Archie Brown’s The Myth of the Strong Leader: Key Insights

Today, we’re embarking on a deep dive into one of the most fascinating and important discussions on leadership, inspired by The Myth of the Strong Leader by renowned political scholar Archie Brown. This book challenges the long-held belief that strong, centralized leadership—often authoritarian in nature—is the most effective way to govern. Instead, Brown opens our minds to the idea that collaboration, empathy, and the strength of institutions are far more sustainable and successful in the long run.

To explore these vital themes, I’m thrilled to host an incredible imaginary conversation with some of the most influential leaders and thinkers, both past and present. Joining us today are legendary figures like Nelson Mandela, who led South Africa through its most difficult transition with grace and reconciliation; Angela Merkel, who led Germany with a steady hand through multiple global crises; Margaret Thatcher, the Iron Lady herself, known for her firm leadership in reshaping the UK; and Barack Obama, who led the U.S. with empathy and intellectual rigor.

But that's not all—spiritual wisdom comes from the Dalai Lama, who will speak on the role of compassion in leadership, and legal icons like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Lewis (both in an afterlife context) will share their views on justice, equality, and civil rights. We also have brilliant minds like Anne Applebaum and Timothy Snyder to reflect on the dangers of authoritarianism and the power of democratic institutions.

Guiding this incredible conversation is our moderator, Nick Sasaki, who will help these great leaders navigate through the key themes of The Myth of the Strong Leader. This is a discussion you won’t want to miss, as we break down the myths of authoritarianism and explore what truly makes a leader effective. Let's get started!

The Overrated Myth of Authoritarian Leadership

Nick Sasaki: Archie, in your book, you argue that authoritarian leadership is often overrated. Can you explain why this myth persists and what the real impact of authoritarian leaders is?

Archie Brown: Certainly, Nick. The myth of the authoritarian "strong leader" endures because it’s visually appealing and, at first glance, effective. When you see a leader centralizing power, making unilateral decisions, and appearing decisive, it can create the impression that they are in complete control and capable of steering a nation to success. However, this facade hides deeper problems. Authoritarian leaders often suppress dissent and avoid input from others, which leads to poor decision-making. They isolate themselves from alternative views and critical feedback, which is dangerous in governance. This was evident in figures like Stalin and Mao, who are often seen as strong, but their leaderships led to enormous human suffering and economic decline.

Anne Applebaum: I fully agree with Archie. Authoritarian regimes, especially in the 20th century, offer many examples of leaders who, despite their "strength," oversaw failed or crumbling states. Take the Soviet Union—Stalin ruled with absolute control, yet his paranoia and purges decimated the very institutions that could have supported long-term prosperity. The myth of the strong leader also persists because of the short-term successes some dictators achieve. Their policies might appear effective early on, but over time, the lack of debate, the stifling of creativity, and the corruption that accompanies unchecked power lead to instability and, eventually, collapse.

Timothy Snyder: That’s right. The broader historical perspective shows that authoritarianism creates fragility, not strength. Authoritarian leaders are often unable to transition power peacefully or ensure the stability of the state after their tenure. This is because they build systems that revolve entirely around their personalities. Once they are gone, the structure crumbles. Leaders like Hitler and Mussolini projected strength, but their regimes ended in ruin because they didn’t foster strong institutions or succession plans. Power concentrated in one person is inherently unstable because it cannot be sustained beyond that individual's presence.

Nick Sasaki: So, while these authoritarian figures appear strong, their leadership is often a house of cards—seemingly stable, but fundamentally fragile. But why does this myth of the strong leader remain so popular, especially in times of crisis?

Archie Brown: The appeal lies in the simplicity of the narrative. People are drawn to the idea of a strongman who can "fix" everything. In moments of uncertainty or crisis, individuals may crave a decisive figure who promises quick solutions. However, as history shows, these leaders often create more problems than they solve. Their authoritarian approach might offer temporary stability, but it rarely results in long-term success. In contrast, leaders who encourage debate and share power may appear less commanding, but their leadership is far more sustainable.

Anne Applebaum: Absolutely. It’s also important to remember that authoritarian leaders often manipulate media and public perception to maintain their image of strength. This control over information helps perpetuate the myth of their effectiveness. But beneath the surface, their leadership breeds corruption, weak institutions, and growing resentment among the population.

