Leadership has been glorified to a point of widespread social acceptance ( Devies et al., 2025 ; Hambrick & Wowak, 2021 ; Learmonth & Morrell, 2021 ). Debating applications and styles of leadership betrays the underlying effectiveness of indoctrination to accept rather than critique leadership itself. It only makes sense to argue about the form and content of leadership if one has already accepted its legitimacy. Arguments about applications presuppose acceptance of the principle. Under capitalist ideology, the point of leadership is first and foremost to ensure that the masses unquestioningly follow whoever those in authority appoint to lead them, thus guaranteeing the continued subjugation of the masses as producing and consuming, politico-economical subjects within the fragmented-social collective ( Braverman, 1974 ; Debord, 2014 ; Jackson, 2025 ; Jackson & Heath, 2024 ). Business schools and executive training courses focus attention on a multitude of competing and interrelated leadership models including autocratic ( Ahmed & Simha, 2023 ; Briker et al., 2020 ), bureaucratic ( Arshad et al., 2021 ; Lesmana et al., 2022 ), charismatic ( Hofmann, 2023 ; Machokoto, 2019 ), coaching ( Karlsen & Berg, 2020 ; Yanovska et al., 2019 ), delegative ( Dawaye, 2025 ; Zulfikar & Rahman, 2019 ), democratic ( Caillier, 2020 ; Hilton et al., 2021 ), participative ( Khassawneh & Elrehail, 2022 ; Wang et al., 2022 ), transactional ( Dong, 2023 ; Saeed & Mughal, 2019 ), transformational ( Bin Attan & Mahmod, 2019 ; Kotamena et al., 2020 ), servant ( Hai & Van, 2021 ; Zargar et al., 2019 ), and visionary leadership ( Karwan et al., 2021 ; Utomo et al., 2022 ). So much attention is given to distinguishing among the various forms of leadership and attempting to determine which form of leadership is most appropriate within a given context, that almost no attention is given to the fact that the underlying intent behind each form of corporate leadership is the same—get people to willfully (if not joyfully) do what is necessary for the replication of a system designed to oppress them (i.e., capitalism), while simultaneously convincing them that any improvement outside that system (i.e., revolution) is dangerous, unpatriotic, or impossible ( Gilabert, 2019 ; Lipset, 2019 ). This is the crux of the corporate (mis)leadership of workers. Whereas aspects of this misleadership are unique to corporations, much of its underlying functioning has operated whenever and wherever an elite minority dominates over subjugated masses ( Bergh et al., 2020 ; Galindo-Silva, 2020 ). Leadership myths play a role in this class domination.

Myths of leadership have functioned across various groups, societies, and times ( Fitzgerald, 2020 ; Rosenbach et al., 2018 ; Stone & Patterson, 2023 ). Leadership myths are often ideological, functioning through forms of storytelling, and are designed to influence the thoughts and actions of those being instructed. Who specifically has been considered a leader is not of particular interest, as the point is to critique rather than perpetuate such a practice. To that end, the identity of any given leader within any given leadership myth is unimportant. It is simply worth noting that examples of leaders are routinely “drawn from popular historical figures” ( Benmira & Agboola, 2021 : p. 3). Rather than focusing on the identity of a leader, it is the social functioning of the leadership story that ultimately matters from a critical perspective. As indicated by Forster et al. (1999) , “story-telling has been part of the fabric of human life throughout history…the use of stories can be used to significantly influence thinking, attitudes and behaviour” (p. 16). Corporate leadership conforms to this pattern ( Coker, 2024 ; Kothari, 2010 ). Jarnagin and Slocum (2007) explored the application of leadership myths in corporations indicating that, “Mythopoetic Leadership is a framework for developing robust corporate cultures based on myths”, and that “the language of myths helps people make sense out of their organizational life” (p. 290), explaining further that “storytelling is intrinsic to developing corporate mythology” (p. 294). Such corporate myths are frequently structured around individual leaders rather than collectives of workers.

