clearly defined, but it’s rooted in integrity, guided by values and informed by anti-supremacy principles to forge a different approach.
It recognises that leadership is not the preserve of a chosen few but the practice of the many, self leadership is expected and is not only the preserve of the exec. It is about showing up in ways people can see and feel: leading from values, learning out loud, speaking into moments of injustice, even when it is uncomfortable. It understands that the personal is political, that power is something to be examined and shared, and that relationships, not grand gestures, are the real infrastructure of change. It treats care and connection not as soft extras but as the very ground of leadership. And when ruptures happen, as they inevitably do, it insists on repair and accountability rather than hiding behind authority or polishing the façade.
This kind of leadership is a practice. And more than ever, we need to see more of it.
Long-Termism and Your Theory of Change
Authoritarianism thrives on urgency and fear. It wants leaders stuck in fight-or-flight, reacting rather than intentionally being in a steady flow of reflection and intentional action.
In my client conversation, we talked about the importance of shifting our mindset to long-termism. Taking the long view as a way of both retaining perspective and giving the possibility for imagination and active hope. When our focus is too near-term, our frame for change also becomes limited, making it harder to feel grounded in our leadership. This means stretching our thinking over a longer time frame to give it appropriate resources, energy and investment.
The current situation is not a quick fix, and it asks us to resist falling into panic mode, trying to make ‘things go away’. I’ve talked before about cathedral thinking, and I still find that framing helpful in giving perspective to the change journey and what’s required to get there. Long-termism means recognising that authoritarian drift is a generational challenge, not just a one-off incident, and committing to building resilience and courage for the long journey is what’s required.
But long-termism is not enough. Leaders also need clarity about their own theory of change, which is about aligning beliefs about change with the energy and skills they have to facilitate that shift from their sphere of influence:
Where do I believe meaningful change begins - in policy, culture, relationships, or direct action?
What kinds of change work best align with my skills and positional power?
Where do I have real influence, and how can I best use it?
How do I stay rooted in my long-term vision when the pressure of short-term fear is louder?
My own theory took shape when I realised that systems change comes about by focusing on relational change. I hold close Adrienne Maree Brown’s insight that “small is all.” - it’s the small actions that ladder up into something greater, with lasting sustainability. Change rooted in relational change - how we speak to one another, the courage we model in front of colleagues, the trust we rebuild conversation by conversation - is where we witness it as real. Every shift in relationship is a seed of cultural change, and over time, those seeds create the garden we’ve been trying to nurture into reality. Once I connected to that, the whole energy of my work around systems change shifted.
When leaders combine long-termism with a clear theory of change, they are less likely to collapse into reactivity or retreat. They can act with integrity and purpose.
Healing leaders last longer
Good use of self begins with noticing that leadership wellbeing for these times also needs to look different. Self care and community care are both important ingredients. Taking care of nervous system regulation matters more if we want to be able to bring courage, hope, inspiration and longevity. This means attending more deeply to when fear is in the driving seat of decisions and actions, because more of our lives are spent in a context where anxiety is the norm.
This is where a resourcing plan comes in. Every leader needs one. It’s not indulgence; it’s survival. It asks:
What practices return me to myself when fear hijacks my nervous system?
Who are the people I can call for perspective and truth-telling?
What boundaries protect my energy and integrity so I can keep leading?
Where do I go for reflection and inspiration?
What is the community I need to build for these times?
Operating from a healed place is how leaders avoid replicating the behaviours that authoritarianism thrives on.
Practising Leadership When It Matters Most
We are living through a time when leadership is being tested at every level. The alternative is not found in heroic gestures or polished statements, but in the daily practice of integrity: showing up, naming what is true, repairing when harm is done, and keeping our leadership alive, relational, and human.
There is no map for this. Each of us has to locate our own theory of change, our own resourcing practices, and our own commitments to solidarity. But what we share is the responsibility to resist the pull of authoritarian logics, to refuse fear as the driver of our choices, and instead to lean into courage, care, and accountability.
I’d love to hear from anyone who has reflections, insights, or offerings in response to this piece. What questions or concerns are keeping you awake at night? What’s supporting you and what support is missing?