Leadership, AI, and the Expanding Shoreline of Ignorance
“As the island of knowledge grows, so does the shoreline of ignorance” - John Archibald Wheeler
AI should make leaders feel both excited and uncomfortable. Excited, because capability is accelerating at extraordinary speed. Uncomfortable, because every gain in knowledge reveals how much we still do not understand. Yet there is a risk: leaders reaching for the problems of yesterday with the tools of tomorrow.
The seduction of the solution
AI can sometimes look like a solution frantically searching for a problem: a new model, a new release, a new promise. Meanwhile, many organisations are still wrestling with timeless, stubborn, human challenges: -
alignment
clarity
trust
decision rights
capability
culture
No algorithm holistically solves those. If anything, the technology amplifies them.
We have been here before
the printing press
commercial radio
the internet
the smartphone
social media
Each innovation arrived wrapped in utopian optimism and existential dread. Each triggered predictions of transformation, replacement and upheaval. Older generations saw threat, whilst younger generations saw opportunity.
In the end, each became embedded not through technical adoption and disruption alone, but through human adaptation. So the question I keep returning to is: will AI be different?
What leaders are actually for
In periods of rapid technological change, leadership becomes less about answers and more about sensemaking: -
providing wayfinding
reducing confusion
helping people build a coherent picture of what might be possible tomorrow — today
However, alignment is rarer than leaders think. A magazine once asked executives from 600 companies to estimate how many employees could name their organisation’s top three priorities: -
Leaders guessed 64% of employees knew
Less than 2% of employees actually could
If we struggle to align on today, why do we assume we are ready to align on artificial intelligence and tomorrow?
The map problem
Leaders assume others see what they see. They don’t. Organisations are full of people making good decisions according to different maps.
Now add in AI: -
more tools
more information
more autonomy
and often less explainability.
Unless leaders close the map gap, complexity multiplies. Which leads to the uncomfortable question: If people hold fundamentally different views of what matters most, whose priorities are actually driving decisions — and how would anyone know?
Human scale problems, human scale solutions
Most organisational problems are either one-to-one or one-to-many: -
understanding
interaction
empowerment
facilitation
AI can support, but leadership must still lead. So instead of hunting for a round hole for a square peg, start with the human setting: -
where is friction?
where is time lost?
what judgment is difficult?
what knowledge is trapped?
Then ask how AI might could help.
The opportunity in front of us
Perhaps the most powerful use of AI for leaders is not automation. It is collaboration: -
enhancing foresight
testing scenarios
exploring consequences
challenging assumptions
Not replacing judgment — strengthening it.
The map is not the territory
We face not only a map problem, but a deeper truth: the map is not the territory.
Models, dashboards and descriptions are representations of reality — not reality itself. So leaders must provide direction by creating: -
clearer priorities
shared language
visible measures
better questions
investment in literacy
ethical guardrails
permission to experiment
Do that, and the technology will finally have somewhere useful to land.
The island of knowledge is growing.
So is the shoreline of ignorance.
Leadership lives on that shoreline.
Zombie Leadership: When Old Leadership Models Refuse to Die
I read an interesting article from the Association for Business Psychology in at the end of last year, and the term ‘zombie leadership’ stopped me in my tracks. Possibly even had me running scared.
Zombie leadership (Haslam, Alvesson, & Reicher, 2024) describes management practices that have been thoroughly discredited by research and experience — yet somehow continue to roam freely through organisations, influencing decisions, structures, and behaviours long after they should have been laid to rest. Like the undead, these models refuse to die.
What Does Zombie Leadership Look Like?
Zombie leadership isn’t usually dramatic. It doesn’t burst through the door foaming at the mouth. It shuffles. It feeds on psychological resources and drives psychological safety into hiding. You see it in:
Demotivating performance review systems that create anxiety rather than growth
Rigid hierarchies that slow decision-making and choke innovation
Command-and-control management that treats people as resources rather than contributors
These approaches drain energy, suppress learning, and undermine adaptability — especially in knowledge-intensive organisations where creativity, judgement, and collaboration matter most.
And yet, they persist. Which raises an uncomfortable question: If we know these models don’t work, why are they still being used?
The Hidden Damage: Fear, Silence and Knowledge in Hiding
Having been unnerved by the idea of zombie leadership, I looked into the research, which tended to use the term destructive. The research is surprisingly thin. In fact, only a small fraction of studies directly examine leadership that actively harms organisational functioning.
What the research does suggest is this: destructive leadership appears to operate by destroying the very conditions that regenerative leadership builds. When leadership becomes tyrannical, disengaged, or purely transactional, it:
Depletes psychological resources
Destroys psychological safety
Drives knowledge into hiding
On an average day this can stop people speaking up, sharing unfinished ideas and challenging weak decisions. This isn’t a reflection of care or buy-in, but rather it’s a function of safety.
Zombie movies have a rule: don’t make noise unless you want attention. Zombie leadership creates the same effect.
Regenerative Leadership: The Antidote
If zombie leadership drains, regenerative leadership renews. Here, the evidence is much stronger. Studies consistently show that leadership approaches such as:
Servant leadership
Transformational leadership
Empowering leadership
Inclusive leadership
Humble leadership
Distributed leadership
…all work through a common mechanism: psychological safety (which I wrote about recently).
Psychological safety (Edmondson, 2018) is the shared belief that it’s safe to speak up, take interpersonal risks, admit uncertainty, and contribute ideas without fear of embarrassment or punishment.
Where zombie leadership creates fear and silence, regenerative leadership creates:
Learning instead of hiding
Dialogue instead of compliance
Adaptation instead of decay
Different leadership styles activate this in different contexts:
Empowering leadership reduces conflict in hierarchical environments
Servant leadership enhances wellbeing in service-oriented settings
Humble leadership unlocks creativity in innovative teams
Distributed leadership strengthens collaboration in project-based work
Different paths — same destination.
A Final Thought
Zombie leadership rarely survives because it’s effective. It survives because:
It feels familiar
It looks “serious”
It mimics control
However, in knowledge-driven organisations, control is not strength: learning is.
