Most of us have met him. Or her. Or some version of them.
The leader who talks about culture, loyalty, and togetherness while displaying the most toxic of traits: narcissism and controlling behaviour.
The song I wrote 'Family (or else)' exaggerates it for effect, and I've pulled quite a few personal experiences together, but the pattern is very real and well documented.
Toxic leadership rarely announces itself as toxic. It dresses up as confidence, certainty, discipline, and “high standards”. It often hides behind language like:
We’re a family here
We’re all in this together
We need to reward loyalty
Now is not the time for dissent
On the surface it sounds warm. Underneath, it is a control mechanism.
Amy Edmondson’s research at Harvard on psychological safety shows that teams only learn and improve when people feel safe to challenge, question, and admit problems. Google’s Project Aristotle found the same thing. Psychological safety was the single strongest predictor of high performing teams. Not talent. Not experience. Not seniority. Safety to speak.
When leaders punish dissent, even subtly, they do not eliminate problems. They eliminate visibility of problems.
The “Duchess of Doom” in the song is not just a cartoon villain. She represents a familiar leadership failure pattern.
First, insecurity masked as authority.
Leaders who surround themselves with yes people are not building high performing teams. They are building insulation. Research from McKinsey and others shows that teams with low cognitive diversity make weaker strategic decisions and miss market shifts more often. Agreement feels good. It just does not make you right.
You see it in commercial reviews where the forecast is clearly off but no one challenges it.
In meetings where bad news, or poor updates, are softened with forced enthusiasm so it does not upset the boss.
In everyday calls where people stay quiet for fear of being labelled “not on the bus”.
Second, fear replacing accountability.
When performance drops, healthy leaders look at systems, strategy, and capability. Fear based leaders look for excuses. The economy. The market. The competition. Activity levels. The number of calls being made. The number of webinars delivered. Anything except their own decisions. Blame becomes a shield.
Third, loyalty tests disguised as culture.
Employee surveys, engagement scores, and values statements are meant to surface truth. In toxic cultures they become compliance tests. Say the right thing or be labelled “not a team player”. Edmondson’s work shows that when people believe honesty will be punished, they stop giving it. What remains is performative positivity and quiet disengagement.
Fourth, outdated thinking protected by power.
Leaders who cannot adapt often suppress challenge rather than update their worldview. Instead of learning, they double down. Instead of experimenting, they enforce obedience. The organisation freezes while the market moves, doing more of the same while telling itself it is being “productive”.
The most dangerous phrase in all of this is often said warmly:
“We’re a family.”
Real families argue. They challenge. They tell uncomfortable truths. What these workplaces often mean by “family” is something else entirely. Loyalty without reciprocity. Submission without safety. Gratitude instead of growth.
Gallup’s long running research is blunt. People do not leave companies. They leave managers. More specifically, they leave environments where they feel unheard, unsafe, and undervalued. The cost is not just emotional. It shows up in productivity, innovation, retention, and ultimately, revenue.
The commercial damage follows a familiar pattern:
The smartest people leave first
The most honest voices go quiet
Decisions get slower and worse
Strategy becomes theatre rather than reality
Toxic leaders rarely prepare successors, let alone ones who think differently. They promote people who look and sound like them. The behaviour and the blind spots replicate.
From the outside everything can look stable, especially if there is still some growth. From the inside, it is brittle.
There is a clear difference between strong leadership and fear based management.
Fear based leaders want agreement. Strong leaders want truth.
Fear based cultures reward loyalty. Healthy cultures reward contribution.
Fear based teams perform for optics. Healthy teams perform for outcomes.
The song captures the theatre of it. The bravado. The forced cheer. The nervous laughter when the leader asks, “We’re a family, right?”
The real lesson for anyone building or leading a team is simple and uncomfortable.
If you only put people around you who will not challenge you, you are protecting your blind spots.
If you punish bad news, you will only receive good lies.
If loyalty matters more than truth, performance will always be compromised.
Healthy organisations are not built on fear, flattery, or forced positivity. They are built on:
Psychological safety, where people can speak without risking their livelihood
Constructive conflict, where ideas are challenged but people are respected
Accountability, where leaders own results rather than explain them away
Adaptability, where being wrong is treated as data, not as treason
The real opposite of the Duchess in the song is not a softer leader. It is a braver one.
Brave enough to be challenged.
Brave enough to hear what is not working.
Brave enough to let smarter people make them uncomfortable.
If everyone around you is nodding, ask yourself whether they agree or whether they are afraid.
Because the moment a leader needs constant obedience to feel safe, the team stops thinking and starts complying. People perform for approval rather than speak the truth. And when that happens, progress slows to a crawl.
It is the job of CEOs and CHROs to spot this and act. Far too often, though, they enable it via inaction or denial instead.
Listen to "Family (or Else)" on Marketing Mixtape
