.png)
Call and Response Leadership Is Not Real Leadership
- Frank Dappah
- 24 hours ago
- 5 min read
How Performing for the Internet Undermines Long-Term Success
In a world where likes, shares, and retweets are mistaken for approval ratings, a new leadership model has quietly taken root—Call and Response leadership. This model has little to do with vision or strategy and everything to do with appeasement.
Leaders, rather than standing firm on principles, bend to the whims of their most vocal online audiences. While this may offer temporary applause, it often leaves companies and governments directionless and vulnerable.
We're seeing this model proliferate in both politics and business—from Capitol Hill to corporate boardrooms. But the consequences of this reactive, trend-chasing leadership style are becoming increasingly apparent.
What Is Call and Response Leadership?
Think of it as governance via comment section.
Rather than charting a course based on values, research, or long-term thinking, Call and Response leaders ask: "What are the kids into these days?”
They poll Twitter, scour TikTok, and react in real-time to online sentiment.
The result? A performative form of leadership that is constantly adjusting itself—not to new facts or evidence, but to social media trends. This might appear democratic or “in touch,” but it erodes accountability and dilutes responsibility.
Real-World Consequences: Bud Light and Target
The risks of this approach are not theoretical—they’re playing out in the market.
📉 Bud Light’s Identity Crisis
In 2023, Bud Light partnered with trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney to promote the brand during March Madness. The collaboration was intended as a nod to inclusivity, but backlash came swiftly—sales plummeted.
According to Nielsen IQ, Bud Light sales dropped over 25% year-over-year in the weeks following the promotion, and Anheuser-Busch’s market value fell by more than $5 billion. The company tried to placate both sides—first defending the campaign, then distancing itself from it—pleasing no one.
“You cannot simultaneously wave the flag of inclusion and then pretend you didn’t,” wrote Forbes.
🛍️ Target’s Pride Month Backpedal
Target faced a similar backlash in 2023. After launching a Pride-themed merchandise collection, the company experienced protests and store disruptions. Rather than standing by the campaign or offering clarity, Target quietly removed several items, prompting criticism from both sides.
Sales dipped, and the company’s stock took a hit—falling nearly 20% over the summer. According to The Washington Post, Target executives admitted they did not anticipate the scale of backlash and tried to respond in real-time, further stoking the controversy.
The Leadership Vacuum This Creates
What these examples show is the absence of true leadership. If your decision-making process is “react to outrage, pivot, apologize, repeat,” you are not leading—you are managing impressions.
This reactive cycle creates instability and weakens trust. A 2023 Edelman Trust Barometer report found that 62% of consumers want CEOs to take a stand on issues, but only 46% trust those same CEOs to actually follow through.
When companies backpedal or flip-flop based on pressure, it reinforces the idea that they stand for nothing. In contrast, consistency—even in the face of disagreement—builds credibility.
A Better Model: Long-Term Thinking in Leadership
📘 Remember Obamacare?
When President Obama proposed the Affordable Care Act (ACA), it was deeply unpopular—even within his own party. Democrats feared political consequences, and Republicans weaponized the term “Obamacare” to turn voters against it. The 2010 midterms were brutal: Democrats lost 63 House seats, and Senator Harry Reid narrowly held onto his seat amid public backlash.
And yet, Obama urged his colleagues to proceed, knowing full well that the long-term benefits of expanding healthcare access would outweigh short-term costs.
Today, more than 40 million Americans receive coverage through the ACA. What was once a political liability has become one of the most enduring pieces of policy in the last half-century—and Obama’s most significant legislative achievement.
The Risks of Following the Crowd
The internet isn’t just fast-paced; it’s inherently contradictory. Today’s progressive cause is tomorrow’s overreach. What one generation calls justice, another may call overcorrection.
Consider this: according to Pew Research, nearly 60% of Americans believe social media creates more division than unity. Designing policy—or business strategy—based on online noise is like building a house on sand.
As a result, brands are becoming reactive, fragmented, and risk-averse, unsure of how to operate in such a volatile environment. They rely on “brand safety teams,” social listening tools, and crisis comms—not because they lack principles, but because they lack the courage to stand by them.
Kamala Harris and the Politics of Performance
Vice President Kamala Harris offers a compelling case study in the dangers of Call and Response leadership—particularly when popularity, rather than principle, drives political identity.
In the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd in 2020, America entered a heightened era of racial reckoning. Public demands for justice, police reform, and acknowledgment of marginalized identities surged. Harris, then a senator and soon-to-be running mate to Joe Biden, publicly aligned herself with these demands, embracing the language, symbols, and policy priorities of the far left.
She stated her pronouns in televised appearances, openly supported bail funds for protestors, and leaned into progressive social justice causes that were resonating loudly online and in activist circles. These gestures, while applauded by some, marked a sharp departure from her earlier identity as a "tough on crime" prosecutor who once championed truancy crackdowns and took heat for opposing certain criminal justice reforms in California. But what seemed politically opportune in 2020 would soon prove costly.
By the time Harris launched her own presidential bid, the cultural tide had shifted. The term "woke" had morphed from a badge of progressivism into a target for mockery and critique. Then-President Donald Trump’s anti-woke crusade framed Democratic contenders—especially Harris—as out of touch with working-class Americans. Her earlier embrace of progressive identity politics left her open to attacks that painted her as ideologically extreme.
One viral ad in the lead-up to the 2024 campaign labeled her “the face of radical gender politics,” featuring soundbites from her most progressive moments and accusing her of abandoning common-sense policies in favor of activist posturing.
Though Harris had long held centrist views on many issues—as California’s attorney general, she defended the death penalty and was criticized for slow-walking police reform—the image that stuck was of the “woke” candidate. Her presidential campaign struggled to define her beyond those moments of social signaling.
According to a 2023 Gallup poll, 59% of Americans said they viewed “wokeness” as a negative term, with many associating it with overreach, elitism, and political correctness. That sentiment only intensified as Republicans effectively weaponized cultural issues as part of their broader populist messaging strategy.
What Harris experienced was the backlash that often comes with aligning too quickly with trends that lack lasting popular support. In trying to meet the moment, she lost control of the narrative. The values she had championed earlier in her career—pragmatism, legal order, incremental justice—were drowned out by a public performance of progressivism that didn’t reflect her full record.
And the internet never forgets.
Leadership Requires Conviction
Leadership is not a popularity contest. It is the burden of acting in the long-term interest of people—even when those very people resist, misunderstand, or resent it at first. The best leaders don’t ask, “What does the crowd want right now?” They ask, “What will serve them best in five, ten, or twenty years?”
The trend of Call and Response leadership may offer short-term applause, but it comes at the cost of institutional trust, brand integrity, and public confidence. And in a world already drowning in noise, we need more conviction—not more content.
Komentar