Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World

Chapter 4 deepens the discussion of thought leadership, a concept first touched on in Chapter 3. Giridharadas implies that while thought leaders are treated as though they’re sources of strategies, tools, and methods that can provide wisdom to entrepreneurs and other leaders, they’re highly influenced by MarketWorld’s expectations. Cuddy and other thought leaders admit to watering down their ideas to align with what’s acceptable to elites. For example, Cuddy is known in her field of sociology for developing insightful critiques of gender inequality and related issues. Nevertheless, when she’s selected to speak to a group of elites, she doesn’t talk about a topic like gender inequality in the workplace but instead gives a presentation on how choosing certain body language can increase confidence. Giridharadas’ argument isn’t a critique of Cuddy alone. Instead, he demonstrates that this practice of tailoring ideas to conform to elites’ expectations and comfort zones is widespread. In Chapter 6, for instance, he shows that Darren Walker, CEO of The Ford Foundation, finds himself dulling the edge of his sharp critique of elite philanthropy when speaking to a private equity firm.

Chapter 4 argues that elites have certain taboos—topics which must be avoided—as well as certain expectations about the way in which ideas must be framed. Most significantly, one can’t allude to the existence of inequality, as Cuddy’s sociological work does. Inequality suggests win-lose situations. Since elites favor win-win thinking, the topic of inequality must be avoided, and any idea suggesting inequality must be re-spun as a win-win opportunity. Thus, Cuddy can’t talk to elites about how business culture tends to code certain body language as feminine and view it—and the input of the person showcasing that body language—as inferior. Instead, Cuddy can only say that using certain postures (implicitly accepted as favorable in business culture) will increase confidence.

In addition, Giridharadas argues that elites tend to be more accepting of critical ideas and potential problems when they’re framed in terms of individuals, rather than structures like institutions or socioeconomic classes. Seeing social, economic, or political issues in terms of individuals can help one realize the significance of the issue, but the danger is that this framing will cause one to see the problem in a limited way: only as it affects them, and not the rest of the world, a concept known “Pinkering” the problem (named after psychologist Steven Pinker).