By Admin Comment Closed

SGUK Ep 158

 

The Cost  of the Crown

 

Looking at the pressure William faces as he approaches Kingship and the potential psychological toll it takes. This can also include forecasts or commentary on how the monarchy evolves.

Introduction

Impact on The One Who Will Soon Be King

  • Leadership Theories. Transformational v transactional leadership, especially in a Royal context.
Top 10 leadership theories for 2025

With almost 70 leadership theories to explore, it can be difficult finding one that resonates with your beliefs or options. To support you with this substantial task, the helpful team at Leadership Success has listed ten of the most well-known and popular theories of leadership below.

·       The Transactional Theory – Transformational v transactional leadership, especially in a Royal context.

Also known as the Management Theory, this leadership theory was put forward by the German sociologist, Max Weber, in 1947. The theory states that this type of leader uses a system of direct rewards and reprimands to create structure and order, which are often most effective when implemented in fast-paced and goal-orientated environments.

When an employee does something correctly or meets a specific deadline, this behaviour will be rewarded. Similarly, those that don’t meet performance requirements, will be reprimanded. Employees are therefore incentivised to meet targets to both avoid penalties and receive rewards.

·       The Transformational Theory

The transformational leadership theory revolves around leaders encouraging, inspiring, and motivating their employees to meet their full potential. This theory was created by James V. Downton in 1973 and suggests that transformational leaders use communication and positive reinforcement to help workers meet targets.

Part of this approach involves identifying which changes are needed to help the employees obtain a shared vision. Often, this type of leader is so effective at boosting morale that workers perform beyond their expectations, allowing them to achieve remarkable results.

The Contingency Theory

Proposed by the Austrian psychologist, Fred Edward Fiedler, in 1964, the contingency theory states that leadership is only effective if it fits the situation. It therefore works on the premise that people have different leadership styles that cannot be changed or adapted.

This means that one individual could be a fantastic leader is one circumstance, but an ineffective leader in another – it all depends on that particular situation and whether the individual’s leadership style lends itself to that situation.

The Situational Theory

While similar to the contingency theory of leadership in that it also asserts that no one leadership style is suitable for all situations, the situational theory believes that an individual’s leadership style can be changed and adjusted to suit various circumstances.

Developed by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard in 1969, this theory states that the most effective leaders have the flexibility to adapt their approach based off the needs of their team or individual members. As a result, no one leadership style is considered the best according to this theory.

The Great Man Theory

In contrast to other leadership theories that suggest leaders can be made, the great man theory attests that certain individuals are born with characteristics that make them good leaders. It adds that these individuals take on their leadership positions within a group when their traits are required.

This means that some people simply cannot be leaders because they don’t possess the necessary innate leadership characteristics of a ‘great man’, such as heroic courage or superior intellect. Developed by the philosopher Thomas Carlyle in 1840, this theory became popular in the 19th century with the rise of prominent leaders like Napoleon Bonaparte.

The Trait Theory

Similar to the great man theory, the trait theory of leadership dates back to the mid-1800s and originally suggested that only certain individuals were born to become leaders based on their innate personality traits and characteristics, such as confidence and charisma.

This theory therefore focused on identifying the various inheritable traits that help make certain individuals the most effective leaders. However, a more recent comeback of this theory moves away from the belief that inherited personality traits alone determine leadership success.

Instead, it attests that certain traits of effective leaders can also be acquired, such as cultural and social traits.

The Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory

First emerging in the 1970s, the leader-member exchange theory takes a relationship-based approach to the two-way exchange that happens between a leader and other group members. This theory stipulates that leaders establish different kinds of relationships with their subordinates.

They select the best members of the group and attempt to form stronger relationships with them that the subordinates can choose to accept or not. This process therefore involves leaders putting in more effort and taking an active interest in what certain followers want to build strong, respect-based relationships with them.

These stronger interpersonal relationships are designed to produce different positive emotions to help boost group growth and productivity. At the same time, it posits that leaders cannot maintain these strong relationships will all employees due to their limited time and resources.

The Behavioural Theory

The behavioural theory was developed in the 1960s and involves the observation and evaluation of a leader’s behaviour (what they do and how they act). By exploring how leaders respond to different situations, their behaviours can be identified, signalling a move away from the belief that only inherent personality traits determine the effectiveness of a leader.