The real risk isn’t that organisations are led by bad people. Rather that they’re led by ideas that should have died years ago. Unlike in the movies, there’s no single dramatic moment where the threat becomes obvious. Just a slow shuffle, a quiet loss of voice and a creeping sense that the organisation is alive — but no longer thinking.
Where might zombie leadership be hiding in your organisation?
References
Abdullah Javed, Rafique Ahmed Khoso, and Atif Nadeem. “Servant Leadership and Its Role in Promoting Organizational Citizenship Behaviour, Employee Wellbeing, and Workplace Trust in Service-Oriented Industries.” Inverge Journal of Social Sciences, 2025.
Ancona, D., Isaacs, K., & Backman, E. (2015). Two roads to green: A tale of bureaucratic versus distributed leadership models of change. MIT Leadership Center.
Anna Rogozińska-Pawełczyk. “Inclusive Leadership and Psychological Contract Fulfilment: A Source of Proactivity and Well-Being for Knowledge Workers.” Sustainability, 2023.
B. Joo, S. Yoon, and Diane D. Galbraith. “The Effects of Organizational Trust and Empowering Leadership on Group Conflict: Psychological Safety as a Mediator.” Organization Management Journal, 2022.
Daryl Mahon. ““Because My Team Disagree with Me on a Daily Basis” the Role of Servant Leadership in Fostering Psychological Safety in a Social Care Organisation.” Mental Health and Social Inclusion, 2025.
Edmondson, A. C. (2018). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. John Wiley & Sons.
Eleni Papadonikolaki, and B. Morgan. “Leading Psychologically Safe Digitally Enabled Project Teams.” Project Management Journal, 2025.
Jielin Yin, Zhenzhong Ma, Haiyun Yu, Muxiao Jia, and G. Liao. “Transformational Leadership and Employee Knowledge Sharing: Explore the Mediating Roles of Psychological Safety and Team Efficacy.” Journal of Knowledge Management, 2019.
Maohong Guo, Osama Khassawneh, Tamara Mohammad, and Xintian Pei. “When Leadership Goes Awry: The Nexus Between Tyrannical Leadership and Knowledge Hiding.” Journal of Knowledge Management, 2024.
Napthine, S. (2025) From Zombie Leadership to Regenerative Practice: Why Old Models Won’t Die and What Actually Works. The Association for Business Psychology. Available at: https://theabp.org.uk/from-zombie-leadership-to-regenerative-practice-why-old-models-wont-die-and-what-actually-works/ (Accessed 24 December 2025).
Priyanka Vallabh, Swati Dhir, and Pawan Budhwar. “Does Psychological Safety Matter for Innovative Behaviour in Hybrid Workforce? The Role of Proactive Personality, Inclusive Leadership and Affective Climate.” The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 2024.
Shikha Sharma. “Psychological Safety as the Imperceptible Foundation of Transformational Leadership in Organisations.” International Journal For Multidisciplinary Research, 2025.
Yanfei Wang, Jieqiong Liu, and Yu Zhu. “Humble Leadership, Psychological Safety, Knowledge Sharing, and Follower Creativity: A Cross-Level Investigation.” Frontiers in Psychology, 2018.
Binary Bias: Why Smart Leaders Oversimplify (and How It Quietly Breaks Decisions)
Most leadership mistakes don’t happen because people are careless: they happen because people are busy. Under pressure, with imperfect information, we reach for clarity. We want a clean answer. A decisive direction. A strong view. This is where binary bias can slip in.
Binary bias is the cognitive tendency to oversimplify complex information by treating continuous data as two opposing categories:
good / bad
success / failure
yes / no
right / wrong
us / them
Instead of seeing a spectrum, we default to dichotomous thinking. It can feel efficient, even reassuring, but it can often lead to distorted judgments because it ignores nuance and context.
Let’s be clear, binary thinking is not always wrong. In fact, sometimes it’s necessary. In knowledge work however, leadership and strategy, it is often a shortcut that silently damages decision quality and achievement of outcomes
Why leaders are especially vulnerable
Binary bias isn’t a “weak leader” problem: it’s a human cognition problem — amplified by leadership conditions. Research suggests leaders and senior managers fall into binary bias through a multi-layered system:
1) The brain likes easy categories
Fisher et al. (2018) showed that people naturally impose categorical distinctions on continuous data — compressing evidence into discrete “bins,” and letting the difference between those bins drive the final judgment. This showed up across domains like health, finance, and public policy. In other words: even when the world is continuous, we think in categories.
2) Bounded rationality forces shortcuts
Abatecola et al. (2018) highlights how decision-makers rely on heuristics when cognitive resources are limited:
availability (“what comes to mind first”)
representativeness (“this looks like something I’ve seen before”)
confirmation (“this supports what I already believe”)
affect (“this feels right”)
These shortcuts aren’t random — they interact and reinforce each other. So once binary thinking begins, there is positive reinforcement.
3) Some leaders actively prefer closure
Tetlock (2000) adds an uncomfortable layer: leaders with a strong need for cognitive closure often prefer simplicity. Not just because it’s easier — but because it reduces uncertainty. These leaders tend to favour:
clear recommendations over nuanced trade-offs
decisive messaging over open debate
“strong positions” over complexity
It can look like confidence, it can sound like leadership, but it may be categorical thinking disguised as conviction. (An interesting aside would be to look at differences between the sexes: an ‘assertive man’ versus a ‘bossy woman’, but I’ll hold that thought for another day).
4) Groups make it worse
Binary bias isn’t only individual — it’s social. Kamau et al. (2008) highlights groupthink dynamics:
conformity to dominant viewpoints
self-censorship
withholding contradictory information
Cross et al. (2001) adds the false-consensus effect: leaders overestimate agreement and undervalue alternative views. In groups, binary bias can become institutional.