The embodiment of leadership in an individual is important for directing attention away from the inherent power of the masses ( Empson et al., 2022 ; Ladkin, 2020 ). Under such a parallax view, one sees either the forest or the trees, the leader or the masses; one is unable to see both simultaneously. Even when power is obviously and admittedly collective in nature, there is still an observable drive to define the leadership of that collective power in individualistic terms. Empson et al. (2022) explained that within collective organizations “the construction of the [individual leader] avatar reveals both a persistent attachment to social-cultural discourses of individual leadership and an ongoing sacralization of the heroic leadership narrative” (p. 223). Such a preference is consequential for the social enactment of leadership as it produces what it claims only to be explaining. As Žižek (2006) explained, “parallax means that the bracketing itself produces its object” (emphasis retained, p. 56). Leadership, embodied in individuals, limits the ability of collectives, in this case, workers, to recognize and utilize their latent power as a mass organization. Understanding and transcending this dynamic requires direct and structured, critical analysis.

Problematizing corporate leadership as a largely unrecognized concern for workers is essential for both understanding how corporate leadership misleads workers and liberating oneself and one’s colleagues from its subjugating effects. Such effort benefits from addressing the essential components of corporate leadership domination. The method of this critical analysis is presented (Section 2). This is followed by a presentation of the results (Section 3). Focusing primarily on an examination how corporate workers find themselves structurally forsaken within organizations (Section 3.1), and how they are cajoled into taking long shots to improve their individual rather than collective position (Section 3.2). Transcending this dynamic requires first revealing what has been obfuscated by capitalist ideology, which was explored in the discussion section (Section 4). Lastly, the paper concludes by summarizing the key results and exploring worker solidarity and revolutionary action (Section 5).

Critique enables the powerless to combat the powerful ( Haugaard, 2022 ; Saar, 2010 ; Sangren, 1995 ). Within the context of this research, critique is envisioned as a means of empowering workers to take on the powerful capitalist ideology and praxis subjugating them as economic producers and consumers. To that end, this research employed critical analysis as a methodological technique designed to challenge the valorization of corporate leadership and its widespread acceptance within capitalist societies. By questioning the legitimacy of corporate leadership, rather than merely debating its applications, forms, and styles, this research sought to uncover the indoctrination that leads workers to accept leadership without conscious thought, examination, or resistance. The approach taken aligns with critical theory ( Fuchs, 2021 ; Marcuse, 2020 ; Rehbein, 2018 ), and critical management studies ( Alvesson & Willmott, 2011 ; Beigi et al., 2019 ; Grey & Willmott, 2005 ), which aim to reveal and challenge the power dynamics and ideologies that perpetuate social inequalities ( Farkas, 2023 ; Renault, 2020 ).

The focus of this study, how corporate leadership misleads workers, falls squarely in the space of social science research. Rehbein (2018) suggested that “any social science has to be critical” (p. 50), and that “it is necessary to critically review the social conditions of the subject and the object because they are interdependent with social science itself” (p. 55). This study is critical of the subjugation of workers by corporate elites and managers operating within capitalism and under the sanctioning provided by capitalist ideology. This makes this research political as well as economic. Sangren (1995) explained, “the political virtue explicitly or implicitly claimed in studies framed as interrogations of power is diminished when power is dissociated from intentional action of individuals or collectives (such as social classes, status groups, or communities)” (emphasis retained, p. 4). As such, it is worth reiterating that the focus of this study in one the intentional actions of capitalists, through corporate leadership, to mislead workers. The method used to do this was to critique capitalist ideology, praxis, and stories used to perpetuate capitalist ideology. This approach is consistent with that taken by Beigi et al. (2019) who detailed that a critical analysis of, “organizational storytelling…challenges conventual science, structures and stories of organizations to advance understanding of them in their storied complexity” (p. 447). Such stories and praxis can be difficult to observe and critique due to one’s embeddedness in society. However, Haugaard (2022) explained that it is possible for people to “challenge the society into which they have been socialized, through the conversion of tacit practical knowledge into discursive knowledge that facilitates social resistance through critique” (p. 360). Doing so effectively benefits from a consideration of process.