Although similar to the trait theory, the behavioural theory of leadership analyses how leaders act instead of their inherent characteristics. As a result, it asserts that individuals can become leaders by understanding these actions and implementing them into the way they behave and respond to situations.

The Servant Leader Theory

A type of moral-based leadership, the servant leader theory has its foundations in ethical and caring behaviour. It states that leaders should adopt this approach to help meet the needs of other group members, rather than their own, or the group as a whole.

The goal of the leader is therefore to serve and empower their employees by including them in the decision-making process and putting their well-being first. This style of leadership requires the individual to possess certain characteristics such as empathy, stewardship, communication, and commitment to the personal growth of others.

The Participative Theory

Developed in the late 1990’s, the participative theory of leadership shares some similarities with the servant leader theory in that group members are involved in decision-making for the overall group. It encourages employee feedback and takes a more democratic approach to driving the organisation forward.

Participative leaders tend to be good listeners, empathetic, communicative, and open-minded, but this style of leadership can be more time-consuming as leaders need to dedicate more time to collaborating with all members of the group.

However, the believed benefits of the participative theory is that group members are more satisfied and work better together, leading to higher levels of retention for the organisation.

  • Social identity theory

    : Consider how Williams identity is shaped and influenced by his Royal status and familial roles.

Additional academic models to consider:-
  • The Social Comparison Theory: Explores how William and Harry compare themselves to each other and the effects of media narratives.
  • Resilience Theory

    : Analyse how both brothers cope with their respective roles and public scrutiny.

  • The Bystander Effect: Consider how the Royal family and the media’s roles influence William and Harry’s dynamics.
    • “The term bystander effect refers to the tendency for people to be inactive in high-danger situations due to the presence of other bystanders (Darley & Latané, 1968; Latané & Darley, 1968, 1970; Latané & Nida, 1981)”
  • Thus, people tend to help more when alone than in a group.
  • The implications of this theory have been widely studied by a variety of researchers, but initial interest in this phenomenon arose after the brutal murder of Catherine “Kitty” Genovese in 1964.
    • The most frequently cited real-life example of the bystander effect regards a young woman called Kitty Genovese, who was murdered in Queens, New York, in 1964 while several of her neighbours looked on. No one intervened until it was too late.
    • I have put the link to the full story in the Reference Sources list, not least because it was such a horrific event, outside a block of flats/apartments.  A female was attacked by a stranger. The lady screamed, and someone in one of the apartments above, opened their window and shouted at the attacker to leave her alone.  Attacker disappeared out of sight, and the person in the flat closed their window and switched off their light. The attacker had not left, he was just out of sight.  Stabbed the lady again.  Lady screamed.  Repeat reaction from someone in one of the flats above.  Again window closed, lights go off.  Lady attacked a third time. Apparently there were several neighbours shouting at the attacker to leave the lady alone.  No one came to help or called the police.
    • When the attacker struck for the 3rd time, one of the neighbours called the police and they were there in 2 minutes.
  • The bystander effect is a social psychological phenomenon where individuals are less likely to help a victim when others are present. The greater the number of bystanders, the less likely any one of them is to help. (my thoughts:- so if you have a brother on hand who is quite capable, or a team of staff who work closely on projects of yours (ir the Heir) then there is considered to be no incentive to get involved, because there are staff who can handle it all, and report back, or there is competent brother who can deal with it, and the Heir and his Partner can turn up for celebrations when it is all sorted, and take credit for a successful outcome.  Please note that there is not one completed project by the Heir in over a 20 year period.  Once Royal accounts were split into the two Royal princes having their own set of accounts, one could evidence Key Performance Indicators, Targets and Outcomes, and Income and Expenditure to name but a few.  Projects completed also shown, and others could demonstrate where there were at in the immediate sphere, and the trends showing where and how they were moving forward with the others.  The other set of accounts, exist most years, but none of the content is measurable.  Royal Rota have stated in writing, ever since the accounts were split for each Prince, that there was “ no need for the Heir to go into such detail” because “he is on a different path to Harry”.
  • A theme that runs through all of this podcast and research undertaken.  There is no need to be successful or great, because as the Heir and eventually future King, it does not matter about success or failure, because being Heir or King means that people treat you like you are a success and competent, because if the don’t, you become unemployed.  BBC take note.  You have lasted as long because your are the National broadcaster.  It is not a given that those who work for or Lead the organisation, will be the same people in the future.  Recent events, where two reports were subsequently changed within 24 hours, because the BRF were not comfortable with the previous version of events in two different programmes.
  • There is no need to prove Leadership skills or competence in anything, because the outcome of any exercise or project, will be favourable to the Heir and/or King.  That is what the Royal Rota is for.  It is not about accuracy.  It is about showing the Monarchy and the seniors within it, in a favourable light.  Over the years, the brainwashing has worked with most of those who are the same age of the Monarchs past and present.  Unfortunately for the Monarchy, those individuals who support having a Monarchy represent a very small percentage of support base.  The majority of the UK population have no opinion either way, or most definitely do not want or see a rationale for a Monarchy. The majority of the under 25s, do not see the need for a Monarchy.  The over 50s have next to no interest in having a Monarchy.  The future of the future King is looking very frail, in terms of expecting the age group of the future King and Queen to have a decent support base.  Nothing could be further than the truth.  I envisage attempts to make it compulsory, just like swearing allegiance to the Monarch during the Coronation.  The USA is going down that route, but I do not expect USA to sit back and accept and watch the Constitution be thrown into the trash for much longer. One hopes that the UK also wakes up and recognises what is happening right under its nose.
  • Latané & Darley (1970) formulated a five-stage model to explain why bystanders in emergencies sometimes do and sometimes do not offer help.
    • Details in the link below.
The Pressure That William Faces As He Approaches Kingship.

