The cherry on top is not always as delicious as it beckons you to believe. Those who look up to their leaders as infallible are often too soon disillusioned by their fallacies, double standard and hypocrisy being the most common of them.

Mr Johnson, a prominent board member, would always iterate that their corporate governance upholds strict policies, leaving no room for corruption or unethical conduct. In fact, that is the mantra of any board member. But we all know how the so-called ethical standards can fly out of the window when the ground beneath the feet gets rough.

Mr Johnson was a partner from an audit firm and joined the group company as an independent director. Now, the group appoints him at different subsidiaries on remuneration, which comes at the cost of losing his independence immediately.

Two such subsidiaries happen to be inter-dependent, and in one of them, say Company A, the shareholders have more interest than the other subsidiary, Company B.

Now, Mr Johnson pushes for the interest of Company A for obvious reasons while sitting at board meetings of Company A. He can also be found threatening the local management for not fulfilling the demand of Company A. He gets away with this malpractice because he enjoys support from a particular section at the head office.

In another case of inquiry, Mr Johnson is simultaneously the chairman of a subsidiary, the chairman of a defalcation committee in the group office, and an independent board member of the group.

When an allegation is raised against Ms Tailor, a senior manager of the subsidiary, Mr Johnson, with the support of the head office, manipulates and reports the case to the group and the local boards. Sensing foul play, Ms Tailor lodges a formal complaint against him to the board.

In response, in compliance with the local law, an independent inquiry committee, comprising board members only, is formed, excluding Johnson. Realising how the investigation was going against his conspiracy, a situation was orchestrated that saw the enquiry committee's chairman quitting and paving the way for Johnson to replace him to gain complete control once again.

Understanding the meaning and implication of terms such as conflict of interest, segregation of duties, and process and system fairness is known to Mr Johnson like the back of their hands. Why do they deviate from the ethical standards they claim to be masters of?

If you look around, many such powerful leaders in the corporate and global and local political arena are engaged in playing dual games. For example, the US and its allies champion human rights, the UN Charter and other international agreements upholding justice. But they are often found playing to a different tune.

In 1994, a military intervention against Rwanda's genocide was promised but never materialised. In 2003, the US invaded Iraq on the pretext of having weapons of mass destruction. But no such weapons were ever found. The US and its allies support Israel in violation of the UN Charter in ethnically cleansing Palestine. Don't they know their shameful acts? Of course, they do.

People in power have often demonstrated to practise double standards as if the rules they set do not apply to them. Reasons behind this trend are possibly a manipulative mindset for self-interest, ego, arrogance, and collective social or political pressure, among others.

A hypocritical leader is someone who promises you a bridge when there is no river. These leaders are often dishonest and self-serving, and in dealing with them, one should be as direct as possible, trusting gut instincts and setting clear boundaries.

In any leadership, accountability plays a pivotal role in ensuring leaders live up to the standards they profess. We should also be wary of the role of media and other institutions that enable leaders to say one thing and do another. By being informed and engaged citizens, we can choose to create a more honest and ethical world.

The author is founder and managing director of BuildCon Consultancies Ltd