The critical method employed in this research was comprised of four major elements. The first element consisted of the deconstruction of common leadership myths. To accomplish this task, myths surrounding leadership were critically examined, arguing that myths can serve to maintain class domination and subjugate workers. By focusing on storytelling and the ideological function of leadership myths, it was established that these narratives constrain the thoughts and actions of workers and direct attention away from their collective power and towards that of individual leaders. The second element was focused on exposing the underlying capitalist ideology. Through a critique of the capitalist ideology underpinning corporate leadership, emphasis was given to how capitalist ideology and praxis perpetuates worker subjugation by promoting individual advancement over collective improvement. Critical analysis revealed how capitalist narratives, such as the “rags-to-riches” stories, obfuscate the inherent and intractable antagonism between capital and labor. The third element was focused on revealing structural oppression within capitalism. By examining the roles of executives, managers, and human resources, dynamics as to how organizational structures are designed to protect capitalist interests and isolate workers from each other were explored. Critical analysis was used to assess how those structures prevent the formation of class consciousness and solidarity among workers. Lastly, based on these results and subsequent discussion, a call for worker solidarity and revolutionary action was presented.

The chosen method of a text-based critique was deemed sufficient for this study as it allowed for a comprehensive deconstruction of leadership myths and capitalist ideologies through existing literature and theoretical frameworks. This approach aligns with the objectives of critical theory, which seeks to reveal and challenge entrenched power dynamics and ideologies without the need for primary data collection ( Kincheloe & McLaren, 2011 ; Phillips, 2023 ). By focusing on the narratives and ideologies perpetuated in existing texts, this analysis was able to effectively critique the systemic issues within corporate leadership and capitalist structures. However, it is important to acknowledge the boundary conditions of this approach: the analysis was conceptual and did not incorporate primary data or empirical validation. As such, the findings are interpretive and are intended to provoke thought and discussion rather than provide empirical evidence of the position staked.

Based on the results of the critical analysis, it is argued that true liberation from capitalist subjugation requires dismantling the ideological and structural barriers that prevent workers from recognizing their shared class interests, political and economic, and utilizing their collective power to advance meaningful and lasting social change. This critique of corporate leadership and capitalist ideology is intended to be both thought-provoking and mobilizing. By challenging accepted norms and revealing hidden power dynamics, the aim is to inspire a reevaluation of common leadership practices under corporate capitalism and advocate for revolutionary, transformative change that empowers workers and promotes social justice. To establish that aim, it is useful to examine the results of this study.

The results of this critical analysis of the corporate misleadership of workers under capitalist ideology are comprised of two parts. The first subsection focuses on how workers in organizations are structurally forsaken by corporate leadership (Section 3.1). The second subsection focuses on how workers are cajoled to take long shots for individual advancement rather than pursue collective improvement (Section 3.2). The results of these two subsections provided a basis for further discussion of what is obfuscated through the corporate (mis)leadership of workers under the capitalist ideology (Section 4), and a call for worker solidarity and revolutionary action (Section 5). The structural foundation of worker subjugation is presented first.