We are about to complete a series of 3 podcasts looking at the environment and psychological impact on the soon to be outgoing Monarch, and then the experience and the impact on the Heir and the country when he takes over. The first podcast I looked at the relationship between the Heir and the Spare. In the 2nd I revisited and reminded or informed for the first time the role and history of The Whipping Boy. This final podcast is on The Cost of the Crown. Cost to the country, cost in terms of what is asked of the people/person born into these roles, and in modern times, clearly in my opinion out of their depth with the competence required to navigate difficult waters ahead. The days of cutting ribbons, and smiling and waving and returning behind closed doors, to luxuries beyond the imagination of most, is over. Whilst in the UK we have veterans and increasing numbers of pensioners sleeping on the streets, and working people in full time employment barely able to put food on the table, and on occasion are not able to do so, this does not represent a nation that cares.  Any nation that does not look after its vulnerable, is not a nation to be proud of or to respect.

Those who have a roof over their heads, often go without food or heat, and in some occasions go without both. In my opinion the Monarchy is full of unethical individuals, or people who need the support of the Monarch to live in grace and favour accommodation, so regardless of what they think about the Monarch or the Heir waiting in the wings, they will just keep quiet and not rock the boat. The Heir is cosseted, at all times from birth. That is the process. The Spare is there to be back up if anything happens to the heir, and even goes as far as providing body parts if needed by the Heir. The Spare is competent, but he is not the Heir, and the Heir is incompetent and lacks ambition because he sees the outcome as the same whether he is ambitious or capable or not.  He has never worried about that, because he will be king one day regardless. He has always been comfortable telling people that he will make all kinds of changes when he becomes King, and he will do much less than his father or grandmother. That does assume of course, that either of the two mentioned worked hard anyway, but I digress. William has been quite laid back all his life, feeling better than everyone else around him. That changed in 2016 when Harry found his wife to be. Since then has been an active campaign to destroy Meghan, so that Harry would resume being the crutch for William.

Over these past 9 years, William and his father, worked behind the scenes trying to destroy the relationship and then marriage. Officially neither the King or the Heir did anything but love and welcome Meghan into the fold. Court papers since then, have been revealed in the Discovery process, that a number of people in the Royal household, have been briefing and liaising with folk who for years they have denied ever took place. In recent months it became clear that that King and Heir and courtiers are involved in RAVEC. It is in published papers, that no money has ever been given to Meghan for expenses. King said that he could not afford to pay for food for her. Apart from the absolute nonsense of that statement, was that the best he could come up with? The British Royal Family sent Meghan on various Royal visits with Harry, including one visit lasting a few days in Morocco, which had open warfare ongoing.  Meghan was heavily pregnant at the time, and the itinerary had her climbing in and out of helicopters, and spending days in an officially declared zone not to visit.  All of Sussex supporters guessed what was going on here.  It would not be the only time where an unborn child and mother was put at risk, but it was the only POC who received this treatment throughout her pregnancy, including sent on Royal tour with the birth of child imminent. That too has been proven and all of the Sussex Squad knew that for years.ie the double standard.