What binary bias looks like in real organisations
Binary thinking doesn’t always appear as crude “black-and-white” language. It can often appear in subtle, professional forms:
Performance conversations
Guilfoyle (2015) showed how leaders often interpret performance using binary comparisons between isolated numbers, treating differences as meaningful without sufficient context: -
“They’re a high performer / low performer.”
“This team is doing well / not doing well.”
“The project is on track / off track.”
Strategy discussions
Binary framing creates false trade-offs, and could leave third (fourth, fifth….) options.
“We need to be more innovative.”
“We need more control.”
“We either centralise or decentralise.”
“We should focus on growth or risk.”
Risk decisions
Binary bias shows up strongly when decisions are:
complex
time-pressured
high-stakes
emotionally loaded
morally charged (“taboo trade-offs”)
That’s when leaders feel compelled to take a position, rather than explore a landscape.
The real cost: it doesn’t just reduce accuracy — it reduces adaptability
Binary bias is not just a thinking error, or cognitive bias: it’s a strategic constraint.
Across the literature, consequences include:
1) Degraded decision quality
Binary thinking causes leaders’ subjective assessments to drift away from objective outcomes (Ramachandran & Gopal, 2010). Not because leaders are irrational — but because they’re over-compressing reality.
2) Missed opportunities
When the world is treated as two categories, options in the middle disappear:
“promising but not ready”
“low risk but high uncertainty”
“good enough now, better later”
Binary thinking narrows the field.
3) Strategic inertia
Wright et al. (2004) describes how organisations become slow to adapt — trapped in dominant frames of reference. Binary bias accelerates this:
it simplifies complexity
it locks narratives into “what we are” vs “what we are not”
it makes alternative futures harder to imagine
4) Behavioural dysfunction
Binary cultures often trigger:
passing the buck (“not my problem”)
procrastination (“if we can’t solve it fully, we won’t start”)
risk aversion (“better to do nothing than be wrong”)
In extreme cases, binary thinking contributes to catastrophic failure — such as the compounding conditions seen in Northern Rock’s collapse.
A useful model: the “trigger threshold”
One of the most helpful insights from synthesising the evidence is this: binary thinking becomes dangerous when multiple triggers accumulate. As a baseline, we can assume that all leaders categorise. Categorising is hardwired, it’s normal, but binary bias intensifies when several pressures align:
information overload
time pressure
high stakes
conformist culture
isolation from outside influence
strong preference for closure
moral or identity threat (“we can’t be seen to compromise”)
A single trigger might not cause major distortion, but stack them together and binary thinking crosses a threshold — from “helpful simplification” to “strategic blindness.”
So what can leaders do about it?
The evidence suggests binary bias is self-reinforcing — so the solution can’t be one-dimensional. The most promising mitigation approaches combine structural controls with process discipline and individual awareness.
Here are practical interventions that map well to the research:
1) Build structural “anti-binary” friction
Cristofaro (2017) points to the value of quality control mechanisms and diverse stakeholders in complex initiatives.
In practice, this can look like:
pre-mortems
red teams / independent challenge
third-party review
checklists for high-stakes decisions
structured decision logs (“what did we believe at the time?”)
These mechanisms don’t eliminate bias — they reduce the ease of oversimplifying.
2) Shift leadership from outcome-directive to process-directive
Outcome focus can intensify binary thinking:
“Did we win or lose?”
“Did it work or not?”
Process-directive leadership forces a better question:
“Did we make the best decision we could, given uncertainty?”
That reframes learning, reduces fear, and keeps nuance alive.
3) Upgrade how you talk about performance
Instead of “good/bad,” use spectrum language:
“strong / emerging / inconsistent”
“stable / improving / declining”
“low confidence / medium confidence / high confidence”
“signal / noise / unclear”
The goal is not to sound academic but to keep reality continuous.
4) Train numerical literacy (quietly)
Fisher et al. (2018) found highly numerate individuals were less susceptible to binary bias. That doesn’t mean everyone needs to become a statistician, but leaders do need enough comfort with:
ranges
distributions
uncertainty
base rates
confidence levels
Binary bias thrives where numbers are treated as “proof” rather than “evidence.”
The leadership test isn’t decisiveness. It’s tolerance for nuance.
Binary bias is seductive because it feels like clarity. Bear in mind however that (1) what sometimes looks like clarity is just simplification; and (2) what looks like decisiveness is just discomfort with ambiguity.
The leaders who scale best — and sustain performance — aren’t the ones who always have a strong view. They’re the ones who can hold complexity long enough to make a better decision.
Because most of the time, the truth isn’t yes or no. It’s: ‘it depends’. And that’s the point.
Practical reflection questions (for your next decision)
Before you lock in a conclusion, ask:
Am I treating this as a switch when it’s really a spectrum?
What nuance am I compressing out of the story?
What would a “third option” look like?
What would make me change my mind?
What is the cost of being confidently wrong?
References
Fisher, M.A., & Keil, F. (2018). The Binary Bias: A Systematic Distortion in the Integration of Information. Psychological Science.
Tetlock, P. (2000). Cognitive Biases and Organizational Correctives.
Abatecola, G., Caputo, A., & Cristofaro, M. (2018). Reviewing cognitive distortions in managerial decision making. Journal of Management Development.
Wright, G., van der Heijden, K., Bradfield, R., Burt, G., & Cairns, G. (2004). The Psychology of Why Organizations Can be Slow to Adapt and Change.
Ramachandran, V., & Gopal, A. (2010). Managers' Judgments of Performance in IT Services Outsourcing. JMIS.
Guilfoyle, S. (2015). Binary Comparisons and Police Performance Measurement: Good or Bad?
Cristofaro, M. (2017). Reducing biases of decision-making processes in complex organizations.
Cross, R., & Brodt, S. (2001). How Assumptions of Consensus Undermine Decision Making.
Kamau, C., & Harorimana, D. (2008). Knowledge sharing and withholding in organizational committees.
The Fearless Organisation: Why Talent Isn’t Enough (and Psychological Safety Isn’t a “Nice-to-Have”)
Organisations can be full of talented people - people who are experienced, smart, capable and hard-working - and yet performance stalls. Projects can drift. Risks can go unspoken. Problems surface late. Innovation feels slow. Meetings become theatre. Decisions become safer, not better.
That’s because hiring talent isn’t enough. Talent delivers performance when people can work together — honestly, openly and at speed.
And that requires something many organisations still underestimate: psychological safety.
This is the red thread of 'The Fearless Organization - Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth' by Amy Edmondson. I read it last month, and had to write about it.
The real work isn’t “teamwork”. It’s teaming.
One of the most useful ideas in The Fearless Organization is that modern collaboration isn’t happening in neat, stable teams. Work today is dynamic. Fluid. Constantly shifting.
We collaborate across:
expertise
seniority
departments
time zones
cultures
physical distance
Amy Edmondson calls this 'teaming': the art of communicating and coordinating with people across boundaries.
The truth is simple: if people don’t feel safe to speak, challenge, question, or admit uncertainty…teaming breaks down.
A fearless organisation isn’t one without anxiety.
This is a crucial distinction. A “fearless organisation” is not one where everyone feels comfortable all the time. It’s not a cosy environment. It’s not a workplace without pressure.
It’s an organisation where interpersonal fear is minimised, so performance can be maximised — especially in knowledge-intensive work.
In complex environments, fear doesn’t create excellence. It creates silence.
Most people stay quiet more often than leaders realise
One of Edmondson’s early data points hit me hard: 85% of employees reported at least one time they felt unable to raise a concern with their boss — even when they believed it mattered.
Let that sink in.
That means in most workplaces, people aren’t speaking up not because they don’t care, but because they don’t feel safe enough to do it. Many leaders never see it, because silence looks like agreement.
The “no news = good news” illusion
Many leaders assume: “If something is wrong, someone will tell me.”
That belief however is often based on a hidden privilege: leaders take for granted that their own voices are welcome. They forget that others may experience speaking up as a career risk.
So problems don’t rise early. They rise late — when they’ve become expensive, more entrenched, or more complicated.
Fear is not an effective motivator in knowledge work
Some managers still believe, consciously or unconsciously, in the power of fear:
fear of targets
fear of poor ratings
fear of consequences
fear of looking incompetent
In straightforward work, fear might create compliance. In environments that require learning, judgment, creativity and collaboration; fear kills the very behaviours you need most.
It reduces experimentation. It reduces transparency. It reduces early warning signals. It produces the illusion of progress, not real progress.
Psychological safety drives learning, engagement, and performance
This isn’t “soft stuff”. Edmondson references research showing psychological safety is linked to:
learning behaviours
engagement
performance outcomes
Engagement itself is defined as the extent to which an employee feels passionate about their job and committed to the organisation — essentially a proxy for discretionary effort.
In a VUCA world psychological safety isn’t a perk: it’s infrastructure.
Why capable organisations fail anyway
Some of the most striking examples Edmondson references include:
Volkswagen
Wells Fargo
Nokia
the New York Federal Reserve
These weren’t organisations lacking intelligence or talent. They had expertise. They had ambitious goals. They had capable people. Edmondson set out that these organisations lacked leadership that created the conditions for people to speak truth to power.
Without that, the system can’t self-correct.
Strategy should be treated like a hypothesis
Edmondson frames strategy as 'a hypothesis rather than a plan'. A hypothesis must be tested through action. That means organisations need feedback loops:
from customers
from the frontline
from delivery teams
from “bad news” signals
However, you can’t test hypotheses if people are afraid to report what they’re seeing. Psychological safety is what keeps strategy connected to reality.
Failure isn’t the enemy. Not learning is.
One of the sharpest lines in the book: real failure is trying something, learning it doesn’t work… then continuing anyway.
Failure isn’t one category. It comes in different forms:
preventable failures (process breakdowns)
complex failures (multiple interacting factors)
intelligent failures (well-designed experiments in uncertainty)
The goal isn’t “no failure”. The goal is to reduce preventable failures, manage complex ones intelligently and encourage the kind of intelligent failures that produce learning.
Psychological safety isn’t the same as comfort (or low standards)
This is one of the biggest misunderstandings, and Edmondson is clear: you can’t have too much psychological safety.
What you can have is:
not enough discipline
unclear expectations
weak process
poor accountability
Psychological safety doesn’t remove standards. It removes interpersonal fear — so standards can be met through learning, not hiding.
What leaders can do (starting tomorrow)
Psychological safety isn’t a slogan. It’s built through repeated signals, systems and habits.
Here are a few practical actions I’m taking away:
1) Frame the work clearly
People need context: “This is complex”, “We’re learning”, “We need early warnings”, “Silence is risk.”
2) Reframe what a leader is for
The default assumption is that bosses:
have the answers
give the orders
assess execution
Modern leadership is less about having the answers, and more about setting direction, inviting input and enabling learning.
3) Ask better questions
Good questions:
are asked because you don’t know
don’t limit responses to yes/no
help others share focused thinking
4) Respond productively when people speak up
When someone takes an interpersonal risk, your response matters.
Productive responses include:
appreciation
destigmatising failure
sanctioning clear violations (so safety doesn’t become chaos)
5) Praise effort and strategy, not just outcomes
A learning orientation matters. In uncertain environments, outcomes don’t always reflect process. Rewarding effort, learning, and good judgment builds resilience and experimentation.
A final thought: silence is the default. Voice is the achievement.
There’s a deep asymmetry in organisations: Silence protects the individual - Voice protects the system.
And because hierarchies naturally discourage speaking up, psychological safety doesn’t happen by accident.
It is always the result of deliberate, thoughtful effort.
If you lead a team, ask yourself this:
Do people feel safe enough to tell you the truth early, or only when it’s too late?
Because that difference is often the difference between:
learning and stagnation
innovation and repetition
resilience and crisis
Tone from the Top, Echo from the Bottom - Why Culture Is a Strategic System — Not a Slogan
“Culture eats strategy for breakfast” is often quoted and is just as often misunderstood. Culture isn’t something that sits alongside strategy.
It’s the system through which strategy is interpreted, executed, and sometimes quietly undermined.
Two phrases help make this visible:
Tone from the top
Echo from the bottom
Together, they describe culture not as a statement of intent, but as a dynamic feedback loop.
Tone from the Top: Leadership as a Signal System
“Tone from the top” refers to the ‘ethical climate, priorities, and expectations set by senior leaders — boards, executives, and top management’. Importantly, this tone is communicated less through speeches and policies, and more through:
What leaders pay attention to
What they reward or tolerate
How they respond under pressure
The trade-offs they make when values conflict with targets
In practice, leaders are constantly sending signals about what is really acceptable. If leaders bypass controls, downplay risks, or reward results without questioning how they were achieved, those behaviours don’t stay at the top. They cascade, and humans are innately good at recognising pattern. We all notice quickly when the stated values and the lived reality don’t align.
Echo from the Bottom: Where Culture Becomes Real
The echo from the bottom is how those signals are received, interpreted, and reflected back by people across an organisation. It shows up in:
Everyday decision-making
Willingness to speak up (or stay silent)
How problems are framed or hidden
Informal conversations, not formal reports
This is where culture moves from rhetoric to reality. A strong echo means employees feel psychologically safe to raise concerns, believe integrity will be supported, not punished and see their judgment and insight as valued,
A weak echo means the opposite — even if the “tone” sounds right. When the echo is muted, distorted, or fearful, leaders lose access to reality.
Why the Connection Matters: Culture as Strategic Infrastructure
The real risk isn’t bad tone or weak echo in isolation. It’s the disconnect between the two. When leaders believe they are setting a clear tone — but the echo doesn’t match — strategy quietly starts to drift. Culture, in this sense, becomes a form of strategic infrastructure: it determines how information flows, what gets amplified or what might get suppressed.
Which raises a deeper question: to what extent do lower-level employee communications actually influence strategy and leadership decision-making — especially in large, multinational organisations?
What the Research Shows: Employee Voice Does Shape Strategy — Conditionally
A review of academic research suggests a clear conclusion: lower-level employee communications demonstrably influence strategic planning and leadership approaches in multinational corporations — but not uniformly. The strength of that influence varies systematically across four dimensions.
1. Cultural Context - In high power-distance cultures, where hierarchy is emphasised and authority is rarely challenged, upward communication tends to be weaker. Employees may:
Self-censor
Avoid delivering bad news
Assume strategic thinking is “not their role”
In lower power-distance contexts, challenge and dialogue are more culturally legitimate — making the echo stronger and more informative.
2. Institutional Environment - The impact of employee voice is stronger in highly integrated national systems — where governance norms, labour protections, and institutional trust reinforce participation. In fragmented or less supportive environments, speaking up can feel risky, even when leaders encourage it rhetorically.
3. Organisational Structure - Decentralised organisations — especially those granting real autonomy to subsidiaries or frontline units — benefit more from bottom-up insight. This is because proximity matters. People closest to customers, operations, and local risks often see:
Emerging threats
Unintended consequences
Practical constraints long before headquarters does
Centralised, tightly controlled structures struggle to access this intelligence in time.
4. Leadership Approach - Perhaps the most decisive factor is leadership style. Participatory leadership models consistently outperform command-and-control approaches when it comes to leveraging employee insight. This isn’t about consensus decision-making. It’s about who is invited into sense-making — and who isn’t.
How the Impact Actually Works: Three Mechanisms
The research also highlights how employee communication translates into strategic value.
Psychological mechanisms
Empowerment
Trust
Engagement
When people believe their voice matters, they invest more cognitive and emotional effort.
Organisational mechanisms
Knowledge sharing
Information flow
Early signal detection
Strategy improves when leaders receive unfiltered, timely insight.
Social mechanisms
Inclusion
Relationship-building
Mutual understanding
Strong relationships reduce distortion as information moves upward.
Practical Implications for Leaders
For organisations genuinely seeking to harness the “echo from the bottom,” the implications are clear:
Invest in participatory leadership development
Adapt leadership approaches in high power-distance contexts rather than importing models wholesale
Preserve meaningful local autonomy where insight is generated
Systematically cultivate psychological safety, not just performative openness
Crucially, leaders must be willing to hear messages that challenge assumptions — not just confirm them.
Closing Reflection
Culture doesn’t fail loudly. It fails quietly — through silence, distortion, and disengagement. Setting the tone is necessary. But listening to the echo is what keeps strategy grounded in reality. The organisations that do this well don’t just behave more ethically. They think better, decide earlier, and adapt faster. In complex environments, that may be the most important strategic advantage of all.
Execute and Endure: Turning Strategy into Culture
At kilometre 35 of a marathon, the plan often no longer matters. The body is tired, the mind is bargaining and the finish line feels distant. What carries you through isn’t the schedule or the spreadsheet — it’s attitude. In the workplace, we’d call it culture.
Execution is where vision meets reality, and endurance decides who finishes.
The Rhythm of Execution
Peter Drucker famously said, “Culture eats strategy for breakfast.” But I’d add: culture also determines how strategy digests reality.
The best plans collapse under inconsistency. In endurance running, that looks like erratic training or ignoring recovery. In organisations, it’s initiative fatigue and shifting priorities. The common denominator is rhythm — or the lack of it.
Execution thrives on rhythm: a cadence of doing, reflecting, and adjusting. That’s the execute and endure phase of the strategic endurance mindset — consistency through change.
Building Endurance Systems
When I was juggling training with work, travel and family, sustainability became my constraint. I couldn’t rely on inspiration; I needed systems that carried me when motivation wavered.
So I built rituals — similar kit, pre-determined nutrition, same pre-run routine. It wasn’t superstition; it was automation.
Leaders can do the same. Embed daily check-ins, weekly retrospectives, quarterly reviews — feedback loops that create cultural consistency. These are the “recovery runs” of leadership: small, sustainable actions that maintain pace and prevent burnout.
Resilient teams treat execution as a cycle, not a sprint.
Culture as the Engine Room
Frynas & Mellahi call this ‘strategy implementation’: it’s about strategy in action, where organising, enabling, and performance evaluation converge.
In practice, that means embedding behaviours that reflect intent. If your strategy values innovation, reward experimentation. If it values precision, celebrate diligence. Strategy becomes culture only when it’s lived, not laminated.
This is why resilience belongs in the conversation. As in endurance sport, setbacks aren’t interruptions — they’re part of the rhythm. The question isn’t whether obstacles occur, but whether the culture absorbs and adapts to them.
Leading Through Fatigue
At some point, every leader — like every runner — hits the wall. The body says stop; the plan says continue. That’s when leadership becomes less about inspiration and more about steadiness.
Stoicism offers timeless guidance: focus on what you can control, accept what you can’t, and act with purpose. In those moments, leaders model composure; they turn endurance into an organisational virtue.
Coaching can be transformative here — not as performance management, but as structured reflection. The coach holds the mirror, helping leaders pace themselves, recover wisely, and stay aligned with purpose.
It is not in our control to have everything turn out exactly as we want, but it is in our control to control how we respond to what happens – Epictetus
Closing Reflection
Execution is rarely glamorous. It’s the long road between intention and impact.
But it’s also where culture is forged and lived — in the daily discipline of teams who keep showing up, even when the finish line moves.
In endurance sport, the reward isn’t the medal. It’s the knowledge that you built something inside yourself that lasts.
For leaders, it’s the same: to execute and endure is to build a culture that can thrive beyond your own stride.
Design and Decide: Balancing Creativity and Commitment
Strategy, like running, is the art of deliberate design — not random effort.
When I first committed to running 12 marathons in 12 months, I quickly realised that enthusiasm was not a plan. I needed to design a system that balanced ambition with recovery, structure with flexibility, and creativity with discipline.
The same holds true for leadership. Big visions and bold goals mean little without design and decision — the twin engines that translate aspiration into action.
The Creative Discipline
Design thinking begins where most plans fail: at the messy intersection of imagination and reality.
In training, this meant experimentation. I tested gear, nutrition, recovery strategies. I planned runs based on climate, travel and work; spacing them so that I could adapt rather than collapse. Every month became a prototype — a test, not a verdict.
This iterative approach mirrors the Frame–Design–Execute rhythm that can be used in the workplace. Frynas & Mellahi describe it as moving from “strategic analysis” to “strategic choice” — balancing creativity with feasibility.
Creativity without constraint leads to chaos. Constraint without creativity leads to stagnation. The design phase is where leaders balance both.
Deciding with Clarity
But design is only half the equation.
Porter reminds us that strategy is fundamentally about choice — deciding what not to do. The decision to exclude is what gives focus its power.
In my marathon year, I declined several tempting runs. Some clashed with recovery cycles; others risked overtraining. The hardest decision was not what to add but what to eliminate.
That discipline applies to leadership: saying no to initiatives that distract, even if they’re appealing. Drucker called it ‘concentration’: the single secret of effectiveness. Strategy, at its heart, is the courage to commit.
If there is one ‘secret’ of effectiveness, it is concentration. Effective executives do first things first and they do one thing at a time - Peter F. Drucker
The Decision Trap
Modern leaders face an abundance of data, options and noise. It’s easy to confuse analysis with clarity. This is the ‘decision trap’: the illusion that more information equals better judgement.
In reality, decisive leaders blend logic with intuition. They experiment early, learn fast and adjust — not because they’re reckless, but because they’ve built feedback into their design.
Cal Newport’s Deep Work reminds us that quality decisions require undisturbed focus. Without deliberate thinking time, leaders make shallow choices that feel safe but lack depth.
Clarity about what matters provides clarity about what does not – Cal Newport
From Design to Discipline
Once you’ve designed the system and decided the course, discipline takes over. The bridge between vision and execution is repetition — what Aristotle called habit, and what modern neuroscience calls myelination: the strengthening of neural pathways through consistent action.
That’s why ‘design’ and ‘decide’ belong together. Without design, decisions lack context. Without decision, designs remain abstract. Together, they create strategic integrity — the alignment between idea and action.
Closing Reflection
Great leaders are architects of momentum. They design systems that foster creativity, then decide with conviction when it’s time to commit.
In both running and leadership, design creates possibility; decision creates progress.
And once the decision is made, the only thing left to do — is move.
Frame and Reframe: The Leadership Skill of Rethinking
Every marathon starts long before the start line — in how you frame the challenge ahead.
If your framing is wrong, no amount of effort will make the outcome right. Misjudge the terrain, ignore the weather, overestimate your fitness — and you pay for it in the final kilometres. The same principle applies to leadership: the way we define a problem determines the quality of our decisions, and ultimately, our results.
The Stoics knew this. So did Drucker, Porter, and every strategist worth studying. The greatest leverage point in any endeavour lies in how you see the situation, not just how you act within it.
The Power of Framing
In marathon training, I learned that success depends on perspective. Some days the goal was distance; other days it was recovery. When an injury set me back, the goal shifted from running fast to running smart. Each time I reframed what “progress” meant, I was able to keep moving forward.
This mirrors Drucker’s idea that effectiveness is doing the right things, not merely doing things right. We often rush into activity, mistaking motion for momentum. In organisations, that looks like launching initiatives before understanding the real issue — confusing speed with direction.
Porter (1996) called strategy “a choice of what not to do.” Framing is the discipline of making those choices consciously. It’s about stepping back to ask, what business are we really in? Or what problem are we actually solving?
Poor framing wastes energy. Good framing aligns it.
If there is any one “secret” of effectiveness, it is concentration. Effective executives do first things first and they do one thing at a time- Peter F. Drucker
The Reframing Loop
Design thinking offers a practical playbook for reframing: empathise, redefine, ideate, test. When I faced recurring IT band issues midyear, I put the mindset into practice.
Instead of blaming my body, I reframed the problem: maybe it wasn’t weakness, but overload; not failure, but feedback. I tested recovery routines, changed shoes, adjusted pace. The issue didn’t disappear overnight — but my mindset shifted from frustration to curiosity.
That shift changed everything. Reframing isn’t about optimism; it’s about ownership. It turns emotion into insight.
Stoicism and Strategic Clarity
That’s reframing in its purest form. When conditions can’t be controlled, the only strategic move left is perspective. The Stoics treated reframing as the first act of discipline — the space between stimulus and response where wisdom lives.
Leaders who master that space create calm amid uncertainty. They question assumptions, test narratives and invite dissent. They know that clarity doesn’t precede action — it emerges from deliberate reflection and reframing.
You have power over your mind — not outside events. Realise this, and you will find strength - Marcus Aurelius
Reframing in Leadership
Often the root cause of strategic misfires stem not from bad execution, but from bad framing and planning.
Teams race to solve what they don’t yet understand. Leaders anchor on familiar narratives — “we’re under-resourced,” “the market has shifted,” “it’s a communications issue” — when the real problem lies deeper.
Effective leaders pause to reframe. They ask:
What assumptions am I making about this situation?
What evidence would disprove them?
If I viewed this through my customer’s eyes, how would it look?
This is the first loop of strategic endurance: pause, reframe and act anew.
Closing Reflection
Framing is to leadership what pacing is to running: if you get it wrong at the start, the whole race suffers.
The leader’s role is not to have all the answers, but to keep asking better questions — to transform obstacles into insights, and setbacks into signals.
Because, as in endurance sport, clarity is rarely given; it’s earned through effort and reflection.
The Mechanics of Will: Why Discipline is a System, Not a Feeling
The pursuit of excellence is often wrapped in the myth of heroic willpower — a sudden surge of motivation that compels monumental effort. We wait for inspiration to strike, believing that discipline is born from emotion.
But the most enduring success stories — from Stoic philosophers to modern thinkers like James Clear and Cal Newport — reveal a different truth: motivation is the echo of action, not its source. Motivation follows action.
Discipline isn’t about deprivation. It’s a designed system — an architecture of choices, habits and feedback loops that make progress predictable. It’s the structure that transforms fleeting motivation into sustainable motion.
The Strategy of the Start: Reframing Action
For most of us, the hardest step is the first one — the moment between intention and initiation. We spend too long framing the task emotionally (“Do I feel ready?”) rather than strategically (“What’s the smallest action that moves me forward?”).
The Stoics understood that the mind's power lies not in controlling feelings, which are fickle, but in controlling our choices and judgements. Epictetus said that we should focus on what is "up to us"—our actions and reactions—and disregard everything else. This philosophy provides the strategic groundwork for a modern, action-first approach.
Modern leadership thinker Jocko Willink summarises it bluntly, “Don’t negotiate with weakness. Just get after it”. The moment you start the work - the moment you execute the first, smallest step - you generate the necessary forward momentum. The feeling of success from that initial action, no matter how small, is the chemical reward that fuels the next step. As this system proves, motivation is manufactured by the act of doing. If our fate is the result of the decisions we make; character is behaviour
A man's character is his fate - Heraclitus
The Design of Discipline: Building Systems, Not Dependence
If the philosophy of discipline is "just start," the tactics of discipline must be about making that start so ridiculously easy that not starting becomes the harder choice. This is where the wisdom of routine supersedes the drama of willpower.
James Clear provides the tactical blueprint. He argues that every action you take is a "vote" for the type of person you want to become. It’s not about the instant result of cleaning your desk; it’s about casting a vote for the identity of someone who is organised. The cumulative effect of these tiny, daily votes is what shifts your life's trajectory.
This approach aligns with the Fogg Behaviour Model (B = M A T): a behaviour (B) occurs when motivation (M), ability (A) and a prompt (T) align. Since motivation is unreliable, and we can’t always control the prompt, the key is to lower the ability barrier. Make the action so small and so easy the ‘two-minute rule’ the ‘one-push-up minimum’ - that your motivation is almost irrelevant. You bypass the need for an emotional wellspring by making the physical act effortless.
In strategic terms, this is about designing your environment the way you would design a resilient system one that functions under stress, one that doesn’t depend on perfect conditions.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit - Aristotle
The Execution of Routine: Aligning Effort and Energy
Why go to all this trouble? The end goal of rigorous self-discipline isn't mere productivity: it's freedom.
Philosophers like Marcus Aurelius framed discipline not as a constraint, but as a path to peace—a way to live in accordance with nature and preserve one’s ‘inner citadel’ from the chaos of the external world. In modern terms, this means defending your most valuable cognitive resources. Marcus journalled and he frequently addresses himself directly using the second person. This is a very effective journalling technique and something that Adam Smith wrote about c1500 years later when he proposed that people should behave as if an "impartial spectator" were watching them: using an imagined conscience to self-moderate actions and judgments.
Cal Newport talks about safeguarding our cognitive resources with the concept of Deep Work. He argues that the truly valuable, high-impact work requires undisturbed concentration. The only way to consistently achieve this state is to eliminate the constant friction of decision-making. By building strict routines -time-blocking, pre-scheduling priorities and creating rules for device usage you are essentially erecting a Chesterton's Fence around your best work. This fence prevents daily distractions from eating away at your finite mental energy.
Ryan Holiday similarly urges us to prioritise and ruthlessly execute our most important task each day, creating a structure where the essential is always done first. This is linked to the Stoic principles of focusing on what you can control – your actions and responses. Instead of getting stuck in planning, Holiday stresses the importance of starting immediately, recognising that every moment of hesitation diminishes potential success.
By automating our choices through routine, we stop wasting energy on trivial tasks and open up ‘whitespace’ - the vital, unscheduled time that allows for reflection, deep creation and a proactive choice to invest in the non-transactional aspects of life, like health and relationships. This decision to prioritise long-term investment over fleeting pleasure is, ultimately, the greatest expression of care for our future self. Self-discipline is therefore not punishment, but a strategic act of investment.
The Endurance of the Loop: Turning Systems into Strength
I’ve found that whether in running, leadership, or life, discipline follows a familiar loop: Frame, Design, Execute, Reflect.
Each iteration builds endurance: the ability to sustain progress, adapt to setbacks and recalibrate when conditions change. The process becomes self-reinforcing: action creates clarity, clarity informs design, design supports execution and execution fuels renewed confidence.
This is the quiet architecture behind every resilient individual and team: a system that doesn’t rely on inspiration, but on iteration.
When discipline becomes systemic, effort becomes sustainable.
Closing Reflection
Discipline isn’t a feeling. It’s the deliberate design of behaviour. It’s how we turn philosophy into practice.
The disciplined leader builds systems that align daily action with long-term intent — and in doing so, transforms endurance into advantage.
Because in the end, excellence isn’t an act of willpower. It’s the outcome of a well-engineered life.
12 Marathons in 12 Months: What Running Taught Me About Leadership and Resilience
Twelve marathons. Twelve months. Three countries. Two hemispheres. From the green landscape of New Zealand to the 40°C heat and high humidity of a Dubai summer. Not bad for someone who is distinctly 'Mr Average’.
I’m not an elite athlete. My fastest time wouldn’t raise eyebrows at a running club. But what I do have is consistency, discipline and a stubborn streak. Those three things carried me through several runs — even when I was injured, even when training had to be rebuilt around physio and rehab, even when I was slow, tired and questioning why I set myself his challenge in the first place.
And that’s exactly the point: this wasn’t about extraordinary talent. It was about ordinary persistence.
The Journey
I’ve always run. First it was to build fitness to play rugby, then when I had to hang up the boots due to one-to-many injuries, it was a way to stay physically fit. Running then turned into a practice that help me stay fit mentally.
I ran my first marathon in 2022, and I ran it on my own. It was a personal challenge, something that I wanted to achieve before a milestone birthday. A couple of organised races followed which were enjoyable, and a very different experience. Then I had a thought: could I run 12 marathons in 12 months. It wasn’t ego. I wanted it to be a personal challenge.: could someone ordinary do something a little extraordinary?
When I started, the idea of 12 marathons in 12 months felt audacious and daunting. I wasn’t sure I’d manage it.
Some runs were unforgettable: running alongside the mighty Waikato River in New Zealand, to a very personal route back home in Scotland. Others were humbling: the ones where my pace dropped due to injury and all I could do was keep moving one step at a time. My runs in Dubai tested me with heat and humidity: I’d leave home at 2am to try and reduce their impact but I’d be drained before halfway.
There were highs — good times that made me smile. There were lows — marathons where I was grateful just to finish it. But every single one taught me something and, over time, those lessons began to loop together.
The Obstacle Is the Way
Running isn’t just about running. In solo long-distance running the only opponent you have to compete with is yourself. And that can be hard, but very rewarding. It’s a conversation with yourself — sometimes a negotiation, sometimes a battle. You hit the edge of your limits, and you learn to think differently about effort, focus and recovery. You often enter the ‘pain cave’ – hitting the edge of your mental and physical limits, and then tunnel a little bit further.
In almost every marathon, an obstacle appeared. Heat. Humidity. An injury flare-up. Fatigue. The worst was doubt itself. These could be seen as roadblocks, but I saw them differently: not as something in the way, but as part of the way.
The Roman emperor and Stoic philosopher Marcus Aurelius wrote: “The impediment to action advances action. What stands in the way becomes the way.” That became a quiet mantra for me. Every setback forced adaptation. Every injury forced me to train smarter. Every difficult run forced me to dig deeper. The obstacles weren’t distractions from the path — they were the path.
The impediment to action advances action. What stands in the way becomes the way - Marcus Aurelius
The Lessons
Here are a few lessons from the road that I think apply to growth, both personal, professional, and a few things in between:
Consistency and Compounding - Improvement didn’t come from one breakthrough session. It came from lots of small, ordinary runs, over many years. Progress compounds quietly — the same way habits, discipline and learning do in life and work.
Breaking Down BHAGs – A BHAG is a Big Hairy Audacious Goal (see ‘Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies’ by Jim Collins). It’s a bold, longer-term goal that is so ambitious it initially seems almost impossible, yet it is clear and compelling enough to provide focus and energy. Twelve marathons in a year sounded nearly impossible. But 42km is ‘just’ four 10kms (plus change). It really came down to one kilometre at a time. My approach was to frame (and reframe) the context, design a plan, test it and refine it - just like any strategy. Big goals only become achievable when you break them down into manageable, testable steps
Stoicism - There are things I can control (training, preparation, hydration). And things I can’t (weather, injuries, surprises once I’ve started). Focusing only on what I control has been the difference between frustration and progress. That same mental framing builds resilience in leadership, teams and life
Resilience and Adaptation - Rehab and prehab became part of the rhythm. Setbacks weren’t failures, they were signals: adapt, reset and move forward. Physical and personal growth come about in exactly the same way.
Mind over matter - The mind gives up long before the body does. Fatigue isn’t only physical — it’s mental and it’s also perception. Learning to recognise that, and push past it with awareness, is where endurance becomes growth. Whilst endurance requires sustained effort it also requires us to adapt to new realities.
Beyond the Finish Line
Looking back, these 12 marathons were never just about running. They were about reframing challenges, designing better approaches and sustaining effort when motivation fades.
Each run formed a loop of reflection, adaptation and renewed action — a continuous cycle that built not just fitness, but perspective. Extraordinary outcomes are possible for ‘average people when mindset, planning and purpose align.
Because in the end, running 12 marathons taught me less about distance — and more about alignment:
Between purpose and effort
Between ambition and recovery
Between mindset and action
That alignment is what transforms persistence into progress.
As I cross the final finish line of this challenge, I find myself asking new questions:
What can endurance teach us about leadership?
About culture, clarity, and strategy?
That’s the next stage of this journey — and over the coming weeks, I’ll explore those lessons: how the principles that helped me go the distance might help leaders and teams do the same.