With over 25 years in Behavioral Health, Training and Organizational Development, Dr. Veronica Powell, the 'Communication Doctor,' turned a personal trauma into a mission to revolutionize virtual communication.
Imagine it is the year 2101, the dawn of the 22nd Century. As a grandmother of eleven grandchildren, I look into the future lives of three of my grandchildren born in 2024. In 2101, they would now be around 76 or 77 years old.
They belong to a generation raised on stories of a time when six generations united in the fight to preserve democracy, creating a future that embraced shared humanity and the sanctity of life. These stories are told not just as history, but as a legacy, a reminder of the sacrifices made to uphold autonomy, peace, and mutual respect.
In this article, we explore how trauma bonding, a phenomenon where individuals form deep emotional attachments to leaders who exploit their trauma, is shaping our society and influencing leadership (Aagaard, 2024; Carnes, 2016; Zoppi, 2023).
We explore how some leaders use their own traumas to build loyal coalitions, not for the greater good but to control and manipulate. This dynamic is examined through the lens of authoritarianism, toxic masculinity, and divisive ideologies, contrasting it with the paths of empathy, resilience, and genuine connection. As we navigate a world inching toward dystopian influences, the article calls on us to reflect on our values and the kind of legacy we want to pass on to future generations.
Understanding trauma bonding
Trauma bonding, a term coined by Dr. Patrick Carnes, is a psychological phenomenon where individuals form deep emotional attachments to someone who exploits, harms, or manipulates them (Carnes, 2016). This bond develops through cycles of abuse followed by brief moments of kindness or validation, creating a powerful but toxic dependency.
Trauma bonding often arises in abusive relationships but extends beyond personal dynamics, it can also emerge in political and organizational leadership. In these cases, leaders may use their own traumatic experiences, or those of their followers, to establish loyalty and foster a sense of shared suffering (Zoppi, 2023).
In trauma-bonded relationships, the abuser alternates between providing comfort and inflicting harm, creating confusion and deepening the attachment (Seitz-Wald et al., 2024). Followers in these relationships may rationalize or even defend the leader’s harmful behavior, believing it is justified by shared values, resilience, or a common struggle.
Over time, followers become more invested in the relationship, finding it increasingly difficult to separate themselves from the leader, even when the leader’s behavior becomes toxic or manipulative.
Examples of trauma bonding in leadership
In the context of leadership, trauma bonding can manifest when leaders use their own past hardships as a tool for emotional manipulation. Here are some ways this can play out:
1. Exploiting personal hardships
A leader may frequently share stories of past struggles or betrayals, framing themselves as resilient underdogs who have overcome adversity. While this might seem relatable or inspirational, these leaders often weaponize these narratives to engender loyalty. Followers begin to view the leader as someone who truly understands their pain, creating a sense of shared identity.
For instance, a leader who has faced personal or professional “persecution” might portray themselves as a martyr, rallying followers who feel similarly marginalized and promising to “fight” for them against perceived enemies.
2. Creating an “us vs. them” dynamic
Trauma-bonded leaders often manipulate followers by identifying a common enemy or scapegoat. By framing outside groups as threats to their shared “cause,” the leader heightens followers’ sense of fear and loyalty. In this way, followers are conditioned to feel that the leader is their only source of protection.
This dynamic keeps them attached, believing that their safety or identity depends on allegiance to the leader. Leaders in authoritarian regimes, for instance, may emphasize external threats or demonize certain social groups, reinforcing followers' dependence on their protection and guidance.
3. Using intermittent validation
Trauma-bonded leaders frequently switch between praise and punishment to maintain control. They might reward loyalty or obedience with fleeting approval, then quickly withdraw it, keeping followers emotionally off-balance. This unpredictability fosters a constant need for validation, making followers more vulnerable to the leader’s influence.
For example, a corporate leader might publicly praise employees for loyalty one day, only to criticize or undermine them the next. This cycle of inconsistent validation reinforces followers’ need to stay close to the leader in hopes of receiving approval.
4. Presenting as “saviors” of a cause
Leaders who engage in trauma bonding may position themselves as the sole solution to followers’ problems or anxieties. They portray their mission as a battle against overwhelming odds, emphasizing that only through their guidance can followers find security, respect, or validation. Followers then align their personal struggles with the leader’s mission, even when the cost is their autonomy.
For example, in political movements followers might rally behind a leader who claims they are “the last hope” against a corrupt or immoral system, willing to overlook the leader’s flaws or transgressions in pursuit of the shared goal.
Through these tactics, trauma-bonded leaders manipulate followers’ wounds as tools of control, embedding themselves deeply within their lives. Rather than fostering healthy bonds based on trust and mutual respect, they create a toxic allegiance fueled by dependency, fear, and conditional approval. Recognizing these patterns is critical for individuals and society, especially as we consider the type of leadership that will guide us forward.
Trauma bonding and authoritarian leadership
An authoritarian leader is someone who relies on absolute control, demanding loyalty and obedience from followers while discouraging independent thought. This leader often exhibits a need for power, dominance, and control over others, employing rigid structures and top-down commands.