Timothy Snyder: And once their hold on power is challenged, whether by internal opposition or external forces, these regimes often collapse dramatically. There’s no system in place to ensure continuity because everything has been centralized in one person. This leads to power vacuums and social chaos, as we’ve seen in various authoritarian regimes across history.

Nick Sasaki: So, while the myth of the strong leader may offer short-term reassurance, it ultimately leads to long-term instability and failure. This brings us to our next topic—collaboration and shared power, which are often undervalued in leadership but crucial for sustainable success. Let's dive into that next.

The Importance of Collaboration and Shared Power

Nick Sasaki: Now that we’ve debunked the myth of authoritarian leadership, let’s discuss the importance of collaboration and shared power. Angela, you led Germany for many years with a reputation for building coalitions and working through consensus. How important is shared power in leadership?

Angela Merkel: It’s essential, Nick. In a complex world, no single person can hold all the answers. As Chancellor, I often faced situations that required input from multiple stakeholders. Building coalitions and working with a wide range of voices wasn't just a matter of political necessity—it was the best way to ensure well-rounded decisions. By sharing power and seeking consensus, we were able to navigate the Eurozone crisis, the refugee crisis, and many other challenges more effectively. Collaboration leads to better, more sustainable results because it integrates diverse perspectives, which authoritarian leadership tends to ignore.

Nelson Mandela: I couldn’t agree more, Angela. During my time as President of South Africa, we had to rebuild a nation scarred by apartheid. I knew that if I ruled with a strong hand, as had been the norm under apartheid, it would only deepen divisions. Instead, we worked through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and made it a point to include all South Africans in the conversation about the future. By sharing power and collaborating with even those who had been our political enemies, we created a more inclusive and just society. It wasn’t always easy, but it was the only path to healing.

Archie Brown: Mandela’s leadership is a perfect example of how sharing power can lead to extraordinary outcomes. What makes collaboration so valuable is that it opens up the decision-making process to include different perspectives and expertise. In my research, I’ve found that leaders who empower others and share decision-making authority are far more successful in the long run. They build institutions that outlast their leadership, ensuring stability and continuity. Authoritarian leaders may appear strong in the short term, but they often leave behind a fragile state when they step down or are forced out of power. Collaborative leaders, on the other hand, create lasting systems of governance.

Nick Sasaki: So collaboration isn’t just about making better decisions in the moment; it’s about creating structures that can survive and thrive beyond the leader’s tenure. Anne, what do you think about the challenges and benefits of collaboration in governance?

Anne Applebaum: Collaboration is difficult, especially in polarized environments, but it’s absolutely necessary. In my work studying post-Soviet states, I’ve seen what happens when leaders don’t collaborate—they either fall into autocracy, or their governments become too fragile to endure. When leaders work collaboratively, they foster resilience in their systems. The idea that one person can solve all problems is a dangerous fantasy. In reality, the most effective leaders are those who build consensus and encourage diverse viewpoints. These leaders might not always appear as "strong," but they are the ones who make a lasting impact.

Timothy Snyder: The collaborative model also prevents the type of groupthink that can lead to disastrous policies. When a leader surrounds themselves with loyalists who won’t challenge them, you end up with a narrow perspective. This often leads to policies that don’t take the complexities of a situation into account. Collaboration, by contrast, allows for a broader range of input, which leads to more nuanced and effective governance.

Nick Sasaki: That’s a great point, Timothy. Collaborative leadership helps to avoid blind spots and mistakes that arise from relying on a single perspective. Angela, how do you balance the need for collaboration with the need for decisive action, especially in times of crisis?

Angela Merkel: It’s a fine balance, Nick. During crises like the Eurozone financial meltdown or the COVID-19 pandemic, decisions needed to be made quickly, but that didn’t mean excluding others from the process. In fact, during these moments, collaboration became even more important. I would listen to experts, economists, and other political leaders before making a decision. It didn’t slow us down—it ensured that the decisions we made were well-informed and effective. Decisiveness doesn’t mean acting alone; it means acting with the best information at hand, which comes from collaboration.

Nick Sasaki: So the key is not seeing collaboration as a weakness or a delay in decision-making but as a way to make stronger, better-informed choices. This collaborative approach stands in stark contrast to the myth of the strong leader, who typically acts unilaterally. Let’s move on to our next topic: the role of intellectual and flexible leadership.

