Working Paper Series 2018/22/EFE
Trump: A Tragi-Comedy
Manfred F. R. Kets de Vries INSEAD, [email protected]
This article explores the concept of tragi-comedy in which both forms of artistic endeavor are combined. An example of the genre, the film “The Death of Stalin”, is reviewed, portraying the consequences of dictatorial leadership. However, it is not only in the Russian mindscape where tragi-comedy can turn into a cautionary tale about flawed leadership. Looking at the state of the world, “great men” are once more on the rise and disturbing socio-political developments are occurring even in the “land of the free”. Given President Trump’s determination to “Make America Great Again”, this article explores the question of how he is recasting leadership. What’s very disturbing in these dynamics is the obsequiousness of his inner circle. Drawing parallels with scenes from the firm in the aftermath of Stalin’s death, I explore how exposure to flattery prevents leaders from recognizing the hidden agendas behind such behavior. Flattery has an insidious way of moving into the collective unconscious, often with devastating results. Observations are made about the interface between flattery and groupthink, as well as how it gives rise to social defenses. Ultimately, the question becomes, will Trump’s presidency be a comedy or tragedy?
Keywords: Dysfunctional Leadership; “Great Man”; Obsequiousness; Flattery; Social Defenses; Groupthink; Faulty Decision-Making
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=3193844
A Working Paper is the author’s intellectual property. It is intended as a means to promote research to interested readers. Its content should not be copied or hosted on any server without written permission from [email protected] Find more INSEAD papers at https://www.insead.edu/faculty-research/research
Nothing in this world is harder than speaking the truth, nothing easier than flattery.
—Fyodor Dostoevsky
Flattery is all right if you don’t inhale.
—Adlai Stevenson
My IQ is one of the highest — and you all know it! Please don’t feel so stupid or insecure; it’s not your fault.
—Donald Trump
Tragedy or comedy
A thin line separates joy and pain, hurt and humor, and for that matter, tragedy and comedy (Williams, 1966; Kerr, 1985; Walton, 2015; Day, 2016). Both depict human foibles but there are differences in the way in which they are dealt with, as well as in their outcomes. A simple distinction is to describe tragedy as a serious story with a sad ending, while comedy is a humorous story with a happy ending. Generally speaking, tragedy teaches important lessons of life by arousing a sense of pity or terror. In such instances, the dramatization of the “tragic flaw” of the protagonist leads to his or her downfall. In contrast, comedies take the perspective that life is ridiculous and absurd; faults and weaknesses are depicted as foolish. And like tragedy, comedy casts light on human shortcomings. Unlike tragedy, however, it makes fun of conceit and self-delusion, yet
1 allows for personal improvement and self-renewal in the end, whereas tragedy usually ends in the protagonist’s demise—physically or spiritually.
Tragi-comedy is the arena where comedy and tragedy meet, where tragedy contains enough comic elements to lighten the serious mood with a happy ending, intertwining conflicting emotions (Foster, 2004). After all, to know happiness, we must know sadness; experiencing sadness creates a greater appreciation for happiness. As is so often the case in theatre, the glue that connects the two art forms turns out to be humor, which is a highly effective way to cope with devastating situations.
This interconnectedness is masterfully portrayed in the film “The Death of Stalin”, a tragi- comedy directed by the Scottish satirist, Armando Iannucci (Nuru, 2017), which depicts the aftermath of the passing one of the greatest monsters of the 20th century: Joseph
Stalin. Following his sudden demise, the capital Moscow is plunged into disarray. The state of chaos portrayed demonstrates what years of dictatorship have done to a society.
Its tragi-comic nature led to the decision by Russia’s Ministry of Culture’s to ban the film, labeling it “offensive” and “extremist” (Telegraph, January 23, 2018). Most likely, it cut too close to the bone of the Putin era élite. To be reminded of a terrifying past is one thing, but to mock a serious and horrific event must have been—at least to the censors—one step too far. Stalin’s reign was not only terrifying, it was also terrifying in its ridiculousness.
For example, the film shows how in the short episode before Stalin’s death his entourage behaved in an extremely obsequious, farcical way—a way of acting that may have been
2 unacceptable to senior government officials. The mocking of the Communist top brass held up a mirror that the censors refused to look into. It may have been too much of a reminder mof what’s happen ing in the present.
The death of Stalin
After Stalin’s death, the film shows how his cronies embark on a frantic power struggle.
Among the prime contenders are the dimwitted Georgy Malenkov, the shrewd Nikita
Khrushchev, and the sadistic chief of the Soviet security and secret police apparatus,
Lavrentiy Beria. Combining Machiavellian-like intrigue with riotous farce, the film becomes a caricature of bureaucratic dysfunction. Given its similarity to present-day Russia—a resemblance that must have been obvious to Putin’s government officials—it offers insights on what can go wrong when a country is under dictatorial leadership. The depiction of what may happen when “great men” die is uncanny. Like other tragicomedies, it is not only a comment on the societal ills that are hard to express in a more direct way, but also an attempt to master the fear and anxiety that such leaders propagate.
