Pedagogy in many business schools draws part of its inspiration from non-business organizations and individuals to encourage unconventional strategic thinking.
A favourite is Chinese general and military strategist Sun Tzu, who authored the classical text on military strategy, The Art of War, some 2,500 years ago. Even Gordon Gekko quotes Sun Tzu in the movie Wall Street to justify dodgy stock-market trades.
Red Cross operations are widely studied for understanding logistics management or how to operate in stressful situations. Many case studies focus on skilled groupings, such as symphony orchestras or rowing crews, to draw lessons on teamwork, coordination and execution excellence.
These non-business models probably need to make another significant inclusion. US President Donald Trump’s second stint in office deserves an independent case study, even though he is barely half-way through his term. His unilateral executive actions, the mistakes embedded in them and their deleterious fallout follow a pattern that holds multiple lessons for future managers.
In fact, they have a special relevance for many Indian CEOs (and perhaps some Indian politicians) who seem to be subconsciously mirroring many of his behavioural patterns.
Start with Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs (2 April 2025) which took special aim at China. Policy architecture was predicated on fantasy, not facts and hard data: there was belief that the US’s high import tariffs would ruin the Chinese economy and Beijing would capitulate.
Instead, China retaliated with high tariffs and choked rare earth mineral exports, forcing the White House to hastily initiate conciliatory measures. This was a huge policy failure, primarily because the executive action was based on braggadocio and an elevated sense of superiority, without considering the counterparty’s strengths or possible reactions.
The second but far bigger failure was this year’s launch of hostilities against Iran with a constantly shifting carousel of end-objectives, none of which has materialized. There was, once again, unilateralism on show: the White House took the US to war without consulting Congress, American generals or West Asia experts.
This is important because Iran has demonstrated extraordinary resilience and a military ability to harm US military infrastructure across the Gulf. This has consequences, which includes impelling many Gulf nations to seek alternative security blankets.
Action was also launched without considering all the possible future scenarios. For example, strategists had been warning about the likelihood of the Strait of Hormuz being weaponized, given how earlier Houthi attacks on Red Sea vessels had provided a foretaste of a trade and energy squeeze.
Similar behavioural patterns are often found in many Indian corner offices, where the chief executive’s hubris, fed by a constant stream of accolades from friends on the board, blurs reality.
There are multiple examples of companies which insist on launching half-baked products and services before completing all the necessary checks. Launches are often done without conducting market surveys and understanding their results, comprehending the full range of risks to prepare for their mitigation, testing distribution networks for supply robustness, or anticipating customer feedback.
Many Indian CEOs, egged on by some board members, believe that it is always beneficial to be seen doing something new all the time, rather than investing time and enterprise energy in strengthening existing systems and processes.
This gets baked into the incentive structure as well. Any moderating voice—whether on the board or in senior management—is viewed as adversarial. This is not to say that brands or products launched after extensive groundwork do not fail, but it does stand to reason that those with some degree of preparedness stand a better chance.
The Trumpian archetype—mainly an authoritarian streak with checks and balances viewed as a sign of weakness and dissenting voices classified as inimical—leans heavily on unilateralism. This usually means the boss always knows best, even if he makes a show of surrounding himself with talented people.
Many Indian CEOs, despite their premium management education, tend to view the collegium approach as unproductive. This is because they tend to view themselves as repositories of all knowledge, their illusion of superiority padded up by an omnipresent posse of yes-men.
This trend manifests itself vividly in promoter-managed companies and large financial sector organizations, such as marquee private banks and leading finance companies.
All this creates multiple waves of internal dissonance. Trump’s policy volatility has left the US economy worse off, undergirded by inflationary impulses and uncertainty. Latest polls show his disapproval ratings far higher than approval ratings. With US mid-term elections a few months away, divergences between his speech and actions have widened.
Many Indian CEOs also routinely indulge in corporate action without sparing a thought for its likely impact on the enterprise or staff morale. Many mergers or acquisitions, for example, are undertaken for reasons not necessarily in the enterprise’s interest; these non-strategic actions lead to heartburn across the ranks and eventually to a form of corporate disequilibrium.
It is necessary to point out one crucial difference here: while most non-business templates focus on improving skills, the Trump case study will highlight undesirable managerial traits.
The author is a senior journalist and author of ‘Slip, Stitch and Stumble: The Untold Story of India’s Financial Sector Reforms’ @rajrishisinghal