Embracing strongman leaders: do Gen Z have it right?
Faced with an overheating political climate, a world on fire and the return of the strongman or alpha leader to do “a proper job” of fixing everything, one source of optimism is that the incoming generation will surely look at the mess and choose a better path to overcoming the challenges we face.
If research shared by Channel 4 this week is to be believed, this faith may be misplaced. In their survey, 52% of 13–27-year-olds said the UK would be better off with a strongman dictator while 45% of male respondents in that age group thought promotion of women’s equality had gone too far. The same number say “things have gone far enough” in giving women equal rights.
Taken at face value, the research appears to cement the prevailing narrative that the cult of the heroic leader has won over at the expense of the inclusive leader and that a focus on meritocracy rather than fixing disadvantage is the way to fair opportunity.
A truly worrying omen for the future stewardship of business and politics.
However, I think that a deeper interrogation of what is really going on provides an important reality check and sheds a light on how we can constructively influence future debate.
First, let’s look at the narrative itself. The idea that advocating for fairness and opportunity has somehow led to an unfair world is, frankly, nonsense. If the pendulum has truly swung too far, we’d expect to see men as a disadvantaged minority, struggling to get ahead. Evidence empirically tells us the opposite. Leaders who are not male, white, and drawn from a narrow pool of privilege are still conspicuous only because of their relative rarity.
Next consider the appeal of the so-called “alpha” leaders. Figures like Andrew Tate, Donald Trump, and Elon Musk may have carved out public personas of dominance and defiance, but ask someone you know: Would you really want to work for them? Trust them with your career? Do they work for your best interests?
There are takers for a leadership model which prioritises power over collaboration, control over creativity – someone has to work for Tesla and SpaceX - but it is no majority. Inclusion, recognition, and the ability to contribute as equals are proven drivers of engagement and performance across all age cohorts at work. In and outside of the workplace, younger people in particular expect to have their voice heard and ideas valued, something their predecessors could only dream of.
Then there is the allure of the “true meritocracy” — where talent, not background, determines success – which is demonstrably an illusion. Even in industries or sectors that claim to be meritocratic, structural barriers still prevail: progression is judged on potential not performance; hiring biases remain; a “broken rung” of progression continues to hold back anyone outside the traditional mould of leadership.
The challenge then is to make sure that the narrative doesn’t replace evidence and experience. How do we that?
First, we have to acknowledge a reality: the rise of figures like Trump, Musk, and Tate has come for a reason.
Their blunt, unapologetic style has gained traction in an era where inclusion, ironically, sometimes feels like exclusion—where people fear saying the wrong thing or being shut out of conversations entirely.
At the same time, we need to call out the confidence trick that dismantling systems which reduce disadvantage will result in fairer merit-based progression. “Meritocracy” is the ultimate rigged game where the only guarantee is unfairness.
Then we have to remember that leadership isn’t a zero-sum game - directive or inclusive, visionary or collaborative - and it shouldn’t be presented as such. People crave clarity and conviction, which is why even flawed strongmen command a following. But people also thrive when given autonomy, a voice, and a sense of ownership over their future. The reality is that the best leaders blend both.
The so-called HEAL industries of the future — health, education, administration, and leadership — where collaboration, consultation, and adaptability, not brute force are key to innovation and success.
While it is tempting to equate the rise and fall of a certain leader with the success or failure of a certain leadership style, we have to resist this narrative taking hold,
We must remind ourselves that good leaders know when to step up, when to step back, and when to bring others forward with them.
And if there is one lesson from history it is that although people may think they want a one-dimensional leader, when the reality of living with one costs too much, it is those leaders who are inevitably shown the door.
