Imagine a scenario in which an individual gets up every day and goes to work in fear--in fear of performing the difficult tasks at work--in fear of the colleagues who perform better. The individual is in fear of the boss who is omnipotent, larger than life and constantly judging, evaluating, and sentencing employees to a lifetime of failure. The individual knows that someone is going down, and at any moment, it is likely the individual will hear those dreaded words, "You're fired!" This is not Donald Trump's reality television program, "The Apprentice." Although it follows a similar formula, this is the reality of public school teachers on a daily basis obliged to follow the fear-inducing mandates of the "No Child Left Behind Act" of 2001 (2002). Like Donald Trump, the "No Child Left Behind Act" compels the managers of schools, superintendents and principals, to use hierarchy, competition, and fear to motivate their most important employees, the teachers. The consequences of this Dissonant Leadership in business are questionable and in education, they are devastating. In Part I of this article, I explain the theory of Primal Leadership and Dissonant Leadership (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002). In Part II, I enunciate the ways in which key "No Child Left Behind Act" provisions encourage and, in some cases, mandate that schools utilize Dissonant Leadership strategies. In Part III, I explain why the Dissonant Leadership strategies espoused by the "No Child Left Behind Act" undermine the purported purposes of the statute. In Part IV, I consider the ability of an education statute to mandate or encourage Primal Leadership strategies. (Contains 2 notes.)