Why leaders need honest voices, not just applause

What happens when telling a leader what they want to hear becomes safer than telling them what they need to hear?
In a healthy organisation, the opposing perspective is not a sign of disloyalty but of a potent remedy against flawed judgement or decision-making. Over time, however, some workplaces develop alternative cultures, such as the place where praise flourishes and criticism is lost, where those who habitually obey authority become influential. The core of this pattern is a compelling combination of narcissistic leadership and sycophantic followership.
A diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder is not required when using the concept of narcissistic leadership in organisational leadership. Instead, it refers to a style of behaviour characterised by feeling important to oneself, a desperate need for approval, and extreme sensitivity to rejection.
Usually, these kinds of leaders appear at first as confident, charismatic, and decisive, characteristics that can lead them to assume positions of authority. Ambiguities arise when confidence grows into entitlement, when recognition is mistaken for an insatiable need, and when differences are demeaned as personal attacks or offensive instead of critical and constructive contributions.
But leadership never operates by itself, and it is followers, part of the process, who create the context for its enactment. It is at this point that sycophantic followership matters. Sycophancy involves too much agreement or flattery towards those who wield authority, especially for the purpose of securing advantage or escaping something undesirable. Followers quickly learn that appeasing a leader is often more rewarding and safer than confronting them.
This is a dynamic that often continues perpetually. A leader who wants to be admired will naturally gravitate toward the people who give it to them and reward them with access and opportunity, and those who raise what amounts to difficult questions end up being marginalised or labelled ‘difficult’.
Other employees observe these results and adjust their behaviour, leading to a gradual replacement of constructive dissent with strategic agreement. The organisation's echo chamber occurs, which is arguably the worst side effect of this dynamic.
The leader is provided information that confirms what they already think, and followers learn to expect the kinds of responses they want, while less desirable facts are softened or not reported at all. Eventually, a lack of opposition could become interpreted as true consensus and deliverable applause for successful leadership.
The implications are much greater than just individual personalities. When employees feel that being open leads to professional liability, psychological safety and employee voice suffer, innovation slows down, and creative people leave the organisation.
The decision-making process is impaired because leaders are denied reliable information and other alternatives needed for responsible governance. In more complex industries like healthcare, the practice of challenging assumptions is not only tenable but fundamental to learning and safety within the organisation.
The answer involves more than exchanging praise for criticism; it requires developing cultures where leadership fosters challenges and where followers value, but are bound to do some degree of respectful disagreement.
Strong leaders intentionally keep individuals who may have other ideas or perspectives, differentiating between loyalty and agreement. In turn, organisations should ensure that the accessibility of leadership is never based on flattery while safeguarding employee voice and strengthening psychological safety.
Finally, the gauge of leadership ought not to be the extent of admiration it commands, but rather whether an uncomfortable truth can be stated and still be heard.

Dr Maisa Hamed al Kiyumi The author is a family physician