The Leadership Paradox: Why Leaders Often Stay Too Long

By Christian Rook

September 10, 2023

“UNBELIEVABLE!!!”

The ?Berliner Zeitung“ newspaper writes this morning: ?Hansi Flick still considers himself the ‘right coach’ for the German national soccer team even after the 4-1 defeat to Japan at the start of the European Championship season. ‘I think we're doing well,’ the 58-year-old told broadcaster RTL on Saturday, ‘I can understand if the criticism is there and if it's big. That's all I can say about it.’”

I am stunned watching this. And I am not. We see it all the time. At least the players - as tame and lethargic in front of the camera as they were on the pitch - will all stay politically correct during their interviews. “Yes, the coach still reaches the team”. “It is the team’s fault” - Well done, boys, sit!

But what are the underlying dynamics that allow the WRONG LEADERS to stick around? In behavioral science, there are a few principles that help us understand why we often HESITATE until it is too late, when actually we should ACT BEFORE when we can still change the outcome. I will touch on 5 principles here in this article: Status quo bias; the sunk cost fallacy; leadership loyalty; the fear of instability; and public perception, mentioning the cases of ARSENE WENGER at ARSENAL; BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO; ROBERT MUGABE; GE; and WINSTON CHURCHILL:

In various domains, from sports to politics and industry, there's a puzzling phenomenon where leaders continue to hold power even when their performance is clearly on the decline. This raises the question: Why do we often hesitate to change leaders when it's evident that the old ones are no longer delivering the desired results? Let's delve into this leadership paradox, examining key factors that contribute to this trend.

1. Status Quo Bias

The status quo bias is a powerful psychological force that makes us naturally inclined to stick with what we know. In the world of sports, one example of this is Arsène Wenger, the former manager of Arsenal Football Club. Wenger, who managed Arsenal for over two decades, faced a decline in the team's performance during his later years. Despite calls for change, Wenger's long tenure created a sense of stability and familiarity that made it difficult for fans and the club's board to embrace change.

2. Sunk Cost Fallacy

The sunk cost fallacy is the tendency to continue investing in a decision or course of action, even when it's no longer rational, because of the resources already invested. In the business world, this bias can be observed when companies persist with leaders whose strategies are failing. A case in point is the decline of Blockbuster, once a giant in the video rental industry. The company held onto its traditional retail model for too long, unable to adapt to the digital age, and this sunk cost fallacy contributed to its ultimate demise.

3. Leadership Loyalty

Leadership loyalty can be a powerful factor that keeps leaders in their positions long past their prime. Supporters or stakeholders who have been loyal to a leader for an extended period may find it emotionally challenging to accept that their trust was misplaced. In politics, this loyalty phenomenon is exemplified by Robert Mugabe, the former president of Zimbabwe, who remained in power for nearly four decades despite a deteriorating political and economic situation. His legacy as a liberation hero created unwavering support among some segments of the population.

4. Fear of Instability

Fear of instability often plays a significant role in retaining underperforming leaders. Change, whether in sports teams, corporations, or political offices, can be accompanied by uncertainty and potential turbulence. This fear can lead to hesitancy in making necessary leadership changes. In the corporate world, this was evident in the case of General Electric (GE). The company hesitated to replace its long-standing CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, even as GE faced financial struggles, which some argue contributed to the company's ongoing challenges.

5. Public Perception

Public perception is another influential factor in retaining leaders, especially in the political arena. Leaders often have a public image that can be challenging to challenge. In the case of Winston Churchill, the iconic British Prime Minister during World War II, his reputation as a wartime hero remained strong even as post-war challenges emerged. Churchill was reelected, in part, due to his perceived leadership during the war, despite concerns about his ability to address post-war issues.

In conclusion, the phenomenon of leaders staying in power despite declining performance is a complex interplay of psychological biases and structural factors. Recognizing these factors is essential for organizations and societies to make informed decisions about leadership changes when necessary. Whether in sports, industry, or politics, addressing these challenges can lead to more effective leadership and better outcomes for all stakeholders involved.