Capitalists have stories about themselves that they like to tell to others, as stories are an effective means to propagate ideology ( Buesink, 2023 ; Torabian, 2022 ). Common types among the capitalist stories are “rags-to-riches” or “Horatio Alger” stories, in which people from humble beginnings advance to positions of economic security, prestige, and power through hard work. Modern versions of that narrative can be seen in movies like The Founder ( Hancock, 2016 ), The Greatest Showman ( Gracey, 2017 ), and The Pursuit of Happyness ( Muccino, 2006 ). Another common, pro-capitalist tale is focused on the individual inventor who creates a product of great economic value. Versions of that story type can be seen in movies like Joy ( Russell, 2015 ), The Social Network ( Fincher, 2010 ), and Pirates of Silicon Valley ( Burke, 1999 ). Through these stories, and the many like them, capitalists tell the tales they want those in society to accept; hard work, industriousness, and creativity are rewarded socially and economically. The trick, if one might call it that, is that this is (only) sometimes the case. In other words, the story is presented as if its lesson were generally true and universal, rather than being specifically accurate and unique. What is obfuscated by these pro-capitalist stories is that while the desired outcome is possible, it is far from probable. In the case of inventions, it is more often the case that powerful capitalist organizations attempt to either appropriate one’s work or prevent that work from getting to market. Versions of this can be seen in movies like Tucker: The Man and His Dream ( Coppola, 1988 ), Flash of Genius ( Abraham, 2008 ), and The Current War ( Gomez-Rejon, 2017 ). Whereas stories critical of capitalism exist, they are not the norm. Further, even when those stories are presented, they are typically done so with greater historical distance from the time of occurrence, suggesting that what occurred is something that happened in the past, but it isn’t how things operate today. These critical stories show the power of capitalists and reveal the core of what has been obfuscated. As Jackson (2022) explained, under capitalism, “management as an ideology obfuscates much of the structure and consequence of organizational power” (p. 85). This is consequential, as perceptions of power have been found to be correlated with positive sentiments towards one’s organization ( Abou Elnaga & Imran, 2014 ; Jackson et al., 2022 ). Capitalist ideology obfuscates the power of the masses by focusing on individuals as the primary unit of merit and relevance.

Focusing on the individual obfuscates the collective. This is by design. As discussed, the capitalist ideology offers a chance for individual advancement. This ideology, like ideology in general, “is not so much what one thinks; it is what one accepts without thinking” ( Jackson & Heath, 2024 : p. 933). Whereas individual advancement is open to anybody, capitalism offers collective improvement only begrudgingly and temporarily. There are economic reasons for this. First, improving the situation for all workers would simply cost more, resulting in reduced profits ( Adler, 2019 ; Freudenberg, 2021 ). Second, improving the situation for all would reduce competition among workers. Competition among workers acts as an incentive for workers to work harder ( Bracha & Fershtman, 2018 ; Green et al., 2022 ), longer ( Noonan, 2024 ; Skidelsky, 2019 ), and for less money ( Anderson & Dudo, 2023 ; Bulut, 2023 ) than they would be willing to do otherwise. Lastly, focusing on individual advancement and obfuscating collective improvement mitigates against the formation of class consciousness and solidarity among workers ( Hanappi & Hanappi-Egger, 2021 ; Smit, 2019 ). Each aspect of this dynamic benefits capitalists to the detriment of workers as a collective. Fetishizing the individual, under the capitalist ideology, places excessive and undue importance on its role and contribution. As previously indicated, the masses make history ( Fanon, 2021 ; Maddox, 2022 ). This is obfuscated by the focus on individuals under capitalist ideology. When acknowledged indirectly by capitalists, the power of the working masses is co-opted by focusing on acceptable forms of collaborative engagement at work.

Examples of acceptable, collaborative approaches among executives, managers, and workers exist within capitalism. Included among these tactics and theories are participative management ( Crane, 1976 ; Smit et al., 2023 ), high-involvement work systems ( Boxall et al., 2019 ; Nguyen et al., 2024 ), servant leadership ( DeConinck et al., 2018 ; Muzira & Muzira, 2020 ), holacracy ( Jack & Bayo, 2024 ; Kukreja, 2019 ), team-based organizations ( Bernards, 2023 ; Tripathy, 2018 ), and agile management ( Badakhshan et al., 2020 ; de Borba et al., 2019 ), to name just a few. While proponents of stakeholder capitalism and co-determination models argue that these frameworks offer more inclusive and equitable approaches to corporate governance ( Hayden & Bodie, 2021 ; Samans & Nelson, 2022 ), such views are considered insufficient because they often remain constrained within the overarching capitalist ideology that prioritizes profit over genuine worker empowerment. In fact, such approaches may superficially address power imbalances by incorporating stakeholder interests, yet they frequently fail to dismantle the entrenched structural and ideological barriers that perpetuate worker subjugation. As such, collaborative approaches do not fundamentally alter the capitalist system’s inherent antagonism between capital and labor, nor do they foster revolutionary solidarity.