Intellectual and Flexible Leadership

Nick Sasaki: Let’s now turn to the idea of intellectual and flexible leadership. Barack, during your time in office, you were often praised for your intellectual approach to leadership. Can you share how intellectual flexibility played a role in your decision-making?

Barack Obama: Absolutely, Nick. One of the things I learned early on was that being president didn’t mean I had to have all the answers. In fact, part of being an effective leader is recognizing that you don’t. That’s where intellectual flexibility comes in. I surrounded myself with advisors who had diverse perspectives, and I valued their input. It’s about having the humility to understand that the world is complex, and rigid thinking doesn’t serve well in such an environment. The decisions you make as a leader have far-reaching consequences, so being willing to adapt and change course when new information arises is crucial.

Margaret Thatcher: (afterlife context) While I was often seen as a strong, unbending leader, even I had to adjust my strategies in the face of economic challenges. It’s a misconception that flexibility is a sign of weakness. On the contrary, knowing when to change direction requires strength. For example, when implementing economic reforms, I had to remain open to changing tactics based on the realities on the ground. There were times when I had to push through resistance, but I also recognized that flexibility allowed for adjustments that could save the core of the policies. The key is balancing your principles with a pragmatic approach.

Archie Brown: That’s an excellent point, Margaret. In my research, I found that leaders who embrace intellectual flexibility are more successful in the long run. It’s tempting to believe that strong leadership requires sticking to a single path without wavering, but the reality is quite the opposite. Take Franklin D. Roosevelt, for instance. His willingness to experiment with different policies during the Great Depression, and then to adjust them when necessary, made him one of the most successful leaders in modern history. He didn’t see flexibility as a sign of weakness but as a necessary tool for effective governance.

Nick Sasaki: So, flexibility doesn’t mean compromising your core values, but rather adapting your strategies to achieve those values more effectively. Timothy, how does intellectual leadership play out in the broader historical context?

Timothy Snyder: Intellectual leadership is absolutely critical when we look at history. Some of the most successful leaders, whether in times of war or peace, were those who approached problems with a deep understanding of context and were willing to adapt their tactics. Winston Churchill is another great example. His leadership during World War II is often celebrated for his strength, but it was his intellectual flexibility—his ability to adjust to changing circumstances and to listen to his advisors—that truly set him apart. Leaders who are too rigid, like Hitler or Mussolini, often lead their countries into disaster because they can’t adapt when the situation requires it.

Angela Merkel: Flexibility is also critical in today’s interconnected world. When dealing with global challenges like climate change or financial crises, the solutions aren’t straightforward. They require a combination of intellectual curiosity and the willingness to listen to experts and shift your approach as new data comes in. As Chancellor, I had to adjust our policies on issues like energy and migration several times based on changing circumstances, both domestic and international. It was essential for making sure Germany stayed on a steady course while addressing these challenges effectively.

Barack Obama: Exactly. Another aspect of intellectual leadership is understanding that some decisions take time. Not every problem can be solved overnight, and the temptation is to respond with quick fixes, which often don’t work. Intellectual leaders have the patience to think long-term. During my administration, we faced pressure for immediate results on issues like healthcare and the economy, but sometimes the best decisions required taking a step back, analyzing the situation fully, and then implementing changes over time.

Nick Sasaki: It seems like intellectual leadership requires a balance between decisiveness and patience, as well as a willingness to admit when things aren’t working. How do you see this balancing act between intellectual rigor and the need to be flexible in leadership?

Archie Brown: The key is to maintain a commitment to intellectual honesty. Leaders who are able to admit when they’re wrong and adjust their strategies accordingly are far more effective than those who try to power through mistakes. Intellectual flexibility isn’t about abandoning principles; it’s about using knowledge and adaptability to achieve the best possible outcomes. The leaders who understand this leave behind stronger legacies because they’re able to navigate the complexities of governance without getting bogged down by ego or rigid thinking.

Nick Sasaki: That’s a great insight, Archie. Flexibility and intellectual depth seem to go hand-in-hand with effective leadership, especially in a world where circumstances are constantly evolving. Let’s now shift our focus to the role of empathy and listening in leadership.

The Role of Empathy and Listening in Leadership

Nick Sasaki: Let’s move on to a crucial but sometimes overlooked aspect of leadership—empathy and listening. Dalai Lama, you’ve long emphasized compassion as a foundation for leadership. How does empathy play a role in effective leadership?

