From negatively impacting adolescent wellbeing (8; 18; 19) to facilitating the nonstop spread of misinformation (2; 10), social media offers endless frustrations for even the most casual critic. We love blaming ‘the algorithm’ for echo chambers and extremism, and so algorithms are often decried as the underlying cause of echo chambers and extremism.
However, recent research (12) suggests that social media’s dysfunction has to do with algorithms and more to do with social media itself. Researchers at the University of Amsterdam built a stripped-down social media environment where AI bots, each with its own profile, beliefs, and personality could post, repost, and like content. However, there was no algorithm steering what anyone saw. No behind-the-scenes optimization, no content amplification, no engagement boosting, just pure, engagement-driven social media like the good old days of 2005 Myspace.
However, as soon as the bots were released into this perfect, algorithm-free dreamscape, they began creating echo chambers, clustering together with those that shared their views and forming polarized, self-reinforcing online communities. Furthermore, each of these communities had a small number of “elites” who attracted the most attention (and consequently wielded the most influence) by posting the most polarized, extreme content.
In other words, this platform’s leaders were the ones screaming the most extreme things the loudest.
Even more concerningly, nothing the researchers did could fix the problem. They hid metrics like follower counts to try to counter the rewarding effect of popularity. They boosted diverse viewpoints. They even tried a feed that presented material chronologically instead of based on popularity. None of these solutions fixed the problem - some even made it worse.
So what does this mean for leadership?
The fact is, social media hasn’t just been a place for opinions, cat videos, or checking in with old friends for a long time.
Platforms like X, TikTok, and Instagram are now arenas for leader emergence and selection, not only for wannabe “thought leaders” (including the one writing this, hoping you’ll give him a like or share), but also for pundits, powerbrokers, and even formal, positional leaders.
That means leader selection is increasingly becoming driven not by credibility, competence, or vision, but by virality, outrage, and polarization. That’s not only terrifying, it’s also totally unsustainable because it makes real leadership definitionally impossible.
Leadership vs. Virality
Real leadership isn’t limited to formal positions – holding a title doesn’t automatically make you a leader. Instead, leadership is a dynamic process of both claiming (i.e., saying “I am a leader”) and granting (i.e., being recognized and acknowledged as a leader by your followers) (5).
While this dynamic matters for positional leaders (9), it’s even more important for non-positional leaders — community organizers, activists, entrepreneurs, and yes, thought leaders. These people don’t have formal authority to lean on; their influence depends entirely on recognition, and recognition requires attention.
So yes, being seen matters, and yes, social media can be a powerful tool for gaining attention, and neither of these are inherently bad things. However, what the study at the University of Amsterdam shows is that, even without algorithms, the best way to gain attention on social media is to be as outrageous as possible.
That might be great for going viral, but it’s terrible for leadership.
You can’t build a meaningful vision or accomplish goals while chasing controversy for its own sake.
Effective leaders don’t emerge simply because they said the wildest thing at the right time or because their “hot take” went the most viral. Leadership is about accomplishing goals through creating, directing, and maintaining a shared vision over time.
That doesn’t mean shying away from controversy. Leadership does sometimes require making tough, controversial decisions, from cutting a favored program to backing a risky initiative. However, navigating such controversies is only a part of leadership, not the core essence of it. Effective leaders don’t chase controversy; they manage it when necessary.
On social media, the opposite is true. Social media rewards (and therefore actively incentivizes) controversy (3). It doesn’t matter how ill-conceived, risky, or offensive your idea might be, if it’s controversial, people will latch onto it (16).
When social media becomes our leadership selection process — whether for politics, activism, or thought leadership — we don’t get leaders who can handle controversy when necessary. We get people who think controversy is leadership.
The Real-World Consequences
We often talk about social media as if it isn’t “real life,” but the fact is that the content we consume shapes our perceptions, our behavior, and, increasingly, our expectations for leadership. And increasingly, online tactics are showing up in real-world leadership contexts, from boardrooms to city halls.
Even positional leaders, including CEOs and politicians, are increasingly mimicking online provocateurs. CEOs try to “own” or “trigger” rivals and critics to bolster their own reputation and relevance, even as their companies’ stock suffers (1; 4; 5). Some companies even see social media fluency as a qualification for the C-suite (13). Politicians across the spectrum have adopted the tone and tactics of social media influencers, not to inspire positive change, but to dominate the news cycle (6; 7; 11; 15).
Even more worryingly, social media influencers have increasingly converted outrage-driven online attention into real political power, with some even gaining traction within formal political institutions (18).
It’s easy to roll our eyes at these trends, but the fact is that granting influence to these figures is granting them leadership (5). However, granting leadership based on outrage and extremism, rather than competence, trustworthiness, or long-term vision, is granting leadership for the wrong reasons, and will produce the wrong kind of leaders.
Leading Beyond the Like Button
Fixing the problem of outrage-driven leader selection will take more than critiquing individuals or complaining about social media. We need to confront the system that rewards controversy over competence—and challenge our instinct to mistake viral popularity for leadership potential.
Yes, the algorithm plays a role. But the University of Amsterdam’s research shows that even without algorithmic amplification, extremism still rises to the top.
