When a political leader or head of state normalizes borderline behaviours—those that challenge or circumvent ethical, legal, or institutional norms—there is a significant risk of long-lasting and profound effects on future generations. The legitimization of such behaviours by individuals in positions of power can initiate a process of collective desensitization. Actions once deemed unacceptable may gradually become tolerated or even emulated. This phenomenon has been observed in various contexts, where exposure to leaders perceived as dishonest has led to an increase in dishonest behaviours among citizens themselves. Moreover, the normalization of immoral behaviours can precipitate a crisis of legitimacy within institutions, eroding public trust and diminishing civic participation. This erosion can negatively impact social cohesion and democratic stability. To avert such consequences, it is crucial to promote civic education that reinforces ethical values and individual responsibility, alongside ensuring transparency and accountability within institutions. Only through a collective commitment to integrity and justice can the negative influence of deviant behaviours by political leaders be mitigated.
A recent study by ESSCA School of Management and Kirk Chang reveals that exposure to political figures perceived as dishonest can subconsciously encourage individuals to engage in unethical behavior. Using a dice game experiment, participants primed with thoughts of such politicians were more likely to cheat, indicating that negative stereotypes associated with political leaders can influence personal ethical decisions. This underscores the significant impact that role models, especially in positions of authority, have on societal norms and individual conduct.
In their article “Ethical Leadership and the Psychology of Decision Making,” David M. Messick and Max H. Bazerman argue that unethical decisions in organizations often stem not from deliberate malice or a simple trade-off between ethics and profits, but from psychological biases that distort judgment. They identify three categories of flawed beliefs influencing decision-making: theories about the world, theories about other people, and theories about ourselves. Theories about the world involve misconceptions about how actions lead to outcomes, leading to erroneous risk assessments. Theories about other people encompass assumptions regarding others’ behaviors and intentions, which can result in discriminatory practices. Theories about ourselves include overestimations of one’s own morality and rationality, causing individuals to overlook their biases. The authors emphasize that recognizing and addressing these psychological tendencies is crucial for executives to enhance both the ethical and rational quality of their decisions.