Decoding Donald Trump’s Power: A Leadership Research Perspective

Few public figures have been as polarizing over the past half-century as Donald Trump. Every post he makes on social media or in the press seems to spark a reaction: fascination, irony, irritation, anger, and often fear — at least on the European side of the Atlantic. Yet such instinctive responses can also obscure the real question. What lies at the heart of the American president’s influence? How does he preserve the loyalty of his supporters? Leadership research offers several well-established frameworks that help answer these questions.

A simple explanation should be ruled out at once. Trump’s support is not solely based on fear, as if his followers simply obeyed because the cost of dissent was too high. While his formal authority may secure compliance within the administration, it does not explain the loyalty of lawmakers, activists, and voters — including those who suffer directly as a result of his policies, such as American farmers.

Leaders and followers

To understand Trump’s influence, one must start with a clear definition of leadership: the ability of one person to influence others in order to secure their support and prompt them to act accordingly. In other words, leadership is the ability to inspire others to follow you. This differs from hierarchical power, which is based on formal rules and institutional authority.

Seen through the lens of management research, Trump’s leadership closely resembles what scholars call pseudo-transformational leadership. In that sense, he illustrates the darker possibilities of leadership rather than its constructive promise.

Transformational leadership, in its original form, describes a leader who changes others so deeply that they willingly and consciously commit themselves to a collective project. The idea grew out of research on charisma, one of the major sources of influence identified by Max Weber and later developed in organizational studies. Bass and Avolio famously defined transformational leadership through four dimensions: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration.

The image of a superman

At first glance, Trump seems to tick all the boxes of transformational leadership. It is partly through this register that he sustains the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement and attracts the admiration of other leaders in search of influence. By setting himself apart through blunt speech, magnifying his successes, and obscuring his failures, he projects an idealized image of himself — almost a figure above the ordinary. His call to restore lost greatness mobilizes supporters by promising a better world, however reactionary that vision may be. To a certain extent, his rhetoric also invites reflection, by reframing reality as if to ask: what if this were possible? When it comes to individualized attention, Trump shows it first and foremost within his own circle, as when he publicly honors figures close to the MAGA movement. In international affairs, he seems less interested in countries than in the personalities who lead them, using flattery with one and humiliation with another.

Yet Bass and Steidlmeier added a crucial condition to this theoretical framework: true transformational leadership must be grounded in positive, altruistic values. Without this moral foundation, what remains is not authentic transformation but pseudo-transformational leadership.

In practice, pseudo-transformational leaders invert the logic of the four dimensions described above. The ideal they project is self-centered. This creates a stark divide between the good — me, us — and the bad — everyone else. The inspiration they generate rests on fear and threat, whether real or invented, often in the form of conspiracies and plots. When they provoke thought or debate, they do so from distorted premises. Force, authority, and power override rationality, and selfish ends ultimately justify any means, starting with falsehood. Their concern for people is narrowly selective: only unconditional admirers benefit, while others are insulted or pushed aside. In this respect, Trump comes close to the textbook case.

Toxic or destructive

A second stream of research helps explain Trump’s mode of operation by focusing on the “dark side” of leadership. This is the domain of Darth Vader rather than the Jedi. Alongside pseudo-transformational leadership, the literature includes labels such as toxic or destructive leadership. The concern of research here is less with describing a style than with identifying the kinds of people who practice it — and the consequences that follow.

Three personality traits recur in this literature:

• Narcissism, which combines a need for domination with an inflated self-image;
• Machiavellianism, which rests on a cynical view of the world in which everyone — including the leader — is driven by personal gain;
• Psychopathy, characterized by impulsivity, a lack of empathy, and a capacity to manipulate others.

Trump fits this profile closely. As early as 2024, 200 psychologists and other mental health professionals denounced his narcissism in an open letter published in the New York Times. His worldview is so cynical and self-interested that it extends to personal and family enrichment. His tweets, sent almost instinctively, frequently show contempt even towards victims.

A recent meta-analysis shows that dark-side leadership is associated with a broad range of destructive effects. As it is perceived as authoritarian and unethical, it damages the relationship between teams and managers. This, in turn, fosters anger, anxiety, feelings of injustice, burnout, and depression — or at the very least disengagement. The organization, or the country in the case of political leadership, pays the price. So do its partners. In the end, the only clear beneficiary is the leader himself.

Choosing the light side

Against pseudo-transformational leadership, Bass and Steidlmeier propose an authentic version of transformational leadership. In this approach, the four dimensions are infused with justice, rationality, and concern for the common good. In this view, authentic transformational leadership sits alongside other positive approaches such as Servant leadership, Empowering leadership, and Ethical leadership. The encouraging finding is that these “light-side” styles are linked to favorable outcomes: they enhance individual and team well-being and organizational performance.

Dark-side leaders reach power because they crave it intensely and eventually persuade others to hand it over. By definition, one cannot expect them to embrace a rational, humanistic ethic, as that would run against their worldview. The broader lesson from the American experience is therefore that those who select leaders have a duty to choose the light side before granting power, in order to keep Darth Vader — and Palpatine — as far away as possible.