The Disaster When in Disaster Management

Leaders delighted in their Hubris.

Collective leadership affected by the Hubris syndrome [a phenomenon in which the leader develops extreme arrogance, egocentrism and disconnection with reality] can profoundly negatively impact the collective grieving process and emotional healing after a disaster in the community or a crisis in the company. This disaster is compounded by another one: how the first one is managed.

Suffering from Hubris can be understood as a manifestation of a lack of aptitude that is not original but rather supervening. It should lead to the leader's incapacity to exercise their position. At least, this is defended as best practice in political and business management of leadership in the United Kingdom and the United States. Those who suffer from this syndrome (and leave suffering the stakeholders behind) may already have had it in a germinal phase in their way of being. It does not blossom until they reach a position of power, becoming evident. But - and this is most common - it may also germinate and blossom after achieving that power, exercising it pathologically.

Caveat | It must be assumed that there has been a distance between the perception of reality by someone who has become incompetent and the understanding of the function with which he was invested with a power they no longer deserve to hold. A case of supervening delegitimisation of power that could perhaps be described as guilty if it persists in not giving up the reins of office.

But, if what is behind the disaster that its eccentric management develops was an intentional aim, then the analysis of the following paragraphs in this post is useless. Then, the scenario presented to the collective enterprise, whether it is called a nation or company, requires others diagnosis, prognosis and treatment. The disaster, the crisis, acquires another dimension whose more appropriate political or business response has to be more forceful.

Five Hints to Track

How can we identify a scenario understood in terms of a nation, community, company, or project where leadership under the Hubris syndrome is the vector that hinders disaster management? I find five hints that can allow us to test the person (or group of persons) who exercises the toxic leadership monitored here:

1. Empathetic Disconnection and Social Frustration

A leader with Hubris syndrome tends to prioritise their image and decisions over the community's needs, which causes an empathic disconnection when the collective needs comfort and guidance. This lack of sensitivity can lead to inadequate or frivolous responses that frustrate those suffering the disaster and trigger collective grief, generating a perception of institutional abandonment and helplessness. Instead of finding support, the community faces additional emotional barriers, which can make the grieving process an even more complex and prolonged burden.

2. Manipulation and Control of Narratives

Leaders with Hubris often manage disaster through controlled narratives that glorify their actions and minimise their mistakes, diverting attention from the real needs of the moment. This manipulation distorts reality and invalidates the suffering of the people affected. By hiding the adverse effects of the disaster and exaggerating their "accomplishments," the leader deprives the community of honest, collective healing, fostering repressed or distorted grief.

3. Practical Management Failures and Inefficient Resources

A leadership that is incapable of accepting criticism or advice tends to make centralised and unilateral decisions, which is disastrous in a crisis like the latest 'gota fría', the DANA (Isolated Depression at High Levels, in the neutral acronym of meteorological jargon) in Spain (Valencia and Levante in general, but not only), which requires agile coordination that is sensitive to the changing needs of the population. The affected people face a reality in which resources are not distributed equitably or effectively, increasing anxiety, despair and suffering, especially when they perceive that the leader's inefficiency prolongs their losses.

4. Effect of Alienation and Erosion of Social Cohesion

Arrogance and over-prominence can alienate the community, undermining trust in authorities and fostering resentment. This lack of cohesion hampers the collective response to a disaster, as the community, losing faith in its leadership, may opt for individual and isolated strategies. In terms of grief, this social disintegration prevents people from finding solace in solidarity. Leadership under Hubris tends to turn tragedy into an opportunity for self-aggrandisement, forgetting the essential role of the community in the healing process.

5. Impediments to Long-Term Healing

The inability to recognise the magnitude of suffering and take corrective action has long-term consequences. A leader affected by Hubris avoids assuming responsibility and often delegates blamers, thus preventing the construction of a narrative that allows the community to understand, accept, and transcend its pain. This institutionalised blockage of grief limits healing and can even sow feelings of collective trauma and distrust toward external fac future interventions, affecting resilience and preparation for future disasters.

Reflections

History shows positive examples of empathetic and healing leadership. Leaders who are vulnerable and compassionate have facilitated healing processes through listening and effective responses. Avoiding Hubris also means allowing the community to feel heard and represented, promoting leadership that extends the collective feeling rather than a voice that seeks to impose its narrative.

Exploring how arrogance can affect collective grief provides an essential lesson about the need for leaders to promote emotional inclusion, sincerity and empathy, values indispensable for a community to find strength and resilience amid adversity. This is not always the case; arrogance can be a disguise to hide ineptitude, inability, and unskilled and fill into the Peter complex with all the extension of incompetence, but that does not mean that there can also be a darker, less pleasant reality: a group or person performing at total capacity under the effects of the Hybris syndrome.

In developing studies on this behavioural pathology in leadership, it is worth mentioning Mr David Owen, a British politician and member of the House of Lords. Before entering politics, he practised medicine, and from this combination of knowledge and performance, he published, among others, two short essays that are worth reviewing: In Sickness and in Health: The Politics of Medicine (1976) and The Hubris Syndrome: Bush, Blair and the Intoxication of Power (2007). Both were re-published and recast as a book titled In Sickness and in Power: Illness in Heads of Government during the Last 100 Years (2009).

---