Movements throughout the ages have suffered from egotism, especially those aligned with pseudopsychology, self help, self-development, leadership, and religion. Egotism is an inflated self importance, superiority, and a constant need for self promotion. Egotism can also be found with the closely related trait of leaderism (among ‘leaders’ and ‘followers’), a fantasy concerning individual ‘leader’ traits, shared by those who identify as ‘leaders’ as well as their followers. Both are closely related to commercialism, as ‘leaders’ (often self-declared) see a commercial opportunity from commodifying a piece of their own identity along with products, services. This is more evident than ever now with carefully-crafted social media posts (increasingly written mostly by AI, of course not disclosed). New Safety Movements are not immune to egotism and leaderism, and some movements more than others have been especially afflicted. Some symptoms include the following. (See this post for an introduction to the series.)
Self-proclaimed grandiose titles and dubious ranking systems
Self-proclaimed grandiose titles have been a hallmark of hubris and egotism in many individuals in religious, personal development and business movements. More recent generic examples in social movements have included the ever-popular ‘thought leader’, the cuilturally appropriated ‘guru’, and even the amusing yet worryingly narcissistic ‘world leader’. The use of grandiose self-declared titles can be an overt sign to help distinguish whether a person’s focus is primarily on self promotion and commercial interests, or a shared human ideal such as human wellbeing. Dubious ranking systems such as belts, grades, and ‘master’ status have also been introduced in some movements, from meditation to pseudoscientific approaches to therapy and communication. These ranking systems are often based on relatively little investment of effort but great investment of money, and so provide commercial benefit to training and certification providers. They also provide perceived social status to awardees, who don’t realise that they are victims of a triad of social biases: authority bias, social proof and in-group favouritism.
Lessons for NSMs: Self-proclaimed and dubiously-awarded grandiose titles and ranks are best avoided and, when encountered, treated with great caution, and in some cases publicly challenged and rejected. ‘World leaders’ in topics tend to be world-renowned professors (think Nobel prize winners, or those among the most highly cited in the field) and others having committed similar levels of achievement in a profession or craft. But even these people are parts of teams and networks with emergent expertise; the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. Interestingly, such people rarely seem to use titles such as ‘world leader’. Similarly, few who actually deserve the title would use the term ‘thought leader’. This tendency appears to be less common (but not unheard-of) in respected professions, perhaps because such professions tend to self-police grandiose titles, and instead maintain systems of certification based on standard criteria (which are sometimes criticised for being too onerous). The practice is also less common in some countries than others.
Celebritism and fanaticism
More generally, movements can suffer from celebritism and fanaticism, from new religious movements to popular science. Celebritism is an almost obsessive, uncritical reverence for high-profile figure. It is an unhealthy extension of normal respect for those with significant achievement in various fields, and inspiration through their work and practice. Celebritism creates the conditions for fanaticism – an unusual or extreme level of devotion to a celebrity figure within a movement. This phenomenon is often fed by simplism and populism and can result in a decline in freedom of thought and speech or writing, along with reverence for the words of celebrity leaders.
Some implications for NSMs: There are and have always been various high-profile figures in the many NSMs, and this in itself is not problematic. Innovators are necessary for new ideas to develop. What is problematic is when such figures, and their adherents or followers, put personality before principles, failing to debate, discuss, and critique, perhaps because of a reluctance to question or challenge ideas, methods, approaches, or solutions of celebrity leaders. NSMs should emphasise collective utility and diversity of thought over the charisma, message or style of any individual.
Excessive use of self for branding
Founders of businesses, authors, and others seeking influence have made prominent use of their names and photographs. This is to be expected, but excessive use of self for branding can be a threat to movements. It can be found in many social movements, including pop-psychology, personality testing, and of course leadership courses. It is now common on social media platforms and a prominent part of influencer culture. There is a reasonable middle ground here, but most outsiders probably recognise when self branding becomes image over substance, and commercialism over care.
Lesson for NSMs: Excessive use of self for branding should be approached with caution by practitioners; it can backfire, reducing credibility by making the person and the movement appear more interested in self-promotion than any underlying underlying discipline or genuine human concerns. Social media can instead be used to amplify the voices of those affected by safety issues.
Dubious awards
Many conference organisers, associations, societies and publications operate award systems. These have a valid place in rewarding genuine achievement, especially recognising team efforts. Anonymous or secret nomination of colleagues, in particular, can be an honourable and collegiate way of acknowledgement within a fair and respectable award system. But abuse of award systems and ceremonies is another symptom of egotism and leaderism in movements. This can occur in several ways: undisclosed self nomination, pressurising colleagues to nominate or second an application, discrimination against minorities, and financial influence. Members of award committees, meanwhile, can be swayed by financial interests, friendly relationships, shared ideologies, or simply name recognition. Often, the voting process for awards remains is secret, making it difficult to scrutinise awards decisions.
Lesson for NSMs: Awards should be treated critically, favouring award systems with clear criteria for award selection, focusing on the impact and quality of safety work, along with a transparent nomination process, perhaps precluding direct or indirect self-nominations. Award committees should have relevant but diverse expertise and no undisclosed conflicts of interest, with rotating committee membership. Transparent voting could also be used. Awards could also focus more on team efforts.
Many New Safety Movements have the potential to positively influence how we approach work, technology and organisational life, for the benefit of society. But as with any movement, NSMs face the challenge of maintaining a focus on purpose and integrity while avoiding the pitfalls of egotism, especially among innovators and popularisers. Leadership in NSMs, as in other movements, is important but should not descend into leaderism or celebritism. And connectorship is just as important, and often more so, with an external focus on connections between groups, disciplines, professions and movements. More generally, NSMs should be self-critical and evaluate their own practices and cultures. By prioritising transparency, egalitarianism and the collective good over self-promotion and personal gain, NSMs can cultivate a healthy environment for reflection and discussion.
Postscript
This series outlines seven possible threats to New Safety Movements, based on my observation, listening, reading, and reflection over many years, concerning a wide variety of other movements: religious, social, health, and business. Not all threats apply to all New Safety Movements, but most of the threats seem to apply to most of the movements, to varying degrees. The seven threats below will each feature in subsequent posts (this post will be updated with summaries and links to each threat).
- Over-commercialism
- Egotism and leaderism (this post)
- Simplism and populism (coming soon)
- Dogmatism (coming soon)
- Ethnocentrism (coming soon)
- Unprofessionalism (coming soon)
- Cynicism (coming soon)
My hope is that we can be mindful of each of these threats, and reduce – as far as possible – the destructive potential of each. This way, the positive potential that may exist in some of the various New Safety Movements can be realised without too many unintended consequences or otherwise unwanted effects.
Humanistic Systems 