The rise of “great men”
It is not only Russia to which this tragi-comedy offers a cautionary tale about flawed leadership. Looking at the state of the world, it is worrisome to see how many “great men” are once more on the rise. Even in the “land of the free” we are faced with disturbing developments. In seeking to “Make America Great Again”, Trump has taken a dangerous way to redefine what leadership is all about. Given his flawed leadership style, it begs the question what his presidency will do to America. The way he is running the country offers
3 many similarities with the imagery presented in the film “The death of Stalin”. Should we look at his presidency as a tragedy or comedy? Looking at Trump’s daily reality show, is he making us cry or laugh, or both?
Trump’s presidential arc provides many insights about human fallibility. Will his antics lead to a dramatic reversal of fortune? Will he go from hero to zero? Will Trump—like most tragic heroes—finally (albeit too late) realize his errors? Will hubris and vindictiveness contribute to his downfall? But taking another angle, will Trump transform into a comic hero? Could he simply be holding up a mirror to society to reflect its follies and vices in the hope that they will be mended?
Admittedlyj, people who have to deal with “great men” like Trum need to be obsequious in order to survive. To speak truth to power can only be done at their own risk. In that context, Trump has been compared to a Mafia boss, an observation made by former FBI
Director James Comey (2018). In his book A higher loyalty, Comey observes the dynamics at play in Trump’s inner court: “The silent circle of assent. The boss in complete control. Loyalty oaths. The us-versus-them world view. The lying about all things, large and small, in service to some code of loyalty.”
However, the Mafia boss analogy may not be entirely appropriate. Looking at the developments in Washington, the White House seems more like a medieval court, with its cliques and coerced displays of fealty, all taking place under the somewhat paranoid eye of Trump and his close family. Given what they are up against, his courtiers have
4 figured out that the only way to survive his peculiar “reign” is through flattery taken to the extreme.
The dangers of obsequiousness
Given Trump’s narcissistic needs, members of his Cabinet are expected to break out spontaneously in lavish praise of the “great man” at a moment’s notice (Kets de Vries &
Miller, 1985; Millon, 1995; Kets de Vries, 2017). Due to his psychological insecurities,
Trump’s main management objective seems to be to keep the people that work for him off balance, while at the same time expecting conspicuous acts of loyalty. No wonder, that members of Congress—even past critics—have figured out that dramatic shows of subservience are a precondition for getting anything done.
People in Trump’s inner circle surpass each other in expressing their subservience at an unmatched, highly creative level. Some examples: the outgoing Speaker of the House
Paul Ryan praised Trump’s “exquisite leadership.” Senator Orrin Hatch declared that “one of the great privileges of my life [is] to stand here on the White House lawn with the president of the United States who I love and appreciate so much.” Stephen Miller, a favorate Trump aide, “sees a man who [is] a political genius.” Nobody, however, has attained the heights of obsequiousness of Vice President Mike Pence, “thanking him for fulfilling miracles,” and crediting him with “restoring American credibility on the world stage, spurring record-setting optimism.” As a final accolade, Pence in his role as
“flatterer-in-chief” added that “serving the president is the greatest privilege of my life.”
5
All leaders have blind spots. Unfortunately, blind spots are often potential areas of vulnerability. A very dangerous blind spot is a leader’s desire for flattery. What makes flattery so insidious is that it becomes even more powerful when given to those who crave it most. Not surprisingly, leaders who place their need for adoration and acclaim above serving the needs of others become targets for people who see flattery as an opportunity to serve their own needs.
It goes without saying that a culture of obsequiousness doesn’t attract the best and the brightest—quite the opposite. Even more troublesome is that people who engage in flattery are often those with even darker personality traits—the opportunists, the lazy, the power-hungry, the greedy, even the psychopaths and sociopaths. The latter may view the people that crave flattery as a potential source of money, power, and influence. Such connivers take advantage of the fact that flattery has the power to influence, corrupt, undermine and deceive. Those they flatter are seen as “easy pickings”—theirs for the taking. In their hands, flattery can turn into a lethal weapon against the undiscerning.
As suggested, there are many risks when leaders fall under the spell of flattery. Driven by their narcissistic needs, they may not pick up on the agenda hidden the obsequious behavior of subordinates. They may not understand their ulterior motives. Adding to this disturbing equation is that (consciously or unconsciously) flattery tends to stick.
Sustained flattery can move into the unconscious with devastating results. No wonder
6 that it contributes to ineffective reality-testing and creates a world of make-believe, wherein important decisions become sub-optimal.
The tragedy (or comedy) of the Trump circus is that by creating a culture of flattery, his worst characteristics become amplified. Given the power at his disposal, if nobody is willing to stand up to him and tell him how things really are, Trump could easily turn into the tragic hero of yore, a casualty of unchallenged hubris. But putting another slant on it, he could also become a comic figure—acting in his inimitable way while those close to him ridicule him behind his back.
Some of the yes-men in Trump’s inner circle operate under the illusion that through flattery they can steer him in other directions. Eventually, they hope that he will see things their way. Note how many senior Republicans have taken on the role of a courtier in order to try to manipulate Trump, perhaps telling themselves that he is too immature, too volatile, or too incompetent to listen to differing viewpoints. Some of them may have the same opinion about his constituency: they may prefer it to be uneducated—a comment that
Trump himself has made explicitly.
