The Math Doesn't Work
Let me be direct: I've seen enough of this to know it's not rare, and it's not going away on its own.
A leader decides something that clearly benefits them or their faction more than the organization. Fine—that happens. People are self-interested. But here's where it gets stupid: they make the decision without any real risk management. No contingency. No mitigation strategy. Just... action, and hope nobody notices the mess.
Then when people raise concerns—legitimate operational concerns, not personality stuff—the response is immediate: "This came from leadership. That's the decision."
Translation: "I don't have a good answer, so I'm hiding behind authority."
The problem is, this doesn't make the risks go away. It just moves them around. They land on the teams executing it. They compound in the systems absorbing the impact. And when things go wrong—and they do—the person who made the call is mysteriously unavailable for the accountability conversation.
I've read enough research on organizational behavior to know this isn't accidental. When leaders operate in ambiguous contexts without clear systems and processes, they convince themselves their self-serving decisions are justified. It's called motivated reasoning, and it's remarkably common [1]. But knowing it's common doesn't make it less damaging.
The Feedback Problem
Here's what I've noticed: leaders who make bad decisions without real strategy tend to have one thing in common—they don't actually want feedback. They want compliance.
When someone raises a concern—grounded in operational reality, risk assessment, whatever—it doesn't get engaged with. It gets deflected. Reframed as disloyalty or misalignment. Shut down with hierarchy.
And that tells you something important: they don't believe in their own decision enough to defend it on merit.
The problem with this approach is that it creates what researchers call "organizational silence"—a situation where people stop bringing problems to the surface because they've learned it's not safe to do so [2]. And when people stop surfacing problems, organizations stop learning. Risks compound. Bad decisions don't get corrected until they blow up.
I've seen this dynamic destroy team morale faster than almost anything else. Not because people are upset about the decision itself, but because they've learned that speaking up is pointless. That their judgment doesn't matter. That loyalty is more important than being right.
That's a culture problem, and it's expensive.
The Misinformation Thing
There's something else that happens in this dynamic that I find particularly troubling: information starts getting distorted.
When a leader is operating in this mode—making unilateral calls, dismissing feedback, not managing risk transparently—information vacuums form. And they get filled with speculation, distortion, and sometimes just straight-up false narratives.
I've seen leaders spread misleading information about other teams, other leaders, or the context behind decisions. Sometimes deliberately. Often just conveniently. The narrative serves the decision. Facts become secondary.
This crosses a line from "bad leadership" into something more serious. Misinformation—especially when it carries authority—damages trust, fractures teams, and creates organizational dysfunction that takes years to repair [3]. And if it's designed to discredit or undermine others? That's not just poor judgment. That's an abuse of power, and it's exactly the kind of thing governance and compliance functions exist to catch.
So What Do You Actually Do About It?
If you're dealing with this—whether it's a peer, a superior, or someone in your organization—here's what I've learned works:
Don't make it personal. Ground everything in operational impact, not motivation. "This decision creates X risk and I don't see a mitigation strategy" is harder to dismiss than "I think you're being self-serving." Stick to facts and impact.
Separate the ethical from the operational. If you think something is genuinely unethical, that's a governance issue. It may need to go to compliance, audit, or HR. Don't let that get mixed up with operational concerns. Handle them separately.
Protect your team. If a risky decision is happening regardless of your objections, your job is to help your team navigate it safely. Be clear about what you do and don't control. Help them understand the actual risks. Create buffers where you can.
Document things. If misinformation is spreading, don't fight it with counter-gossip. Create a clear record of what actually happened, what was actually decided, and why. Share it with people who need to know. Let facts do the work.
Escalate if it matters. If this pattern continues and creates real organizational risk—fraud indicators, compliance issues, operational failure—it needs to go to the right governance structures. Not as a personal complaint. As a business risk.
The Uncomfortable Part
Here's what I think we need to acknowledge: this pattern exists in a lot of organizations. It persists because we tolerate it. Sometimes because we don't want conflict. Sometimes because we're not sure what we're seeing is as bad as it looks. Sometimes because we've learned that speaking up has its own costs.
But every time we tolerate it, we normalize it. We signal that personal interest matters more than organizational health. That loyalty to a person matters more than accountability to purpose. That authority is a substitute for integrity.
The organizations that actually survive long-term are the ones where this gets actively disrupted. Where integrity and competence are genuinely non-negotiable. Where feedback is welcomed, not weaponized. Where risks are managed transparently. Where authority is exercised with restraint.
That requires leaders willing to speak up—not recklessly, not emotionally, but clearly and consistently. It also requires organizations that create actual space for that conversation. That don't punish people for raising legitimate concerns. That understand that the biggest risk to organizational health isn't disagreement.
It's silence.
Have you dealt with this dynamic? How did you navigate it? I'm genuinely curious what works in practice.
References
[1] Hernandez, M. (2017). "Putting an End to Leaders' Self-Serving Behavior." MIT Sloan Management Review. Research on motivated reasoning in organizational decision-making shows that leaders in ambiguous contexts often convince themselves that self-serving decisions are justified.
[2] Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). "Organizational Silence: A Barrier to Change and Development in a Pluralistic World." Academy of Management Review. Foundational research on how organizations develop cultures where employees withhold critical information.
[3] Akturan, A. (2025). "Organizational Crisis Management in the Age of Disinformation." OPUS Journal of Society Research. Contemporary research on how misinformation undermines organizational trust and operational effectiveness.
