Leadership is Coming: The Iron Throne vs. The Locker Room
- Catherine Addor
- Aug 24
- 3 min read
A former superintendent I once worked for told me (dead serious) and anyone who would listen, that Game of Thrones was their leadership map. This was back when the series was still new on the air, long before we all learned how it would end. They said it like it was wisdom, not a red flag.
Between meetings, they would rage-shift between emotions; one moment charming, the next moment ready to send someone to the metaphorical dungeon. They kept what they described as a “$h1t file” on every leader in the district. Every misstep, rumor, or disagreement went in, like holding a raven-scroll archive of enemies’ weaknesses “just in case” they needed to build a case against someone. Instead of forging alliances, they were stockpiling weapons. In the end, it was the very paranoia and mistrust they cultivated that brought them down.
Let’s be clear: Game of Thrones is not a management playbook. It’s a cautionary tale.
The show is a master class in what happens when leaders rule like it’s always wartime; treating every interaction as a battle, every colleague as a potential usurper, and every decision as a zero-sum fight for the Iron Throne. Yes, you might win a few wars. The kingdoms you leave behind will be burnt, broken, and leaderless.
In real organizations, that kind of “rule by fear” culture isn’t cinematic, it’s corrosive:
Fear drives silence, not innovation. People keep their heads down and avoid taking risks.
Politics replaces purpose. Turf protection crowds out mission-driven work.
Trust evaporates. Once it’s gone, it’s nearly impossible to rebuild.
The trap here is believing that “power” equals “influence.” Power can be seized; influence must be earned. The leaders who endure, who outlast both crises and rivals, are the ones who:
Build coalitions that can survive disagreement.
Lead with transparency, even when it’s uncomfortable.
Develop successors instead of eliminating them.
Invest in trust like it’s the most valuable currency they have (because it is).
I want to offer a counter. Have you watched Ted Lasso? If Game of Thrones leadership is about winning at all costs, Ted Lasso leadership is about winning together. In Westeros, people are seen as potential threats until they’ve proven loyalty again and again. In Richmond, people are trusted by default, with loyalty nurtured through consistent care and investment.
A Game of Thrones leader approaches conflict like a battlefield, seeking dominance and eliminating opposition. A Ted Lasso leader sees conflict as an opportunity for understanding, knowing that resolving differences strengthens the team.
Succession planning in Game of Thrones is nonexistent; potential rivals are removed before they have the chance to grow. In Ted Lasso, future leaders are intentionally developed, so the team’s success isn’t dependent on one person.
The culture that emerges in Westeros is one of fear, competition, and secrecy, where the only currency that matters is power and leverage. In Richmond, the culture is built on trust, collaboration, and openness, with relationships and belief as the most valuable assets.
And while Game of Thrones ends with burnt-out, fragmented kingdoms, Ted Lasso leaves us with resilient, united teams who can outlast any challenge. One style may secure you a throne; the other ensures you a legacy.
My former superintendent believed Game of Thrones was a leadership map. Watching how that played out (and how it ultimately led to downfall) was a reminder that the real “game” isn’t about holding power, it’s about earning trust. You can spend your career collecting enemies’ weaknesses and guarding the throne, or you can invest that same energy into building alliances and a culture that can thrive without you. Thrones eventually fall. The leaders who last are the ones who never needed one in the first place.
Comments