Which way is the leadership pendulum swinging?

Seen over the past 100 years, developments in leadership have followed a fairly clear pattern. A pendulum swinging back and forth in an attempt to make consciousness and complexity fit together. New leadership movements emerge when the way we understand leadership and the world can no longer contain the reality we are facing.

That is why it should concern us that we now find ourselves in a paradoxical situation. Just as the world is becoming more complex than ever before, we are seeing a new wave of Great Man thinking sweep across both politics and business.

The theory of the “Great Man” was formulated by the Scottish historian and philosopher Thomas Carlyle in the 1840s. Carlyle’s core idea was that history, at decisive moments, is shaped by extraordinary individuals. Heroes, kings, generals, and prophets. Men with special qualities who could see further, act faster, and make decisions on behalf of the collective.

In Carlyle’s time, that leadership ideal may have made sense. Complexity was, relatively speaking, manageable. It was possible for individuals to maintain an overview, make decisions with reasonable confidence, and lead through personal authority.

But we no longer live in Napoleon’s age, and that is precisely the point. Over the past century or so, we have seen a series of leadership ideals come and go. Not as random fashions, but as responses to the challenges organisations and societies faced at the time.

Perhaps it is best illustrated by viewing the leadership ideal as a pendulum that swings as the challenges of the era change. Each time complexity outpaced the prevailing understanding of leadership, the pendulum swung.

First towards the born leader, when the world was simple enough to believe that the individual could grasp the whole.

Then towards behaviour, structure, and systems, as organisations grew.

Later towards situation, relationship, and motivation, when complexity became too great for standards alone.

And most recently towards the post-heroic and collective, once it became clear that no single person could any longer comprehend the whole.

This is, of course, a very rough simplification of the past 100 years of development, but I hope it illustrates how each movement was an attempt to solve a real problem. And how each movement became insufficient when reality changed once again.

The post-heroic perspective is therefore not, as many assume, an ideology. It is a response. It did not arise as an academic fashion, but as a reaction to a concrete experience: that the complexity of modern organisations has outpaced the capacity of the individual. A response to the fact that organisations today are characterised by interdependence, high rates of change, problems without clear cause-and-effect relationships, and knowledge distributed across people and disciplines.

The post-heroic perspective therefore shifts the understanding of leadership from person to process, from position to relationship, and from control to collective judgement. Leadership is no longer seen as something one person possesses, but as something that emerges between people in their interaction around the task.

That is why organisations must be designed in ways that allow them to draw on collective intelligence, distribute decision-making power, respond locally to global signals, and steer through purpose rather than control. At its core, it is a break with the idea of the all-knowing leader.

And that is exactly why the new Great Man wave is so problematic.

Because at the very moment complexity is exploding, we are now seeing a marked swing back in the pendulum. A revival of Great Man thinking in modern form.

Today, it is not Napoleon, but:

• populist political figures
• technology billionaires
• charismatic founders

They are portrayed as people with special, almost superhuman qualities. As the ones who can see what no one else sees. As the ones who can act while institutions hesitate. As the ones who can “fix” complex problems through willpower, speed, resolve, and dominance.

The narrative is seductive. And deeply problematic.

The new Great Man wave is not just about rhetoric.

It is increasingly being operationalised in executive corridors and government offices, where institutions are framed as obstacles, bureaucracy is reduced to mediocrity, and collective processes are dismissed as inefficient. In their place, strong execution, uncompromising will, and fast decisions are celebrated, while loyalty is given priority over dissent.

This is where the paradox becomes clear. The movement promises decisiveness in an incomprehensible world, but does so by artificially simplifying reality. Complex problems are reduced to enemy images, systemic challenges are personalised, and disagreement is interpreted as disloyalty. Psychologically, this often manifests as high power orientation, low cognitive complexity, and a strong in-group/out-group mentality shaped by black-and-white worldviews.

These are not qualities that increase collective intelligence. They are qualities that shut it down. And if one believes that solving the world’s problems requires precisely collective intelligence, then the new Great Man wave is not merely a political or cultural phenomenon, but a significant leadership regression.

Which way is the pendulum swinging?

That is an open and decisive question, and perhaps not even the best fortune tellers could answer it with certainty. But to me there is no doubt that we find ourselves in the middle of a tension field.

On the one hand, I see a world calling for collective intelligence, relational judgement, and shared responsibility. If we are to deal with the enormous challenges we face — climate crisis, biodiversity loss, social inequality, poor mental health, geopolitical instability, and technological acceleration without ethical grounding — this cannot happen through central control, isolated optimisation, or traditional KPIs alone. The problems are too complex, too intertwined, and too dynamic.

On the other hand, we are seeing a growing fascination with the strong man, the fast decision, and personalised power. When complexity rises, so does the longing for simplicity. For clear answers, visible enemies, and leaders who promise action without doubt.

History will show whether the pendulum swings too far, or whether we manage to influence its movement before complexity outruns us.