Let us be honest.
Have you ever noticed how academics and professors frequently lose contact with the people they once walked with after moving up to top offices? Previously, they had pushed for better working conditions and fair compensation among their colleagues, but all of a sudden, they appear to have forgotten. In meetings, they no longer stand up for what is right; instead, they are focused upwards, anxious to win over their superiors and unwilling to upset anyone.
This is not simply a personality attribute. It’s an indication of something substantially more serious. The ability to nod, flatter, and replicate what people in higher positions want to hear is a skill valued by many public institutions, particularly bureaucratic ones. Performance, integrity, and fearlessness are often overlooked. The ultimate currency of advancement is sycophancy, not merit.
According to Max Weber, the founder of bureaucratic theory, bureaucracy is predictable, rule-bound, and organized. However, Weber was unable to completely foresee how unfettered bureaucracy might become inflexible, self-protective, and truth-averse. Then, institutions start to feel at ease with devoted flatterers and uneasy with critical thinkers. Institutions’ own intellectual integrity is undermined to a greater extent as they yield to loyalty and patronage.
Universities, where the truth ought to be unassailable, are where the irony is most pronounced. A university should be a forum for ideas, where lively discussion deepens comprehension. However, academics frequently absorb the very culture they once critiqued when they assume leadership positions. After gaining power, some leaders who previously stood up to authority can turn into silent defenders.
What happens if the truth is suppressed?
First, meritocracy fails. Appointments and promotions depend more on loyalty than on skill. This compromises not only academic achievement but also universities’ larger social function. Secondly, there is a drop in morale. While those who are skilled at clapping the loudest succeed, those who value honesty are marginalized. Third, the culture permeates society, and graduates will bring this mentality into the public sector, business, and civil service if universities normalize sycophancy. Instead of fostering boldness, the institutions turn into a training ground for conformity.
However, things don’t have to be this way.
It is possible to have transformative leadership. Leaders have the option to serve their constituents rather than merely their superiors. Institutions can create frameworks that reward achievement, safeguard dissent, and promote communication. There is a need for critical consciousness pedagogy, which involves creating spaces for individuals to think, question, and grow together.
In the end, the problem is both structural and ethical in nature. The goal of leadership is to be accountable to the people we serve, not to win praise from above. Though it may be inconvenient, the institution as a whole loses its soul when the truth is suppressed.
Conclusion, Caveat, and Parting Shot to Leaders.
It must be acknowledged that not all leaders are susceptible to sycophancy. Many become leaders while being true to their principles, which include truth, service, and the well-being of the people they oversee. These leaders serve as a reminder that it is possible to govern with integrity. The opinion I have expressed here is based on observation and contemplation of patterns that are, regrettably, all too prevalent in our institutions and is not a blanket condemnation.
Being a leader is about your followers’ trust in you, not how loudly your bosses cheer you on. Sycophancy produces hollow, brittle, and ephemeral sand thrones. Even when it is painful, the truth leaves a legacy that goes beyond labels. Have the bravery to surround yourself with authentic individuals rather than echo chambers, because history remembers those who stood fast for what was right rather than those who clapped the loudest.