Leading in Times of Transition: Multiple Scenarios for a Multiple World

Email Notifications

SHARE
Request to reuse this

We live in an era where the idea of "leadership" is being profoundly redefined.

For decades, organizations promoted brilliant technical professionals into leadership roles, assuming that individual performance translated directly into leadership competence.

But the world has changed — and so have the demands of leadership.

Yet we are not witnessing a clean replacement of an outdated model by a definitive new one.

What we see instead is a tense and dynamic coexistence of multiple scenarios, where different approaches to leadership coexist, clash, learn from one another — or are simply ignored.

Narrative Vignette: Ana's Story

Imagine Ana, a manager in a startup that grew too fast.

Promoted for her technical expertise and dedication, Ana was thrown into a leadership position without preparation. In the first months, she fell into the trap of micromanagement: she needed to ensure results and doubted her team's maturity.

Everything changed when she decided to listen. In an informal meeting, her team shared how controlled and demotivated they felt.

Instead of becoming defensive, Ana listened in silence. In the following months, she began to distribute decision-making, facilitated cross-team dialogue, and supported team development.

She transitioned from a tense manager to a trust-based facilitator. In less than six months, innovation increased, errors decreased — and the team thrived.

That transition — from the "Tactical Hybrid" to the "Conscious Transition" — wasn’t perfect. But it was real. And deeply transformative.

1. The Legacy: Modernized Command and Control

Here we find the traditional model, still dominant in many industrial, financial, and public sectors. Promotions are based on technical performance, and leadership is carried out through formal authority, delegation, and control.

Even with modernization efforts (OKRs, collaborative platforms, "leadership" programs), the logic remains top-down.

Outcome: Efficiency in stable contexts, but poor adaptability and a loss of creative talent.

Example: A traditional industrial unit where decisions are made exclusively by senior management, and innovation is constrained by rigid hierarchy.

Reflection Question: How does the command-and-control model impact talent retention in your organization?

2. The Tactical Hybrid: Agile Rhetoric, Rigid Structure

The rhetoric is about agility, autonomy, and innovation.

But in practice, structures remain control-centric, with broken promises of empowerment.

Technical experts are promoted with contradictory expectations: to deliver results and inspire people — but without real autonomy.

Outcome: Frustrated new leaders, cultural misalignment, and micromanagement disguised as collaboration.

Example: A tech company that superficially adopts Scrum but where all decisions are reviewed and approved by senior leadership.

Reflection Question: What barriers are preventing your team from experiencing true autonomy?

3. The Conscious Transition: Learning Structures

These organizations are still structured, but they’ve learned through their struggles.

They began listening more, observing the field (gemba), and creating space for emerging leadership. They develop relational capacities, promote 360º feedback, and value collective intelligence.

Outcome: Sustainable evolution, more authentic leadership, and progressive cultural improvement.

Example: A service company that implemented regular retrospectives, active team listening, and collaborative process redesign.

Reflection Question: What practices has your organization already adopted to listen to the ground and enable emerging leadership?

4. The Living Network: Emergent and Contextual Leadership

Inspired by models like Team of Teams, Teal organizations, and Farmer Leadership, these organizations operate as adaptive networks.

Leadership is fluid, earned through relationships, real-time decision-making, and relational presence.

Outcome: High resilience, distributed trust, and continuous learning. People follow leaders because they trust them — not because they must.

Example: Buurtzorg (Netherlands), where self-managed nursing teams make collective decisions and support one another horizontally.

Reflection Question: Who is recognized as an informal leadership reference on your team — and why?

5. Experimental Models: Spotify, Holacracy, and Others

Some organizations have gone beyond adaptive networks and created their own models.

Spotify, with its squads, tribes, and chapters, proposes a hybrid model of self-organization and strong alignment.

Holacracy, on the other hand, eliminates formal roles and distributes dynamic responsibilities.

Outcome: Structural innovation, but also significant challenges of clarity, integration, and cultural sustainability.

Example: Growing startups adopting the Spotify model but struggling with coordination between tribes in the absence of clear leadership.

Reflection Question: Is your organizational model aligned with your cultural maturity level?

6. The Illusion of Leadership: Hiding the Sun with a Sieve

In this scenario, leadership pretends everything is fine. It avoids conflict, sweeps problems under the rug, and maintains a surface of normalcy. It doesn’t face reality — it manages perceptions.

• Avoids discomfort with reality.

• Generates organizational cynicism.

• Loses moral authority.

Outcome: A toxic culture of silence, mistrust, and emotional exhaustion. Apparent leadership, not transformative.

Example: A company where reports are "adjusted" to appear positive and leaders avoid difficult conversations to preserve their image.

Reflection Question: Are there topics your leadership avoids addressing with transparency?

Possible Transitions: How to Evolve Between Scenarios

Organizations are not trapped in a single scenario.

They can — and should — evolve.

For example:

• From the Tactical Hybrid to the Conscious Transition, by investing in real listening and progressive autonomy.

• From the Legacy to the Living Network, starting with small cells of distributed leadership.

This transition requires awareness, patience, and strategic intention. It’s not about changing everything at once — it’s about allowing new patterns to emerge and take root.

Quick Self-Assessment Guide

Answer with "Yes" or "No" to each item:

• Does your organization promote based on technical competence?

• Is there micromanagement disguised as empowerment?

• Are there real spaces for listening and emergent leadership?

• Do we follow formal leaders or people who inspire trust?

• Do we cover up problems to maintain the appearance of normality?

This initial diagnosis can help locate your reality — and provoke the next step.

Conclusion: Leadership Is About Recognizing the Ground

The question is not whether command-and-control still exists.

Of course it does.

The real question is: which of these scenarios is your organization consciously cultivating — and which are you tolerating by inertia?

In a world where leadership must be exercised with humanity, clarity, and collaboration, perhaps the most urgent shift is not structural — but a shift in consciousness.

"Leadership doesn’t begin with a title.

It begins with how we become a source of clarity, courage, and care in the systems we serve."

Call to Action:

Share this article with your team.

Read it together.

Ask: Which scenario are we living in?

And which one do we want to create together?

Glossary of Terms

• OKRs: Objectives and Key Results — a method for defining and tracking goals.

• Team of Teams: A leadership model based on trust and interdependence (McChrystal).

• Holacracy: An organizational structure with distributed roles and autonomous management.

• Farmer Leadership: A leadership metaphor that cultivates, sustains, and develops people with patience and purpose (inspired by farming).

• Gemba: Japanese term for "the place where work happens," emphasizing direct observation and presence at the source of value creation.

• Hiding the sun with a sieve: An idiom meaning to avoid facing real problems by disguising or minimizing critical situations.

If this reflection resonates with you, share it: which scenario do you see yourself in?

And what kind of leadership do you want to help shape?

    Comparative table of leadership scenarios