Dalai Lama: Compassion is at the heart of good leadership. When a leader understands the pain, fears, and desires of their people, they can lead with greater wisdom. Empathy is not a weakness but a strength that allows a leader to connect with others on a human level. It helps a leader understand what is needed and how best to serve. When you are compassionate, you gain trust, and trust is essential in leadership. Without it, people may follow you out of fear, but they will not follow you out of love or respect.

Jacinda Ardern: That resonates with me deeply. During my time as Prime Minister of New Zealand, leading with empathy was essential, especially during the Christchurch terror attack and the COVID-19 pandemic. In both cases, I realized that listening to people’s concerns and showing genuine empathy helped build a sense of community and trust. It’s not about being soft or indecisive; it’s about recognizing that leadership is fundamentally about people. Empathy allowed me to make decisions that reflected the needs of the population, rather than imposing top-down solutions.

Archie Brown: Empathy is often underappreciated in discussions of leadership. In The Myth of the Strong Leader, I argue that the most effective leaders are those who not only listen but actively seek out diverse perspectives. Empathy allows leaders to better understand those they serve, which in turn helps them make more informed and balanced decisions. Authoritarian leaders, by contrast, often lack empathy because they surround themselves with loyalists who don’t challenge them. This lack of feedback creates an echo chamber, leading to poor policy decisions and detachment from the real needs of the people.

Nick Sasaki: It sounds like empathy and listening are critical to creating that connection between a leader and their people. Ruth, as a Supreme Court Justice, how did empathy play a role in your work?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: (afterlife context) Empathy was fundamental in my approach to justice. Understanding the struggles and perspectives of those who came before the court allowed me to make decisions that reflected not only the letter of the law but the spirit of fairness and equality. Leaders in any capacity need to listen to the people they are serving. If you don’t listen, you are disconnected from the realities of those you are trying to help. Empathy helped me connect with the human impact of the laws we interpreted, particularly when it came to issues of gender equality and civil rights.

John Lewis: (afterlife context) I can’t overstate how important empathy and listening were in the Civil Rights Movement. We weren’t just fighting for rights; we were fighting for dignity and humanity. As leaders in the movement, we had to understand the pain and struggles of African Americans across the South and beyond. Empathy helped us build a coalition, not just of black Americans but of people from all walks of life. We listened to each other’s stories, and that listening is what united us in the fight for justice. It’s the same in leadership today—if you’re not listening to the people, you’re not truly leading.

Nick Sasaki: It’s inspiring to hear how empathy not only shaped leadership during pivotal moments in history but also continues to play a vital role in governance today. Empathy seems to be about more than just understanding—it’s about connection and trust. Barack, during your presidency, you often emphasized listening to others. How did that influence your leadership?

Barack Obama: Listening was one of the most important aspects of my leadership. It wasn’t just about hearing what people had to say but understanding their concerns on a deeper level. Whether it was meeting with constituents or sitting down with advisors, I always tried to approach the conversation with a sense of empathy. This helped me make better decisions because I was able to factor in the human impact of our policies. I also found that listening to opposing viewpoints was critical. It didn’t mean I always agreed, but it helped me challenge my own assumptions and refine my approach.

Nick Sasaki: It seems like empathy and listening aren’t just moral imperatives but practical tools for making better decisions and leading effectively. Timothy, how does empathy play a role in leadership from a historical perspective?

Timothy Snyder: Empathy has often been the difference between leaders who succeed in uniting people and those who fail. Leaders who listen and understand their populations, like Lincoln or Roosevelt, were able to create lasting change because they connected with their people on an emotional level. By contrast, authoritarian leaders tend to dismiss empathy as a weakness, which leads to them becoming increasingly isolated and out of touch. This disconnection ultimately results in poor governance and societal fracture.

Nick Sasaki: So, empathy is not just about emotional connection; it’s also about maintaining an awareness of reality, staying in tune with the needs of the people. It’s clear that empathy and listening are fundamental to strong, effective leadership. Now, let’s move on to our final topic: the role of institutions in democratic leadership.