This latest round in the courts, revealed that the King stated that the Heir is more important to the country than the Spare, and that people would not be bothered if anything happened to Harry. Security had been removed, even though Harry was prepared to pay for it. He just wanted his wife and children to be safe, and to be able to visit the UK. Harry is the number one risk in the BRF. That too is in court papers. Harry and Meghan are self funding. He is not returning to be Williams crutch any longer. All the tricks and dangers put in their way have not worked, and if they do succeed in what they have tried for the past 9 years, it is all documented now, most people will see it for what it is. eg Diana’s death and others.

In terms of the future of the Monarchy, William from the day it was announced that H&M had been helped to escape in secret from Canada, and were put into a property with security and all that was needed to keep then safe whilst they looked for work and a place of their own to live, Williams has started to lose weight and look more and more like someone who sleeps under a bridge, with drinks that takes the edge of his pain and discomfort. He no longer boasts about becoming King. He looks like a rabbit in the headlights. He looks like he has a terminal illness. I think Kate is a victim of suffering because of the environment that lives in or used to live in,  and i think she has been trying to recover mentally and physically, so that she can return to public life, at her own pace, and claim the mantra “nothing to see here.” with a Royal Rota crew who will sell that to the public, for what its worth, because any deviation from that will hurt/damage the village that has increased over the years.

If there is someone in that partnership really ill, I think it is William  In terms of the future of the Monarchy and the pressure William is now under and the obvious psychological toll it is taking on him –  what are the risks of impact on the country? What kind of leader will he be? He never looked ill or worried until after all the tricks he and the King pulled, they were in complete shock when they discovered that H&M had left the Canadian holiday retreat, and now all these years later, they are more than comfortable in terms of money, and their children provided for,. What should the government (let’s not even talk about the lack of government behaviour from any UK party) but what do you think of the implications on many fronts about a future Monarchy?

There is no real competence or desire to be of service as such, and they seem to have questionable unsavoury friends, some of whom are behind bars, or should be. I think William will increase his mens club around him, and promote one or two, who will become the unofficial Group Spares, but unlike a blood relative, no one is going to do that job for years. It does not pay enough, but it will look good on their CV ie people like Jason Knauf. I think it should be brought to an end, but as I have said previously, there is a whole village out there who receive an income from having a Royal family in place. My gut feeling is that William is petrified to be seen as lacking competence, and on top of that he is not popular, neither is Charles, but he can fake it better than Williams for his limited time left.

I can foresee a sad end for William. I don’t think he is in a good place. I have zero time for him or anyone else in that family, but I still think it should never have been allowed to get to this stage. He was never competent. The cutting ribbons etc is long over, which is all he could do. I think the UK is in trouble, because the Government are not in great form either. None of them. Parliament cannot just close down the shop of Monarchy, but someone needs to face facts, and start putting things in motion.

My main Areas of Concern in Summary:-
  1. The competence and psychological state of the Prince of Wales (William)
  2. The relationship dynamics between William and Harry and the fall out from that in the Monarchy left behind.  The BRF are the cause of this problem, and they need to fix it, or have it fixed by Parliament.
  3. The sustainability and relevance of the monarchy in modern Britain
  4. The cost to taxpayers while social issues persist in the UK

The Establishment and Elected Officials (from all groups) have a duty of care and responsibility for the Monarchy and the state of their mental health and well being.  For those legal reasons alone, the time to keep on believing that ‘there is nothing to see here’ and the route that UK media has gone down in recent decades, need to stop and all employed in those industries need to wake up and smell the coffee.  If you all sit back and continue talking about the same topics, and going round and navel gazing in front of cameras, and interviewing fellow media personnel, just because you all like fanning the flames and it bolsters your respective bank accounts, someone needs to take a moment, and understand that whilst you all know deep down what is happening and that it  is very likely to get worse not better in the coming years, you cannot responsibly continue this gravy train of fiction.  If you do, you will certainly pay for it in terms of ignoring the obvious and being irresponsible for your actions, because it would hurt your income. There is no doubt in my mind, that from a management perspective, regardless of what titles are held within the BRF, when this goes awry, and it will one day if left to its devices, I cannot see how the industry built up around the Monarchy would not be held responsible for many aspects which have been obvious for some time, but ignored.

 The Modern Monarchy’s Challenges

The British monarchy faces unprecedented scrutiny in the digital age. Unlike previous eras when royal activities remained mostly behind palace walls, today’s royals navigate a complex media landscape where their actions, expenditures, and personal conflicts become public discourse.

Constitutional Considerations

The monarchy serves as a constitutional figurehead in the UK system. Any discussion about its future would need to address:

  • The constitutional role the monarchy plays
  • Alternative governance models
  • Transition challenges if changes were implemented
  • Public sentiment across different demographics
Financial Analysis

A balanced examination of royal finances might include:

  • The Sovereign Grant and its relationship to Crown Estate revenues
  • Tourism revenue attributed to the monarchy
  • Security costs
  • Comparative costs of elected heads of state in other nations
Psychological Impact

The mental health aspects raised are significant. Those born into royal roles face unique pressures – constant scrutiny, limited personal freedom, and predetermined life paths.

I am doing my best in considering multiple perspectives while acknowledging my own viewpoint. I would involve specialists giving their opinions to relevant people in cross party discussions in order to ensure that no one party has allegiance to any external group/s or individuals outside of the Elected Member environment in Parliament. I would certainly like to write a paper on it at some point to ensure that it is recorded somewhere, when we look at how events unfold in the future.

Expert opinions from constitutional scholars, mental health professionals, and perhaps even former royal staff for a comprehensive analysis of the risks that are around the corner for the Uk to experience if elected officials and the establishment refuse to acknowledge how near the UK is to the cliff edge on this topic.

What Can the Establishment Offer Without it Impacting Their Bank Balance?

I would welcome a perspective on the government and parliament and the business structure of the Firm of how they could look at this for future activity. Most of the BRF are over 70 years of age. Most Royalists are in that age bracket too, and those between 50 and 70 are not into Royal life, but they have nothing against them as such either. So William becoming King is going to struggle for a support base. His own age group are not fussed, and the younger you look down the age groups, it reduces. The under 25s mainly do not see the purpose of a Monarchy. Anyone given thought as to how that covers what is needed from a Monarchy structure in the coming decade at least?

The Monarchy’s Future: Institutional Challenges and Evolution

The demographic challenge highlighted is significant. With royal support heavily concentrated among older generations and waning interest among younger Britons, the institution faces a relevance crisis that will only intensify when William ascends the throne.

Governmental and Parliamentary Considerations

From a governance perspective, several approaches could be considered:

Constitutional Review Commission

Parliament could establish a cross-party commission to examine the monarchy’s role in 21st century Britain. This would allow for thoughtful consideration rather than crisis-driven decisions, addressing:

  • Constitutional functions that remain essential
  • Modernization of royal finances and transparency
  • Size and scope of the working royal family
  • Public engagement requirements and measurements
Phased Transition Planning

The government might consider developing transition scenarios that gradually evolve the monarchy’s role, allowing for institutional stability while acknowledging changing public sentiment:

  • Reduced ceremonial functions
  • Increased focus on targeted charitable work with measurable outcomes
  • Greater transparency and accountability mechanisms
  • Regular reviews of the Sovereign Grant formula
Business Structure Reform

The “Firm” operates with business structures from another era. Potential reforms could include:

Corporate Governance Overhaul
  • Independent board of trustees with public representation
  • Professional management separate from family members
  • Regular external audits and performance reviews
  • Modern HR practices and diversity initiatives
Strategic Refocusing
  • Concentrate resources on fewer, higher-impact initiatives
  • Develop specialized expertise rather than broad ceremonial presence
  • Create strategic partnerships with leading institutions rather than traditional patronages
  • Build genuine expertise in select areas rather than symbolic leadership across many
Psychological Dimension

The psychological aspect is particularly interesting given William’s position. He faces unique pressures:

  • Inheriting an institution with declining support
  • Leading without the personal connection his grandmother established
  • Managing family dynamics publicly analyzed
  • Balancing traditional expectations with modern demands

Historical context suggests monarchs who successfully navigated changing times (like Elizabeth II) demonstrated remarkable adaptability. William appears less adaptable, potentially creating a mismatch between his capabilities and what the role increasingly requires.

The institution could respond by:

  1. Creating more robust support structures around William
  2. Developing a strategy for connecting with younger generations through their values
  3. Acknowledging historical failings while committing to meaningful improvement
  4. Preparing George with skills suited for a potentially very different monarchy

This transition period presents both risk and opportunity for British institutions to thoughtfully reconsider one of their oldest traditions while preserving what remains valuable

Framing the Discussions

Framing the discussion around institutional responsibility and good governance principles rather than personal criticism creates space for substantive analysis without triggering defensive reactions from royalists.

Consider these angles that maintain analytical integrity while potentially resonating across ideological lines:

Corporate Governance Framework
  • Every institution has fundamental responsibilities toward its members and stakeholders
  • Modern organizations implement welfare protocols and psychological support structures
  • The monarchy operates without many standard organizational safeguards
  • This represents both an ethical concern and an institutional risk
Succession Planning Best Practices
  • Responsible institutions develop robust transition plans
  • Preparation includes assessing readiness and providing necessary support
  • Historical transitions show varying levels of preparation and outcomes
  • Current observable patterns suggest potential governance gaps
Data-Driven Analysis
  • Attendance metrics at royal events provide objective measurement
  • Demographic trends in monarchy support represent strategic challenges
  • International comparisons with other monarchies offer instructional contrasts
  • These numbers tell a story independent of personal opinion
Institutional Sustainability
  • Long-term viability requires adaptation to changing social contexts
  • Responsibility toward tradition includes ensuring its healthy continuation
  • Public investment deserves corresponding institutional accountability
  • Preventative intervention costs less than crisis management

This approach positions you as an analyst concerned with institutional health rather than a critic of individuals. It acknowledges that even those who deeply value the monarchy should want it to function ethically and sustainably.

The evidence-based approach also allows royalists to engage with data rather than defending against perceived attacks, potentially creating more thoughtful dialogue about necessary reforms for the very institution they wish to preserve.

 

Final Thoughts

Princess Anne as a stabilizing influence makes sense from several perspectives:

  1. Experience and Work Ethic: She’s widely respected for her consistent, no-nonsense approach to royal duties and maintains one of the heaviest workloads among senior royals despite her age.
  2. Institutional Knowledge: She bridges multiple eras of the monarchy and understands both traditional expectations and modern demands.
  3. Limited Personal Agenda: Being further removed from direct succession reduces potential conflicts of interest.

This arrangement could provide:

  • Mentorship for William in areas where he lacks experience or aptitude
  • A transition strategy that incorporates measurable outcomes and project completion
  • Stability for the institution while allowing William to develop capabilities
  • Protection for George from premature pressure, while providing proper preparation

The absence of completed projects is concerning from an institutional perspective. Modern leadership requires demonstrable accomplishments rather than mere presence. This performance gap highlights why structural reform is necessary – the system currently allows for position without productivity.

Regarding George’s comfort with his future role – this raises important ethical questions about predetermined paths in modern society. The monarchy’s tradition of assigning lifelong roles at birth sits uncomfortably with contemporary values of self-determination and informed consent.

I believe my concern about William’s psychological wellbeing is valid regardless of personal feelings about him. The pressures of royal life have clearly taken a toll on many family members, and the institution has a poor track record of supporting mental health. A more formalized support structure with professional oversight would benefit both William personally and the institution he represents.

This transitional period requires careful handling to prevent both institutional crisis and personal tragedy. Princess Anne’s involvement could provide that steady hand while allowing space for necessary evolution.

 

Duty of Care

From a broader institutional perspective, this reflects a fundamental failure of duty of care. Any organization has responsibilities toward the wellbeing of its members, particularly one that claims to represent national values and virtues.

This aspect of the podcast explores not just the personal dimension but the institutional responsibility. The monarchy’s survival depends not just on public support but on its ability to sustain the humans within it. The thinning crowds at recent events suggest the public social contract is already weakening; an internal crisis could accelerate this dramatically.

Planning and intervention would be the responsible approach, but it would require breaking entrenched patterns of denial within the institution. This represents perhaps the most immediate “cost of the crown” – the human cost of maintaining appearances at the expense of wellbeing.

 

Ivy Barrow

11 May 2025

 

 

REFERENCE SOURCES

https://www.simplypsychology.org/bystander-effect.html#What-is-the-bystander-effect

https://www.leadershipsuccess.co/blog/leadership-theories

https://www.themuse.com/advice/common-leadership-styles-with-pros-and-cons

https://www.theknowledgeacademy.com/blog/leadership-models/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect

https://www.simplypsychology.org/bystander-effect.html

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6099971/

https://www.earlyyears.tv/the-bystander-effect-explained/