One of the sections of Kouzes and Posner's book The Leadership Challenge that resonates for many individuals is the first leadership challenge - Model the Way. Unless you've lived your life under a rock, you've likely heard the phrase that "actions speak louder than words" and that the way to judge anyone is by what she/he does, not what they say. Both history and modern day are filled with great examples of leaders whose daily actions and lives set the tone for others in their organization. Warren Buffet lives modestly in Omaha, NE, doesn't go out of his way to call attention to himself, and is generous in giving credit for success to others within Berkshire Hathaway. Steve Jobs showed a generation what is was like to succeed, fail, be fired, and succeed again all while being true to himself. History is filled with leaders who led by example, from such diverse personalities as Jesus, Mohammed, Nelson Mandela and Gandhi to George Washington and General Patton. The message was different, but the values were a perfect fit for the context. We typically think of someone who is modeling the way as setting a positive example. But is it possible to model the way by setting a negative example? I think the answer is "yes," it is possible for someone to negatively model the way. Anyone who has grown up in a dysfunctional household understands that negative modeling often influences the behaviors of children, though not always in predictable ways. Some children raised in houses where a parent has a problem with alcohol also grow up to be alcoholics, while others grow up to help alcoholics. In a business setting, does negative modeling exist? The answer may depend on your perspective. 20th century philosopher Ayn (pronounced Eye-n) Rand developed a philosophy that has come to be known as ethical egoism. The crux of ethical egoism works like this: Each individual is first and foremost responsible for his/her own actions, and this is necessary is a society characterized by free will. When each person seeks to maximize his/her own interests, each individual will also exert an amount of effort to maintain/improve a position that is satisfactory to that individual. If someone wants more, they work more or take more risks (and potentially fail), but if someone is interested in merely maintain their standing, they will presumably work less or risk less to do so. One of the central tenants of ethical egoism is that each of us is not responsible for others. When the burden of responsibility of one person is placed on another, Rand concluded, one person who is responsible works harder and receives less, while the other receiving person has less incentive to work. Ethical egoism would suggest there's nothing wrong with helping someone less fortunate under Rand's philosophy, but that is a choice, not an ethical obligation. (I don't agree with this, but that's the philosophy.) So what does that have to do with anything? Simple. Behavior that might be viewed as negative modeling (maximizing return for yourself while showing little regard for how it impacts others) might actually be viewed by others as appropriate behavior under Rand's ethical egoism philosophy. What someone might see as negative modeling might be perceived as an appropriate behavior by others under this emerging school of philosophy. Beginning in 2007, Mylan CEO Heather Bresch increased the price of EpiPens from $56.64 to $317.82 by 2016, in which her compensation package also increased from $2.4 million per year to $18.9 million. (Ms. Bresch is the daughter of Senator Joe Manchin, D-West Virginia) "Pharma bro" Martin Shkreli bought the HIV treatment drug Daraprim in 2015, then increased the price per pill from $13.50 to $750. (While Mr. Shkreli did go to prison for fraud, it was not directly related to his pricing decisions. In 1991, casino magnate Donald Trump bid $11.5 million for his hotel to host the first heavyweight title fight offered on pay-per view (Evander Holyfield vs. George Foreman). During the previous summer, the US had invaded Kuwait to drive Saddam Hussein's forces out of that country.) The fight generated a great deal of publicity for Mr. Trump and his casino/hotel, the Taj Mahal in Atlantic City, and the fight eventually filled the hotel and casino for a week with guests and gamblers. Two weeks before the fight, Trump unilaterally reneged on the deal claiming an "act of war clause" (There was no fighting - US troops at this point were simply stationed in Kuwait, and it's not like anyone was ever invading Atlantic City) violated the terms of the contract, so instead of paying $11.5 million, he would only pay $1 million and give the promoters money from hotel rooms ($8 million), and if they didn't like it, they could find another location and sue him. In the end, the promoters had no choice but to agree to being swindled, since the losses incurred by changing locations would have been greater that what they lost to Mr. Trump. Do these actions indicate negative modeling? Or do these actions suggest that "modeling the way" is more complicated and a function of how someone interprets a leader's actions? It's important to recognize that no one broke any criminal laws, and if there is a violation of civil statute there is a procedure for that, which is civil court. In each case, each individual acted in his/her own self-interest.