Democratic Leadership and the Power of Institutions

Nick Sasaki: Now, let’s explore how democratic leadership and the strength of institutions are key to sustaining effective governance. Ruth, as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, you’ve had a front-row seat to the power of institutions in shaping a nation. How do you see the role of institutions in leadership?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: (afterlife context) Institutions are the backbone of a functioning democracy. They provide the framework within which leaders operate and ensure that power is checked, balanced, and distributed appropriately. The Supreme Court, for instance, doesn’t act as an authoritarian body but rather as one component in a broader system of governance that ensures the laws of the land are just and fairly applied. Leaders who respect and strengthen institutions, rather than try to undermine them, are the ones who leave behind the strongest legacies. Without strong institutions, leadership becomes arbitrary and disconnected from the needs of the people.

John Lewis: (afterlife context) That’s exactly right, Ruth. Institutions are what keep democracy alive. They protect individual rights and ensure that leadership is about service, not control. During the Civil Rights Movement, one of our biggest battles was to ensure that institutions like the courts, voting systems, and legislatures worked for everyone, not just the powerful. Leaders who understand the value of these institutions work to make them stronger and more inclusive. When you see leaders trying to dismantle democratic institutions, it’s a clear sign that they’re more interested in personal power than in serving the people.

Archie Brown: The research in my book points out that the most successful democratic leaders are those who strengthen institutions. The myth of the strong leader often revolves around the idea that one person can guide a nation to greatness, but history shows that institutions are what truly sustain that greatness. Franklin D. Roosevelt, for example, not only navigated the U.S. through the Great Depression and World War II but also left behind institutions like Social Security and the framework for modern government programs. These institutions have endured long after his presidency because he built them with longevity in mind, rather than focusing solely on his personal power.

Nick Sasaki: So, building strong institutions isn’t just about governance during one’s time in office, but about creating structures that can thrive and evolve long after a leader is gone. Angela, how did you balance personal leadership with the need to strengthen institutions during your time as Chancellor?

Angela Merkel: The key is recognizing that as a leader, your role is to serve within a system, not above it. My goal was always to leave Germany’s institutions stronger than I found them. In times of crisis—like the Eurozone crisis or the refugee crisis—it would have been tempting to centralize more power in the executive. However, I worked closely with the Bundestag, the European Union, and other institutions to ensure that decisions were made collaboratively and that the institutions would be robust enough to handle future challenges. Strong institutions create stability, even when individual leaders change.

Timothy Snyder: Historically, the most resilient nations are those with strong institutions that limit the power of any single individual. Look at the United States. The country has faced numerous challenges—wars, economic crises, political scandals—but its institutions have allowed it to adapt and survive. Compare that to autocratic regimes, where once the leader falls, the entire system collapses. It’s the institutions that endure, not the leaders, and that’s what sustains a healthy democracy.

Barack Obama: I completely agree, Timothy. When I took office, one of my priorities was to restore faith in democratic institutions. This included everything from the judiciary to the executive branch to the press. If people lose trust in these institutions, democracy itself is at risk. That’s why authoritarian leaders often try to undermine them—because institutions are the primary barriers to unchecked power. My role as president wasn’t just to lead but to strengthen the institutions that would ensure governance worked effectively for future generations.

Archie Brown: That’s an excellent point, Barack. Leaders who respect institutions are often more restrained in their use of power, and that restraint is a form of strength. Leaders who undermine institutions may seem strong in the moment, but their leadership is inherently unstable because it’s not supported by lasting systems. The power of institutions is that they provide continuity and stability, protecting democracy from the whims of any one individual.

Nick Sasaki: It seems that one of the key takeaways here is that leadership is not just about the decisions made during a leader’s time in office, but about the legacy left behind in the form of strong, enduring institutions. Leaders who understand this build systems that outlast them, whereas those who focus on personal power often leave behind instability. Ruth, what’s your perspective on how future leaders can continue to strengthen democratic institutions?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: (afterlife context) Future leaders need to understand that their role is not just to lead but to be stewards of the institutions that protect democracy. This means respecting the rule of law, ensuring fair access to justice, and protecting the rights of all individuals. Leaders who undermine these institutions may gain short-term power, but they ultimately weaken the very system that allows democracy to function. Strengthening institutions means thinking beyond personal ambition and focusing on the long-term health of the nation.

Nick Sasaki: Thank you all for sharing such insightful perspectives on the power of institutions in democratic leadership. It’s clear that effective leadership goes hand-in-hand with a commitment to building and maintaining strong, democratic institutions. This concludes our conversation today. It has been a thought-provoking exploration of the ideas in The Myth of the Strong Leader.

Short Bios: