We are living through a paradigm shift.
We are rethinking the value of projects, products — and even progress itself.

Concepts such as sustainability, circular economy, and regeneration are increasingly mentioned, yet often confused. Understanding them — and knowing how to integrate them — is essential for leaders who aim to create systemic value and a living legacy.

Sustainability

Baseline Responsibility
Meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs.

Goal: Minimize harm
Example: Reduce emissions, save energy, ensure fair labor conditions

Sustainability focuses on doing no further harm. It’s essential — but insufficient if we truly want to transform systems.
Inspired by the Brundtland Report (1987), it represents the ethical minimum in a changing world.

Circular Economy

Smart Model
Inspired by nature, the circular economy redesigns processes to eliminate the concept of waste.

Goal: Close loops of materials and energy
Example: Modular, recyclable products with reverse logistics

More than efficiency, circularity builds strategic resilience. It’s not just about reuse — it’s about systems thinking.
As the Ellen MacArthur Foundation puts it: “decoupling economic growth from the extraction of finite resources.”

Regeneration

Transformative Legacy
To regenerate is to create net positive impact. It’s not enough to sustain or circulate — we must restore and evolve.

Goal: Revitalize ecosystems and communities
Example: Restore soil health, empower local producers, uplift cultural traditions

Regeneration means co-creating with living systems — where each project becomes a living system with identity, purpose, and place.
As Daniel Christian Wahl states, “it’s not just about doing less harm — it’s about designing for healing and transformation.”

Strategic Comparison

Integrated Example: From Responsibility to Legacy

The Eileen Fisher fashion brand:

- Sustainable, by reducing emissions and using certified organic cotton
- Circular, by designing modular, recyclable clothing with reverse logistics
- Regenerative, by restoring soil health, supporting farming communities, and promoting local artisanal techniques

It doesn’t just produce — it transforms.

Recognizing the Journey: Real Challenges, Greater Purpose

The shift toward regenerative models requires vision and courage. It involves:

• Systemic complexity
• Cultural resistance
• Lack of standardized regenerative metrics
• Short-term costs and uncertainty

Yet each of these challenges is also an opportunity for bold leadership and long-term vision.

Practical Checklist: From Sustainability to Regeneration

Conclusion: From KPIs to Living Ecosystems

The future of projects lies not just in delivering on time —but in delivering something truly worth existing.

Sustainable = reduce harm
Circular = close loops
Regenerative = bring life and redesign tomorrow

What now?

What regenerative practices can your organization begin today?

What local partnerships could revitalize territory, culture, and biodiversity?

Are you ready to lead projects that plant seeds of lasting impact — not just deliverables?

Every project can be a seed of the future.
The leadership our planet needs starts with bold purpose, clear vision, and courageous action.

1. The Unfulfilled Promise

The 21st century began with bold promises.

We pledged more empathy, more listening, more care.

Technology, we said, would liberate us from repetitive tasks, allowing us to focus on what makes us human: connection, compassion, presence.

Organizations promised to put people — especially customers — at the center.

Leaders vowed to lead with greater awareness.

Diversity and inclusion would become real practice, not corporate slogans.

But somewhere along the way, the promise faded.

Technology advanced.

Efficiency accelerated.

But humanity fell behind.

What created this gap?

Let’s explore what was promised, what we’re experiencing, and how we can reclaim what matters most.

2. The Recommended Behaviors

Across corporate manifestos, leadership frameworks, and culture codes, we see a familiar list of modern ideals:

• Listen more than you speak, and do so with genuine attention.
• Practice empathy, seeing the person behind the role.
• Treat customers as individuals, not just metrics.
• Be present as a leader, not merely productive.
• Create psychologically safe environments, where people feel free to speak and be heard.
• Honor diversity as enrichment, not checkbox compliance.
• Engage in courageous conversations, with honesty and care.
• Lead with care, presence, and intention.

That is the theory that inspires.

But between discourse and practice, there is often a deep disconnect.

3. The Observed Behaviors

Reality paints a very different picture.

Sarah, a loyal customer, once spent 20 minutes trapped in a chatbot loop trying to resolve a minor billing issue.

No human handoff.

No recognition of her frustration.

No apology.

Later, she said, “I didn’t feel mistreated — I felt invisible.”

John, a committed team member, submitted thoughtful feedback during a project review.

It was never acknowledged.

Not even a “thank you.”

When asked later why he stopped contributing ideas, he replied,

“I realized I was speaking into a void.”

These stories are not rare.

• Customers waiting endlessly for basic acknowledgment.
• Colleagues discouraged from speaking up.
• Managers delegating without presence.
• Employees reduced to dashboards and deadlines.
• Culture statements that promise empathy, but practices that deliver silence.
• Automation that mimics care but leaves no room for connection.

What’s being eroded is not just efficiency — it’s a shared human need for warmth and recognition.

The age of empathy has been replaced by the age of self-service.

The culture of care has become the culture of clicking.

4. The Role of Chatbots (and How to Use Them Wisely)

Chatbots and digital assistants were designed to enhance service, streamline tasks, and make space for human connection.

When implemented thoughtfully, they do just that.

But when poorly applied, they become walls of indifference.

• Customers pleading for help receive robotic replies.
• Emotional signals go unrecognized.
• Complaints are closed with “your feedback matters” — but nothing changes.

The failure isn’t technological.

It’s strategic and cultural.

Some organizations are redefining the balance.

Zappos empowers its service agents to spend as long as needed with a customer — not to hit a KPI, but to resolve, connect, and build trust.

Starbucks teaches frontline staff to create brief but sincere moments of warmth and recognition in each customer interaction.

Amazon, despite its scale, ensures that high-friction or high-emotion cases escalate to human support with urgency and care.

These aren’t luxuries.

They are strategic choices to prioritize the human experience.

5. The Cost of Not Treating

Worse than mistreatment is not treating at all — acting as if the other person doesn’t exist.

Unanswered messages.

Unacknowledged contributions.

Unresolved frustrations.Invisible effort.

These silences send a message louder than words.

• Customers walk away from brands that never saw them.
• Talented professionals disengage in organizations where they don’t feel heard.
• Reputations erode slowly — and then all at once — when neglect becomes the norm.
• Organizations grow in numbers, but shrink in meaning.

In a world where offerings are increasingly commoditized, how we treat people becomes the ultimate differentiator.

6. What We Can Still Do

If the 21st century promised greater humanity, we still have time to deliver on that promise.

To treat is more than to complete a task.It’s to recognize the human in front of us.

To be present — even digitally.To turn efficiency into empathy, and process into presence.

Here are three practical actions your organization can take now:

Dedicate 10 minutes daily to a genuine, undistracted conversation — with a customer, a colleague, or a team member.

Configure your systems to detect repeated complaints, long wait times, or emotionally loaded language — and ensure human follow-up within 24 hours.

Create rituals of recognition: Start meetings with a genuine check-in or moment of appreciation. Build rhythms that restore connection.

In today’s world of velocity and automation, human warmth is not nostalgic — it’s essential.

Kindness isn’t extra.

It’s part of the experience you deliver.

7. Conclusion: The Future Can Still Be Human

Ignoring someone.

Not listening.

Choosing silence over care —These are not small lapses.

They are decisions. 

And they shape culture, loyalty, and leadership — often irreversibly.

But there is another path.

Organizations around the world are redesigning how they serve, lead, and relate.

Not just to meet goals — but to create spaces where people are seen, heard, and valued.

Because the future of leadership, service, and experiencewon’t be defined by more automation —but by more presence.

Final Reflection

In your organization, what do you observe more often: the behaviors we declare — or the ones we actually practice?

Share a moment of human-centered action that made a difference — or one you wish to bring to life.

This isn’t just a strategic shift.

It’s what makes us human.

“The question is no longer whether algorithms manipulate. It’s how, why — and in whose favor”

But there’s an essential correction to make here:
Algorithms don’t manipulate. They are manipulated.

They have no intention.

They choose no targets.
They merely execute — with blind precision — what humans have decided to program, train, and deploy.

The Illusion of Technological Neutrality

In the dominant narrative, algorithms appear as impartial, rational, efficient entities.
But that is a comfortable — and misleading — story.

What an algorithm considers “success” depends entirely on who configures it:

• A chatbot can be trained to help — or to wear the customer down until they give up.
• A triage system can prioritize urgency — or protect the budget.
• An AI can learn to facilitate — or to gently deter with calculated politeness.

None of this is accidental.
It is strategic design.

Algorithmic Manipulation as Business Practice

When a chatbot:

• denies refunds without clear explanation,
• responds with polite but empty messages,
• or automatically closes tickets without resolution...

…it’s not a system error.
It’s a system designed to fail in the company’s favor.

Real example: airlines and automated refunds

During the pandemic — and even after — many passengers reported similar experiences: they tried to cancel flights or request refunds but were met by chatbots that redirected, delayed, or automatically closed their cases. The responses were polite but repetitive. The human contact channel was hidden or inaccessible. In some cases, the same customer received multiple contradictory replies from the bot, none of them truly helpful.

The result? Exhaustion, frustration, financial loss — and the companies kept the money for the tickets.
All of this was operated by a system that clearly didn’t fail: it worked exactly as it was designed to.
Not to resolve — but to passively resist, until the customer surrendered.

And worse: this practice hasn’t stopped.
Even today, millions of customers face this silent manipulation, disguised as courteous automation.
The chatbot has become the digital curtain behind which refusal to listen, act, or take responsibility hides.

The Customer Becomes a Prisoner of Invisible Rules

We are living in a new asymmetry of power:

• The customer can’t see the code.
• Doesn’t understand the logic.
• Can’t audit the decisions.
• And has no one to turn to.

Meanwhile, the company hides behind the machine:

• “We’re sorry, but the system doesn’t allow it…”

• “We are analyzing your request…”

• “Forwarded to the responsible department…”

But no one takes responsibility.

Algorithmic Politeness as a Containment Strategy

Manipulation isn’t only functional — it’s emotional.
The bot’s language is built to:

• Avoid confrontation;
• Numb frustration;
• Delay action.

• It doesn’t say “no.” It says “please wait.”

• It doesn’t deny. It says “we are checking.”

• It doesn’t escape. It says “ticket automatically closed.”

This polite evasion is often the digital face of an organization without the courage to listen.

The Use of Algorithms to Hide Incompetence (or Negligence)

There’s an even more uncomfortable layer to this:
Often, algorithms aren’t used to improve customer experience — but to hide internal failures.

When the chatbot prevents human contact, what’s being concealed isn’t just cost.
It may be the lack of clear processes, unprepared teams, disconnected departments,
or even decisions that no one wants to own.

Technology then ceases to be a solution — and becomes an elegant screen for organizational incompetence.
The chatbot smiles, replies… and shields the operational void behind it.

Who Should Be Held Responsible?

The chatbot is not to blame.
Responsibility lies with those who trained it, approved it, and profit from its operation.

We must name:

• The managers who defined “efficiency” targets.
• The leaders who decided containment was more important than resolution.
• The organizations that prioritize appearance over integrity.

Paths Toward Algorithmic Ethics

It’s not enough to demand technical transparency.
We must demand human transparency behind the technology:

• Who defines the algorithm’s rules?
• What are the real objectives of the automation?
• Where is the human appeal channel?
• How is the ethical impact of the automated decision measured?

Conclusion: The Code Is Not Innocent

Algorithmic manipulation is now one of the greatest challenges in organizational ethics.
Not because the code is evil —
but because those who control it can choose to use it as a weapon, not a tool.

If we want to trust digital systems,
we must first trust that there are brave, ethical, and accountable people behind them.

Because in the end, the chatbot doesn’t lie.
The lie comes from those who trained it to disguise the truth.

And you — have you been manipulated by an algorithm today?

The answer might be yes — and you didn’t even notice.
If we want an ethical digital future, we must stop blaming the code.
We must expose those who profit from the opacity.

Because what’s at stake isn’t just efficiency.
It’s the integrity of the relationship between organizations and people.

Technology without ethics is just power, poorly disguised.

“Do as I say, not as I do.”

This maxim, almost a cynical proverb, defines organizations that treat ethics as decoration: flashy, but irrelevant when pressure mounts. Codes of ethics shine on websites and in speeches, but crumble in practice. This article explores how ethics becomes elastic, governance turns into a façade, and integrity becomes an illusion — and proposes concrete paths to change this scenario.

1. Codes of Ethics: Paper Promises

Every organization displays a code of ethics. It appears in training sessions, annual reports, and corporate portals. But what happens when values are tested?

In 2015, Volkswagen promoted sustainability while manipulating emissions tests in the Dieselgate scandal (EPA, 2015). An employee who sends an inappropriate email faces immediate warning. An executive who falsifies reports? “Let’s analyze it calmly.” This selective justice is not a flaw — it’s a pattern that protects those at the top.

Max Bazerman and Ann Tenbrunsel, in Blind Spots (Princeton University Press, 2011), analyzed 200 executives and found that 70% rationalize ethical deviations under financial pressure. The code of ethics, in such cases, is just an ornament.

2. Governance: Mirror or Shield?

If codes of ethics fail, governance should align values and actions. Instead, it often serves as a shield to protect leaders.

Consider a fictional tech company in 2025 that boasts ESG goals to attract investors but ignores harassment complaints. That’s not governance — that’s situational ethics, shaped by convenience. A Deloitte study (2024) revealed that 65% of global employees distrust corporate codes of ethics, citing lack of transparency as the main reason.

Lynn Paine, in Managing for Organizational Integrity (Harvard Business Review, 1994), argues:

“Governance is only real when it protects principles, not people in power.”

Without this, internal and external trust erodes, leading to turnover, burnout, and reputation crises amplified on social media.

3. Selective Justice: Double Standards

Internal justice operates at different speeds. An employee makes a mistake? Immediate punishment. A leader fails? Strategic delay emerges: “We need more data” or “Let’s form a committee.”

In 2018, Uber faced harassment allegations ignored for years, while leadership received million-dollar bonuses (New York Times, 2018). In public institutions — such as in Brazil — corruption scandals often "wait" decades for judgment (Transparency International, 2024). Even in religious organizations, abuse cases were covered up for decades to “protect the reputation” (Boston Globe, 2002).

This hierarchy of punishment sends a clear message: title matters more than values. The result? Demotivation and cynicism become culture.

4. Leadership and Situational Ethics

Leaders are masters at reshaping principles under pressure. Ann Tenbrunsel and David Messick (Social Justice Research, 2004) show that in ambiguous contexts, 80% of managers justify deviations with phrases like “It was just this once” or “That’s how the market works.”

Imagine a manager who overlooks a compliance failure to “protect the team.” He doesn’t break ethics — he stretches it until it loses shape. Over time, these rationalizations become routine. Phrases like “Everyone does it” or “It’s technically legal” enter corporate vocabulary.

A tech company that promotes “diversity” in campaigns but maintains a homogenous leadership team exemplifies this contradiction. The base observes, learns, and repeats: “It’s just for show.” The cost? Loss of talent and innovation, plus social media-driven reputation crises.

5. Ethics in the Age of AI: A New Challenge

In 2025, organizational ethics faces an unprecedented challenge: artificial intelligence. Decision-making algorithms — used in hiring or performance evaluations — can perpetuate ethical biases if not audited. A 2023 MIT study showed that 60% of AI-based recruitment tools favored candidates from specific demographic profiles, even without explicit intention.

This new frontier demands ethics beyond static codes. Organizations must integrate algorithmic audits and value pacts co-created at all levels, challenging the traditional top-down ethics model.

6. Three Steps Toward Living Ethics

Changing this scenario requires courage and action. Here are three practical steps, with verifiable examples and recognized barriers:

Inspiring Leadership

Leaders must live the values, even under pressure. In 2022, Patagonia donated its company to environmental causes, prioritizing principles over profits (Patagonia, 2022). Barrier: Fear of financial loss. Solution: Link bonuses to ethical metrics, such as transparency indexes.

Governance Without Masks

Transparent processes are essential. Salesforce publishes annual ethics reports (Stakeholder Impact Report, 2024), detailing complaints and actions, without shielding executives. Organizations can create anonymous whistleblower channels with 30-day response targets, audited by external firms. Barrier: Internal resistance to audits. Solution: Offer virtual reality training to simulate ethical dilemmas, increasing engagement.

Justice Without Double Clocks

Ethics must be agile and equal. Unilever punishes supplier violations within weeks (Unilever, 2024). Internally, companies can review their codes of ethics every two years with input from all levels and use blockchain to track ethical decisions. Barrier: Implementation costs. Solution: Partner with tech startups to reduce expenses.

Conclusion: Ethics Is Action, Not Performance

Hannah Arendt, in Eichmann in Jerusalem (Companhia das Letras, 1963), warned:

Evil settles in when small transgressions become routine.

In 2025, with social media amplifying scandals and society demanding transparency, elastic ethics is unsustainable. Organizations that choose ethical consistency will lead the next decade — strengthening not only their reputations, but trust in global institutions.

Leaders, review your processes tomorrow. Employees, demand transparency today. Integrity starts with you.

References

• Bazerman, M., & Tenbrunsel, A. (2011). Blind Spots. Princeton University Press.
• Paine, L. S. (1994). Managing for Organizational Integrity. Harvard Business Review.
• Tenbrunsel, A., & Messick, D. (2004). Ethical Fading. Social Justice Research.
• Arendt, H. (1963). Eichmann in Jerusalem. Companhia das Letras.
• EPA. (2015). Volkswagen Clean Air Act Violations.
• New York Times. (2018). Uber’s Culture of Sexual Harassment.
• Boston Globe. (2002). Catholic Church Abuse Scandal.
• Deloitte. (2024). Global Trust in Corporate Ethics Survey.
• MIT. (2023). Bias in AI Recruitment Tools.
• Patagonia. (2022). Ownership Transfer Announcement.
• Salesforce. (2024). Stakeholder Impact Report.
• Unilever. (2024). Supplier Compliance Report.
• Transparency International. (2024). Corruption Perceptions Index.

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