Is trust in leaders shifting from virtues to competences?

Dr. Steven P.M. de Waal, our chairman, will have several discussions at the upcoming global conference of the International Leadership Association in Prague. These are all focused on and directed by his underlying paper with the title: From virtues and good character to skills and competences of strong or even disruptive leaders? Is this a fundamental shift in trust and leadership?’.

Here is a summary of this paper with examples of public leaders and their selection by followers worldwide. At the end there is a link to the full paper.

We hope to learn from your reading of this summary and paper and your comments!

1. Shift from Virtues to Skills & Disruption
   The paper argues that we are moving from trust in leaders’ virtues (character, morality, integrity) toward trust in leaders’ skills, media performance, and ability to disrupt institutions

Example: Donald Trump in the U.S. and Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil both maintained loyal followings despite controversies around morality, truthfulness, and democratic norms. Their followers valued their directness, disruption, and ability to “fight the establishment.”

2. The Media Arena as the New Battleground
   The paper stresses how the new media ecosystem (social media, AI, polarization) amplifies leaders’ theatrical performance and rewards controversy

This is highly topical given the rise of deepfakes, TikTok-driven campaigning, and algorithmic bubbles influencing elections.

Example: Javier Milei, Argentina’s new president, rose to power largely through disruptive social media performance and anti-establishment rhetoric, despite his eccentric style and policy radicalism.

3. Trust Becomes Transactional
   Trust, according to the paper, is no longer grounded in virtues but in “can this leader deliver for me?”

This conditional and instrumental form of trust explains why some leaders survive scandals that would have ended careers in the past.

Example: Benjamin Netanyahu continues to hold office in Israel despite corruption charges, because many followers trust his perceived competence in military strategy, security and (international) power politics.

4. Democracy’s Paradox

The paper highlights that in democracies, people often elect leaders who are not very democratic-minded, preferring hierarchy and strongman traits

This tension between “leading together” and “being ruled strongly” is front-page material.

Example: Viktor Orbán in Hungary and Narendra Modi in India both concentrate power and weaken checks and balances—yet maintain democratic legitimacy through elections.

5. The Counterexamples of Virtuous Leadership
   Importantly, the paper also notes that leaders like Jacinda Ardern, Angela Merkel, and Nelson Mandela exemplify values-based leadership (the subject of the dissertation of De Waal, 2014), showing that virtues still matter in certain contexts

This contrast is crucial because it shows leadership preferences differ across cultures and crises.

Example: Zelenskyy in Ukraine combines both worlds—moral framing (defense of freedom and democracy) with tactical media skills (trained as an actor) and wartime decisiveness.

Why Timely Now

• 2024/2025 election cycle: With the U.S., India, and the EU all holding major elections, the question of whether voters trust virtue or want disruptive competences is central.
• AI-driven public arena: Deepfakes and AI-generated propaganda make the paper’s point about the media-driven “and what he calls, theatrical performance of leadership” even sharper.
• Global crises: Wars, climate emergencies, and inequality create demand for leaders who “get things done”—even if this seems to undermine traditional democratic virtues.

The paper captures the paradox of modern leadership: citizens demand both democracy and disruption, both morality and Machiavellian power. This paradox is exactly what is playing out in today’s public arena.