Like in Putin’s Russia (and certainly when Stalin was in power), their praise simply reinforces the impression that the Republican Party is creating a cult of personality centered around Trump. It remains an open question, however, whether these courtiers, through their efforts at manipulation, will get what they want. Most probably—due to
7 Trump’s fickle behavior—the outcome will be suboptimal. Again and again, Trump is living proof of dysfunctional decision-making.
Furthermore, while people suck up to Trump or other autocratic leaders (while trying to appear genuine), they are losing parts of themselves. Flattery comes at the cost of authenticity. Actions (even when there is a modicum of sympathy for the person they are working for), are too much driven by personal gain. Of course, we could argue that to have a chance for success in organizational life, we have no choice but to resort to some obsequiousness—to get people in powerful positions to like and value us. What is surprising, however, is how many members of Team Trump go to such lengths to compromise their reputations and their dignity. Given his many improprieties, a willingness to serve Trump has turned into a serious test of character—with a high moral price for those who pass the test.
Groupthink
When leaders make obsequious behavior the norm, thoughtful actions are thrown out of the window. Groupthink prevails—a phenomenon whereby the members of the in- group are so eager to agree with each other that decisions go unchallenged and are ultimately of poor quality. When groupthink comes to the fore, pleasing the powerholder becomes more important than making the best decisions. People who desire to speak truth to power are strongly discouraged; any form of disagreement becomes unacceptable and carries the risk of retribution. For survival purposes, those that report to “great men” refrain from expressing doubt, judgment, or disagreement with the
8 consensus. They unquestioningly accept the gospel truth spread by the leader and his inner circle. Even more dangerious is that the leader and his inner entourage may not question ethically dubious decisions and actions. The ethical consequences of group decisions are ignored as long as they further their cause.
Social defenses
Furthermore, narcissistic leaders too often create a “Darwinian soup-like” environment where everyone is out for themselves. The “survival of the fittest” mentality is a breeding ground for paranoia and anxiety. The culture of fear makes people resort to social defenses to deal with stress in the workplace—they turn a blind eye to difficult emotions, topics, or relations. By not wanting to see, they create the illusion of certainty and safety.
In reality, they are participating in an unconscious collusion to protect themselves against the tension prevalent at work. Unfortunately, this protection comes at the expense of carrying out their real tasks. It also prevents them from taking the kinds of constructive action that would eliminate the sources of stress or threat in the first place.
Tragic man or comic man?
Members of Trump’s inner circle may have rationalized what they are doing by saying that praising him is a small price to pay for keeping the president on the straight and narrow. They may even tell themselves that they are sacrificing themselves for the good of the country. Vice-president Pence seems to be the ultimate model of sacrifice in his hyperbolic support. As political strategists James Carville and Paul Begala astutely observed: “You never stand so tall as when you stoop to kiss an ass.”
9
Leaders need to be cognizant that flattery “comes with the territory”. They should take to heart the warning that the moment you are in a senior executive position, you will be surrounded by liars. The more influence they have as a leader, the more they will be prone to attract flattery. The ability to distinguish fact from fiction is what differentiates great leadership. When the people that report to you, through flattery, try to push you to do what is in their personal interest, not what is good for the organization or society, the mark of great leadership is to recognize and put a stop to it.
Comedy and tragedy are roadmaps, showing how we can lose our way in life or redeem ourselves. Taking Stalin and Trump as examples, people in leadership positions should ask themselves how they want to be remembered: as tragic or comic? Do they want to be remembered with affection or with disgust? As we may have discovered, all too often, tragedy—with time—equals comedy. Tragic experiences may become a source of comic interpretation.
As things are now, with each new episode in the Trump reality show—tragic as some of his performances seem to be—we can see it as a continuous source of black humor. As
Charlie Chaplin once said, “Life is a tragedy when seen in close-up, but a comedy in long shot.”
10 References
Comey, J. (2018). A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership. New York: Flatiron
Books.
Day, G. (2016). The Story of Drama: Tragedy, Comedy and Sacrifice from the Greeks to the Present. London: Bloomsbury.
Foster, V. A. (2004). The Name and Nature of Tragicomedy. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Kerr, W. (1985). Tragedy and Comedy. Boston: Da Capo Press
Kets de Vries, M.F.R. and Miller, D. (1985). Narcissism and Leadership: An Object
Relations Perspective, Human Relations, 38, 6, 583-601
Kets de Vries, M.F.R. (2017). Riding the Leadership Rollercoaster. London: Palgrave.
Millon, T. (1995). Disorders of Personality—DSM IV and Beyond. New York, John Wiley
& Sons.
Nury, F. (2017). The Death of Stalin. London: Titan.
11 Telegraph (2018). Russia bans historical comedy Death of Stalin for 'extremist' content, January 23
Walton, J. M. (2015). The Greek Sense of Theatre: Tragedy and Comedy Reviewed.
London: Routledge.
Williams, R. (1966). Modern Tragedy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
12