However, social media isn’t going away, and can even offer meaningful benefits to leaders and movements alike (14). Blaming the platforms just passes the buck.
So, what should we do?
We lead anyway. And we lead better.
That starts with resisting the pull of outrage. Effective leadership is long-term and outcome driven, demanding vision, not just visibility. That means rejecting the idea that provocation is necessary to lead and committing to depth over drama — even if that means fewer clicks.
It also means becoming become better, more responsible followers. Our clicks, shares, and likes aren’t neutral, they’re signals that can grant leadership (5), which means we have to ask ourselves: Who are we elevating? Are they delivering results, or just content?
This does not mean logging off or otherwise retreating. Social media can be a powerful leadership tool, raising awareness, building connection, and coordinating action. But it’s not leadership in itself. Going viral is not a strategy. Visibility is not impact. Real change requires not just attention, but effectiveness.
So, let’s stop rewarding outrage, stop confusing attention for influence, and stop performing leadership online. Instead, let’s start practicing it in real life.
Real leadership – and leader development - deserves more than likes.
References
1. Associated Press. (2025). Europeans still aren’t buying Teslas despite Musk’s predictions of a big turnaround | AP News. Retrieved August 29, 2025, from https://apnews.com/article/tesla-europe-car-ev-sales-bda33724e56d1b2bc72b9cac0f75fe09
2. Bösch, M., & Divon, T. (2024). The sound of disinformation: TikTok, computational propaganda, and the invasion of Ukraine. New Media & Society, 26(9), 5081–5106. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448241251804
3. Brady, W. J., McLoughlin, K., Doan, T. N., & Crockett, M. J. (2021). How social learning amplifies moral outrage expression in online social networks. Science Advances, 7(33), eabe5641. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abe5641
4. Chatterji, A. “Ronnie,” & Toffel, M. W. (2018). The New CEO Activists. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2018/01/the-new-ceo-activists, https://hbr.org/2018/01/the-new-ceo-activists
5. DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (2010). Who Will Lead and Who Will Follow? A Social Process of Leadership Identity Construction in Organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 627–647.
6. Frayer, L. (2025, January 6). Elon Musk has been trolling British politicians, stirring anger and concern. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/01/06/nx-s1-5249996/elon-musk-has-been-trolling-british-politicians-stirring-anger-and-concern
7. Grimes, C. (2025, August 22). Gavin Newsom holds mirror to Maga by trolling Trump. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/eb3348e4-1e7c-4b55-8e40-3baa3e4c4556
8. Hagan, P. (2025, May 19). The Left-Wing Activists Who Want to Change American Politics. New Lines Magazine. https://newlinesmag.com/reportage/the-left-wing-activists-who-want-to-change-american-politics/
9. Haidt, J. (2024). The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness. Penguin Press.
10. Harvey, M., & Jones, S. (2022). Challenge accepted: Women claiming leadership in higher education learning and teaching. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 19(1), 66–88. https://doi.org/10.3316/informit.T2025012500000590796259914
11. Idris, I. (2024). Deceptive Trends: The Societal Impact of Disinformation on TikTok. Australian Institute of International Affairs. https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/deceptive-trends-the-societal-impact-of-disinformation-on-tiktok/
12. Knowles, H., & Sidhom, L. (2025, July 17). Democrats try a new tone: Less scripted, more cursing, Trumpier insults. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/07/09/democrats-tone-cursing-casual-trump/
13. Larooij, M., & Törnberg, P. (2025). Can We Fix Social Media? Testing Prosocial Interventions using Generative Social Simulation (arXiv:2508.03385). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2508.03385
14. Lazarus, L. M. (2025, April 7). How social media skills are reshaping the path to the C-suite | Fortune. Fortune. https://fortune.com/2025/04/07/executives-social-media-digital-presence-online-leadership-ceos/
15. Nisar, T. M., Prabhakar, G., & Strakova, L. (2019). Social media information benefits, knowledge management and smart organizations. Journal of Business Research, 94, 264–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.05.005
16. Novak, M. (2025, August 28). Gavin Newsom’s Bizarro-Trump Schtick Gets Even Weirder With a Memecoin. Gizmodo. https://gizmodo.com/gavin-newsoms-bizarro-trump-schtick-gets-even-weirder-with-a-memecoin-2000649951
17. Pandey, S., Cao, Y., Dong, Y., Kim, M., MacLaren, N. G., Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., & Sayama, H. (2023). Generation and influence of eccentric ideas on social networks. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 20433. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-47823-0
18. Sy, S., Schmitz, A., Kincaid, L., & Magpayo, G. (2025, August 13). How far-right activist Laura Loomer is shaping the Trump administration. PBS News. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-far-right-activist-laura-loomer-is-shaping-the-trump-administration
19. Twenge, J. M., Haidt, J., Joiner, T. E., & Campbell, W. K. (2020). Underestimating digital media harm. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(4), 346–348. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0839-4
20. Twenge, J. M., Haidt, J., Lozano, J., & Cummins, K. M. (2022). Specification curve analysis shows that social media use is linked to poor mental health, especially among girls. Acta Psychologica, 224, 103512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2022.103512