The upheaval at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention should give us pause. The firing of Director Susan Monarez, followed by the resignation of senior medical officials, illustrates how quickly political interference can destabilize an institution built on expertise and public trust. If history is any guide, the replacements will likely fit a familiar mold: less independent, less experienced, and more loyal to political directives than to scientific evidence. We have seen this pattern before under Trump, where loyalty consistently outweighed competence, and the public paid the price.

This is part of a larger phenomenon. Autocentric-style leadership is not confined to dictatorships. It shows up in governments, corporations, nonprofits, and even academic institutions. Across these contexts, a strikingly consistent pattern emerges: Autocentric leaders surround themselves with individuals who lack the experience, skills, or independence to succeed in their roles. On the surface, this choice seems counterproductive. Why would a leader deliberately appoint someone unlikely to deliver results? The answer lies in the Autocentric playbook, a blueprint that prioritizes loyalty, control, and self-preservation over competence and institutional health.

The damage does not stop there. When unqualified individuals occupy positions of influence, decision-making becomes insular, transparency erodes, and the public good is subordinated to the leader’s personal or political agenda. This dynamic undermines equity, weakens institutions, and creates ripple effects that harm communities for generations.

Loyalty Over Competence

In an Autocentric system, the most prized quality in an appointee is not expertise but loyalty. Competence can be threatening to an insecure leader, especially if it comes with the courage to challenge bad decisions. A loyal but unqualified subordinate will rarely question the leader’s authority. They will not push for changes that might benefit the broader organization or the public if those changes conflict with the leader’s interests.

This loyalty-first mindset is why Autocentric leaders often prefer “yes people” over independent thinkers. Competence can be inconvenient when it comes with integrity. In the Autocentric worldview, competence without unwavering allegiance is a liability. Loyalty without competence, on the other hand, is seen as an asset, because it means the leader remains the unquestioned center of power.

Choosing unqualified people also creates dependence. When a subordinate lacks the skills or confidence to operate autonomously, they must constantly defer to the leader for guidance. This dynamic reinforces the leader’s control and centralizes decision-making. It also ensures that when things go wrong, the appointee cannot credibly claim they acted on their own initiative.

Dependency is a feature, not a bug, in Autocentric systems. By keeping subordinates reliant on them, leaders can tightly manage not only policy outcomes but also the flow of information. Competent, confident subordinates might pursue initiatives independently or develop their own networks of influence. An unqualified appointee, by contrast, will cling to the leader for survival, making them easy to manipulate.

Patronage and Personal Networks

Autocentric leaders often see appointments as rewards for loyalty or service to their cause, not as tools for improving organizational performance. This is the politics of patronage. Jobs become political currency, exchanged for support, public defense of the leader’s agenda, or personal favors.

In this environment, friends, family members, political backers, and even business associates can find themselves in positions of significant authority, regardless of whether they are prepared for the job. This practice ensures that those in leadership circles are bound by personal gratitude, shared risk, and often, mutual complicity. Once again, the result is a closed system where advancement depends on allegiance rather than merit.

Highly qualified appointees come with an inherent risk: they might outshine the leader. In politics, business, and academia, rising stars can capture the public’s attention, develop independent power bases, and even inspire calls for change at the top.

Autocentric leaders neutralize this threat by appointing people who are less capable of commanding respect on their own. An unqualified subordinate is unlikely to generate grassroots support or institutional loyalty independent of the leader’s backing. This keeps the spotlight firmly fixed on the leader and minimizes the risk of internal competition.

Unqualified subordinates often lack the knowledge or confidence to challenge policies that are unethical, impractical, or illegal. In many cases, they owe their positions entirely to the leader’s goodwill, which makes them more willing to approve proposals without deep scrutiny.

This is especially dangerous in contexts where the leader’s agenda threatens equity and justice. Without internal checks from skilled, principled advisors, Autocentric leaders can advance harmful policies unimpeded. The consequences might include suppressing dissent, dismantling public protections, or directing resources away from vulnerable communities.

