There was a time, if you can remember, when leaders were restrained, serious people who got on with the job in front of them and avoided making a fuss.

You may struggle to remember them immediately; history tends to shine a brighter light on the outspoken, the confrontational, the flamboyant, as well as those that encapsulate the darker side of human nature.

After all, who wants to hear about the people that simply did what they had to do and then went home? Hardly a story to get journalists excited or an audience whipped into a frenzy.

Contemporary politicians around the world and of every faction seem more interested in courting attention than anything else, but the business world is no stranger to the cult of personality when it comes to leaders.

Indeed, one of the most obvious examples is a man that has not-so-quietly managed to rise to the top of the tech, business and political worlds recently.

Elon Musk is far from the only example, but he does highlight how contemporary tools like the Internet and social media have changed the role of the leader from the historic model to the public-facing, sometimes public-ridiculing, figurehead.

A leader becoming the tail that wags the dog

Here in the UK, Brewdog co-founder and former CEO James Watt has form in making outlandish statements to the press, or just at the world in general.

Most recently, Watt took aim at working culture in Britain, stating it was one of the “least work-oriented countries in the world” and that the focus on work-life balance was being driven by people unhappy with their own circumstances.

Watts’ comments drew widespread scorn from professional commentators and social media users alike, which only served to fuel the fire.

Brewdog is a particularly interesting case when it comes to the relationship between the leader and its employees, specifically in seemingly refusing to learn from its mistakes.

In June 2021, more than 100 current and former employees signed an open letter addressed to Watt, accusing Brewdog of having a toxic culture and expressing numerous grievances with the way the company was being run.

Watt issued a public apology and vowed to do better by his staff, with the company introducing new initiatives to support neurodiverse employees in 2023, in a bid to reset its working culture.

But Brewdog soon found itself in hot water again after announcing it would no longer pay its staff the UK real living wage in a bid to cut costs, incurring accusations that the company had abandoned its principles.

Shortly afterwards, a second open letter from staff was published detailing that the company had failed to make progress towards a fairer and safer working environment since 2021.

In May last year, Watt stepped down as CEO of the company but retained his 21% ownership stake and the title of ‘co-founder and captain’ – it makes one consider how the Brewdog workforce view their leadership still being influenced by Watt without the responsibility that comes with the title of CEO.

Be the shield that protects, not the sword that cuts

Many of you reading may have personal experience with this type of leader – the one that says: “Do as I say, not as I do” but still expects you to give them 110% without question.

It’s not fun feeling that there’s one rule for the boss and another for you. It’s demotivational at best and downright disastrous for productivity, retention, reputation, learning and development at worst.

This is where HR comes to the fore. HR leaders must be the shield that protects the workforce from the negative impact personality-obsessed or toxic leaders can cause, often without even being aware of it.

It’s unreasonable to expect HR leaders to go toe-to-toe with the CEO or chairperson over everything, but at the very least they need to be aware of the impact their leader is having on the workforce and be able to respond to it.

Employee wellbeing is the most obvious area that will be impacted, which in itself is a broad spectrum.

Decisions on pay, such as Brewdog’s, may come from a place of objective reasoning, but staff will never take the news that they will earn less (or sometimes just the same) with a smile. HR leaders need to be aware of the financial wellbeing of workers and ensure it is catered to beyond the renumeration baseline.

Similarly, overly demanding bosses can cause anxiety, stress and burnout among staff – damaging mental and physical health – which often leads to a drop in productivity and an exodus of talent.

Toxic leaders that enjoy the spotlight a little too much will also harm talent attraction. There will always be those that flock to this type of leader regardless, hoping to bask in that aura no matter the consequences, but the majority of workers would rather take their chances elsewhere.

HR leaders aren’t superheroes and often won’t have the authority to counter bad decisions or ill-informed tweets. They must be reactive in most scenarios, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be proactive in their reactiveness.

The savviest of HR leaders will do their homework on what kind of leader their CEO is and, thankfully, most of them will never need to take drastic measures in this context. But those that are facing such conundrums need to be ready to put staff first and enact measures that counter risks as much as possible.

Because at the end of the day, if HR is perceived to be on the side of the leader instead of the workforce, they will be seen as complicit. Wouldn’t you rather be the shield that protects employees instead of the sword that cuts them down?