Unlike leaders who encourage collaboration, authoritarian leaders seek to be the sole authority, promoting a dependency that keeps followers bound to them. They cultivate a climate of fear or regard, where questioning their decisions or ideology is discouraged or punished (Singh, Sengupta, & Dev, 2019).
In trauma bonding, such leaders with authoritarian tendencies leverage their own trauma narratives to create a shared sense of pain and resilience. By selectively disclosing personal struggles or past betrayals, they frame these experiences as evidence of their strength and relatability.
This disclosure is not an act of genuine connection but a calculated tool to draw followers into a dependency loop. Followers begin to see their leader’s survival as a symbol of hope and align their own unhealed wounds with the leader’s narrative. However, rather than promoting healing, this bond traps followers in cycles of fear and loyalty, with the leader continually reawakening their followers’ traumas to maintain control.
Patriarchy, toxic masculinity, and the weaponization of trauma
Patriarchy is a societal structure in which men hold dominant roles and authority in political, social, and economic spheres, often leading to the marginalization of women and other groups. It privileges certain masculine ideals, such as control, power, and dominance, over empathy, cooperation, and emotional openness.
Toxic masculinity, a byproduct of patriarchy, is a repressive view of manhood that emphasizes aggression, emotional stoicism, and dominance as measures of masculinity. This framework labels emotional vulnerability as weakness, discouraging traits like compassion, empathy, or cooperation, and instead elevates traits associated with power and control.
Authoritarian leaders operating within these frameworks prize dominance, often portraying their own traumatic experiences (real or exaggerated) as symbols of their resilience and authority. Followers, in turn, see this display as strength, gravitating toward the leader as a figure who has endured and overcome, an antidote to vulnerability. These frameworks create environments where compassion, empathy and emotional understanding are not only undervalued but actively exploited as weaknesses.
However, such leaders weaponize trauma not to connect with followers empathetically but to manipulate their fears. They exploit societal fractures around race, gender, or class, projecting their own struggles onto larger group dynamics and attributing blame to perceived "others."
By casting their trauma as inflicted by outsiders or opposing groups, these leaders reinforce distrust within their following, consolidating loyalty based on a shared sense of threat, grievance or hate. This structure perpetuates harm rather than healing, embedding followers in a cycle of dependency and reinforcing a loyalty defined by fear and hostility toward those outside the leader’s influence.
From blank slates to bonded loyalties
We all begin life as blank slates, untouched by biases, divisions, or the patterns of thought that shape us as adults. Imagine holding a newborn, entirely open to the world, free of hate, prejudice, or even concepts of right and wrong. None of us knows what kind of person that child will become or what beliefs will take root. Will they grow to embrace love, compassion, empathy, and respect for others, or will they fall into patterns of division, hostility and hate? This uncertainty can be both awe-inspiring and terrifying, as each child carries the potential to either heal or harm our society.
Our families, communities, and experiences profoundly shape us, and often, shared traumas or inherited biases steer us toward different paths. Some of us, through our hardships, cultivate compassion, empathy and a desire to uplift others, striving for inclusivity and equity. For others, these same traumas can instill resentment or a longing for control, becoming fuel for divisive agendas and the manipulative allure of authoritarian leadership. Trauma bonding in leadership turns followers’ wounds into weapons, creating a toxic allegiance that perpetuates harm rather than fostering resilience or healing.
Reflections on the 2024 US election and the deepening divides
The recent US election exposed painful divides within our society, on issues that should unite us but instead highlight our differences. Beyond the rifts over gender and bodily autonomy, other fault lines have become glaringly visible: racial inequality, economic disparity, educational access, healthcare, immigration, climate action, and even our foundational beliefs about justice and shared values. These issues, rather than drawing us closer, have become battlegrounds for divided perspectives fueled by divisive leadership.
As a woman, I am particularly disheartened by the erosion of rights I once believed were secure, such as those concerning bodily autonomy and personal freedom. This growing divide between my values and the nation’s direction has intensified my resolve. Though disillusioned, I am more motivated than ever to stand against these shifts and to advocate for a future where collective freedoms, equality, compassion and humanity are upheld.
Using life languages™ to counter trauma bonding in leadership
To navigate this fight for democratic values, I rely on my understanding of Life Languages™, a transformative communication framework developed by Fred and Anna Kendall (Kendall & Kendall, 2019). Life Languages™ categorizes communication styles into three main areas—Action, Feeling, and Thinking, helping individuals understand their unique communication styles and those of others, fostering empathy, connection, and respect in interactions. Comprised of seven distinct communication styles, known as "Life Languages", the framework empowers people to better relate to one another, recognizing strengths, emotional needs, and potential communication gaps. For those who learn and apply it, Life Languages™ can become a powerful tool for building bridges, enhancing leadership, and driving positive change.
Each category of Life Languages serves a specific purpose:
Action languages: Mover and Doer, focuses on practical, results-driven communication.