Short-Term Optics Over Long-Term Effectiveness

For example, Trump has appointed an unqualified persons to serve in symbolic purpose in many roles in government. In my view, he choosen many people who shares his right-wing ideology or background to simply appeal to a specific base (e.g. African American, Latinx), even if that person lacks the technical skills to succeed. This can create a short-term perception of inclusivity or solidarity while masking his deeper motives.

In these cases, Trump is less concerned with whether the appointee will succeed in delivering results and more focused on immediate political or personal gains, including the effort to project an image that the American right wing does not harbor racist views. (See for example The Relationship between the Far-Right and Systemic Racism in the United States) It is the political equivalent of saying, “I have Black friends.” The long-term costs—dysfunction, public distrust, and institutional decay—are treated as secondary concerns..

For communities fighting for justice and equity, the appointment of unqualified leaders from their communities for these reasons can be especially damaging. These puppet leaders are less likely to actually understand or prioritize the needs of marginalized groups. They may lack the policy expertise to craft solutions or the courage and desire to push back against discriminatory practices. In the worst cases, they actively implement policies that reinforce inequities, either through ignorance or deliberate alignment with the autocratic leader’s oppressive agenda.

This dynamic plays out repeatedly in national public policy when leaders appoint individuals with backgrounds far outside the field, such as Linda McMahon, from professional wrestling, to oversee the U.S. Department of Education, a complex agency serving millions of students. Or when Ben Carson, a distinguished neurosurgeon with no experience in housing policy, was appointed to lead the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. More recently, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., known for controversial views and lacking formal public health credentials, assumed a role that influences children’s wellbeing through loosely regulated health policy advocacy. In all these cases, the result is an agenda tilted toward limiting equity, privatization, and corporate-style reforms, even to the extent of considering dismantling entire agencies. Ultimately, these appointments risk inflicting real harm on the very communities that public institutions are meant to serve.

Conclusion

Challenging this pattern requires more than simply calling out bad hires. It demands structural change. Transparent hiring processes, independent vetting committees, and strong institutional checks can make it harder for Autocentric leaders to stack leadership ranks with unqualified loyalists. Civil society, the media, and grassroots organizations must also hold leaders accountable by shining light on unmerited appointments and documenting their impact.

In democratic systems, voters can reject leaders who undermine institutions by filling them with unqualified allies. In corporate and nonprofit settings, stakeholders can push for governance reforms that prioritize merit, diversity, and accountability. These changes are not easy to achieve in the face of concentrated power, but they are essential for protecting equity and justice.

The choice to appoint unqualified people to key roles is not random or naïve. It is a deliberate tactic used by Autocentric leaders to consolidate power, reward loyalty, and suppress dissent. While it may serve the leader’s personal interests in the short term, it undermines institutional effectiveness, corrodes public trust, and erodes equity in the long run.

If we are serious about building systems that serve the public good, we must understand, and dismantle, the mechanisms that allow unqualified appointments to flourish. That means advocating for leaders who value competence and integrity, creating high-quality selection processes, and mobilizing communities to resist the concentration of power in the hands of the few. The stakes are high. An unqualified leader in a critical role can do immense damage, not just to the institution they serve, but to the people whose lives depend on that institution’s fairness, competence, and integrity.

---

Julian Vasquez Heilig is a nationally recognized policy scholar, public intellectual, and civil rights advocate. A trusted voice in public policy, he has testified for state legislatures, the U.S. Congress, the United Nations, and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, while also advising presidential and gubernatorial campaigns. His work has been cited by major outlets including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times, and he has appeared on networks from MSNBC and PBS to NPR and DemocracyNow!. He is a recipient of more than 30 honors, including the 2025 NAACP Keeper of the Flame Award, Vasquez Heilig brings both scholarly rigor and grassroots commitment to the fight for equity and justice.