Whereas each of these concepts is unique, they share a common trait. In terms of its basic operation, each approach directs the application of the collective power of the masses, through participation, toward the accomplishment of desired corporate ends while preventing the formation of radicalized class consciousness and antagonistic, revolutionary solidarity focused on collective improvements for workers. As the generation and adoption of these approaches betrays, capitalists accept collaborative work focused on increasing profitability. Especially if such illusions of collaborative influence make the formation of actual revolutionary solidarity less likely. All talk of collaboration among executives, managers, and workers obfuscates the basic fact that the interests of capitalists and workers are inherently and irreconcilably antagonistic in the long run ( Dean et al., 2019 ; Tunderman, 2021 ). To work together is to work for the advancement of capital interests over that of labor and to ultimately further one’s own subjugation. Collective action is needed among workers, but it must be founded on class consciousness for it to be liberatory.

Collective action, based on a sense of solidarity formed through class consciousness, when liberated from the capitalist ideology, can improve the economic and existential situation of workers. Such struggles have won victories for labor that are widely taken for granted today. At the federal level, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 established by law an end, or at least a limitation, of child labor, the standardized 8-hour work day/40-hour workweek, and the creation of a federally mandated minimum wage ( Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219, 2024 ). The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin ( Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000a-2000h-6, 2023 ). The establishment of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in 1970 provided for the enforcement of safety standards designed to protect workers and reduce workplace injuries and death ( Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. §§ 651-678, 2004 ). More recently, the Family and Medical Leave Act was passed in 1993, guaranteeing eligible workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for medical or family-related reasons ( Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654, 2020 ). These victories for labor show what is possible when solidarity among workers is achieved, and its power is directed toward collective improvement. However, recent policy reversals to anti-discrimination ( Sherman, 2025 ) and neglect in adjusting minimum wage for inflation ( Hickey & Cid-Martinez, 2025 ) show that capitalists will work to undermine these advancements whenever and however they can.

The individual looms large in the stories of capitalism and the core of capitalist ideology. Whereas individual improvements are open to anybody, they are impossible for everyone. Obfuscated by the capitalist ideology is the inherent antagonism between the interests of capitalists and those of workers. The focus on individuals is designed to distract workers from understanding this antagonism and realizing that the masses make history, not the individual. When liberated from the constraints imposed by capitalist ideology, when class consciousness is formed within the working class, economic advancement is possible for all. First-level managers are in a unique position to hasten or hinder this advancement. Jackson (2022) noted that, “of all the aspects obfuscated by management as an ideology, perhaps the most consequential existentially is the alienation experienced by managers” (p. 34). Harnessing and directing the power of these alienated, organizational managers holds potential for the formation of worker solidarity and revolutionary action.

Reform is a built-in feature maintaining the status quo. Capitalism is elastic and capable of redefining itself and its relations with labor to maintain its dominance as the unquestioned and accepted ideology of American society. Wages, benefits, and protections of workers will continue to ebb and flow, as needed, to ensure the perpetuation of capitalism and the exploitation of workers. The battle line between reform and revolution is clear and longstanding ( Coccia, 2019 ; Luxemburg, 2024 ; Tufekci, 2020 ). The erosion of long-accepted labor protections illustrates the plasticity of capitalism, and its ability to take away what it once conceded. This can be seen in terms of the recent decision to set back the overtime exemption salary threshold under the Fair Labor Standards Act ( Honigman, 2024 ), reductions in telework flexibility and return-to-work demands ( Allen et al., 2025 ; Magliozzi, 2025 ), and the lack of productivity-based compensation of workers ( Levin-Waldman, 2025 ; Ngai & Sevinc, 2025 ). Capitalism will never be reformed for the long-term benefit of workers. Only short-term gains are possible. Despite wishes to the contrary, the choice is, and has always been, between various degrees of capitalist subjugation and revolution. This is the crux of the class division in society.