Feeling languages: Influencer and Responder, centers on emotional expression and relational engagement.
Thinking languages: Shaper, Producer, and Contemplator, involves analytical, strategic, and reflective communication.
For me, this framework provides critical self-awareness as I navigate complex interactions where toxic bonding can distort loyalties and values. My dominant Life Languages, Contemplator (a Thinking language) and Responder (a Feeling language), equip me with analytical thinking and empathetic engagement, essential tools in fostering understanding and shared values. Meanwhile, my lower scoring "survival or trauma languages," such as Shaper, Doer, and Mover, remind me of areas where I must push beyond my comfort zone to actively counter divisive rhetoric and resist alliances based on fear. This awareness strengthens my commitment to fostering dialogues that uphold collective freedoms and mutual respect rather than submission to authoritarian influence.
Embracing equality in life and death
Life’s inevitable end is a reality we all must face. Regardless of how we live or what we believe, death strips away the layers of distinction we cling to in life. A military cemetery provides a profound illustration of this truth: it is one of the most diverse resting places, where rank, wealth, race, and creed no longer matter. Here, in the stillness of death, all are equal, each individual resting side by side with no division or hierarchy.
This sobering reality reminds us of what truly matters, our shared humanity and the choices we make to either unite or divide ourselves in life. Knowing that we will all meet the same fate, shouldn’t we strive for unity, respect, and compassion for one another while we still can?
Conclusion and call to action
As we stand on the threshold of an uncertain future, we must ask ourselves: what kind of world do we want to pass down to the next generations? With over 8.2 billion people on Earth, our world is inherently bountiful, capable of sustaining each of us without scarcity or deprivation. Yet, it’s power, greed, and corruption that create the divisions and inequalities we see today, tearing at the fabric of our shared humanity.
We can have healthy disagreements and differing beliefs, and these differences, when rooted in respect, can strengthen us. However, when manipulated for control, they fuel fear, hate and fracture society, threatening the values of empathy, unity, and mutual respect.
Trauma bonding in leadership, where loyalty is gained through fear and manipulation, poses a serious threat to these values and our democratic foundations. Recognizing and breaking free from such toxic bonds is essential if we hope to cultivate a world where every voice is valued, and each person’s dignity is respected.
Ultimately, we are all reminded of life’s inevitable end. The military cemetery, a place where people of all ranks, races, and beliefs lie side by side, illustrates this profound truth. In death, there are no divisions, only unity in the soil we share.
Let’s strive to bring some of that peace into our lives while we’re still here. Now is the time to reflect on where we place our loyalties. Will we allow fear and division to govern our choices, or will we commit to a future built on inclusivity, empathy, and shared purpose?
To begin this journey of self-awareness and connection, I invite you to explore Life Languages™ by taking the Free Life Languages Mini Profile. This tool can be a powerful first step in understanding ourselves and others, helping us bridge divides and foster meaningful, respectful relationships. Together, let’s work toward a society where every individual’s voice is honored, creating a legacy of peace, autonomy, and shared humanity that will guide generations to come.
A note of thanks and disclaimer
Thank you for taking the time to engage with this article. I hope it has offered valuable insights into the phenomenon of trauma bonding in leadership and the complex dynamics between leaders and followers. This article aims to shed light on these issues to foster greater understanding and awareness.
Please note that the views expressed in this article are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Brainz Magazine. This article is presented solely for the purpose of providing insight and understanding into the impact of trauma bonding in leadership dynamics.
Dr. Veronica Powell, PhD, LPC, PC, Measures4Success, LLC
With over 25 years in Behavioral Health, Training and Organizational Development, Dr. Veronica Powell, the 'Communication Doctor,' turned a personal trauma into a mission to revolutionize virtual communication. As the Owner of Measures4Success and an Independent Certified Life Languages Communications Coach, she's a dynamic force equipped with diverse skills, including those of an Industrial Organizational Psychologist, Licensed Professional Counselor and Clinical Trauma Professional, among others. Shifting from the "Therapyroom" to the digital "Courseroom," she guides others through her online platform, M4S Academy, to transcend digital barriers and achieve personal and professional growth.
References:
Cambell, K. (2023, December 01). The Elon Musk interview: Trauma’s impact on leadership.
Kendall, F. & Kendall, A. (2019). Communication IQ: A Proven Way to Influence, Lead, and Motivate People. Life Languages™ International. New Kensington, PA: Whitaker House.
Kruse, M. (2019). The final lesson Donald Trump never learned from Roy Cohn - Politico magazine.
Renoux, M., Goudeau, S., Alexopoulos, T. et al. (2024). The inherence bias in preschoolers’ explanations for achievement differences: replication and extension. npj Sci. Learn. 9(10).
Singh, N., Sengupta, S., & Dev, S. (2019). Toxic Leadership: The Most Menacing Form of Leadership.
Stern, A. (2023, January 11). Bonding over shared trauma isn't trauma bonding.