Corporate leaders, individually and collectively, who perpetuate the capitalist ideology are ultimately doing what they are paid to do. It is an essential aspect of their job. It is how they rewarded. It is how they advance. It is difficult to imagine a situation in which corporate leaders could, or would, do otherwise. Rational, self-interest is a cornerstone of the capitalist ideology ( Lynch & Kalaitzake, 2020 ; Murtaza, 2011 ; Werhane, 2019 ). Any theory contradicting this axiom is folly. The issue isn’t primarily that corporate leaders mislead workers. Of course they do. The issue is how corporate leaders mislead workers. The corporate misleadership of workers is structural and ideological. These elements combine, in various forms, to preclude the formation of class consciousness and solidarity among workers. Until the structural and ideological barriers are overcome, workers will continue to experience subjugation.

What can be done now? If managers were the true leaders of workers they could be an effective part of a revolutionary vanguard party ( Lenin, 2013 ) and function as a driving force for revolutionary change rather than reactionary enforcers of capitalist ideology. This could be the first structural element to change. As currently practiced, executives select managers. If workers nominated managers from among their own ranks, managers could represent the will of the workers in corporate discussions ( Jackson, 2022 ; Levin, 2006 ). A Worker Advocacy department should be created within organizations as an adjunct to the Human Resources department. Worker Advocacy could assist workers in navigating the complex web of policies and laws to ensure that their rights are respected and that they are not being coerced or manipulated by corporate elites. These structural changes would become more meaningful when integrated with a deconstruction of the capitalist ideology and its replacement with a worker ideology. Employee benefits and structural organizational changes will be transitory unless the underlying ideological basis for worker subjugation is dismantled. This requires revolution. The revolution is qualitatively more than simply increasing economic benefits. The revolution is not about improving well-being, though of course that is desired. Worker revolution is about redefining its relationship to power. Under the capitalist ideology, workers are subordinated to profits. Under a worker ideology, workers oversee the organizational decisions that affect their work and well-being. Considerations of profit, while not immaterial, are not the only, or even the dominant, consideration.

Worker solidarity is a necessary precondition for revolutionary action ( Matthaei, 2020 ; Youngdahl, 2009 ). However, there are persistent barriers in the United States to forming the class consciousness essential for worker solidarity ( DiMaggio, 2015 ; Domhoff, 2018 ). When considering the asymmetry between reactionary and revolutionary forces it is easy to despair. Such desperation is an important part of the capitalist ideology. Whenever it seems hopeless, one should recall the simple fact that most of society is working class ( Beech & Guy, 2021 ; Zweig, 2011 ). It is an impressive sleight of hand when a minority effectively convinces the majority that the masses are powerless to change things. Even though bourgeois democracy favors the capitalist class, it can accommodate the effective demands of those in the working class ( Milner, 2021 ; Page & Gilens, 2020 ). Economic revolution is possible democratically. Only two things are required: solidarity and action.

In terms of enhancing the underlying economic conditions under capitalism, improvement is open to anybody but not everyone. Hard work does occasionally pay off for individuals who “make it”. But there are plenty of people who work hard, do quality work, and experience little more than degradation and subjugation. Not because they did anything wrong; simply because they were not as lucky as the person who made it. The gains to be won under the capitalist ideology are individual and idiosyncratic. Solidarity requires a concern for the collective. Society, and all who inhabit it, matters. Corporate leaders mislead workers insofar as they conflate individual advancement with collective improvement. These two things are not the same. Our society is rotting from the inside, not from any lack of individual opportunity, but from an absence of social solidarity. Work is the nexus of this phenomenon. If workers are unable to mobilize against and transcend their subjugation at work, there is little hope for our society. The price for incentivizing conformity with, if not adoption of, the capitalist ideology is economically cheap and existentially costly. Corporations can buy and sell individuals with ease. They do it every day, and many participate willingly because they are unable to envision a feasible alternative. The rationale for revolutionary action is clear. It is time for workers to cease being misled.