Articles

Leadership breakdown may appear abrupt at times; however, its disintegration is typically the cumulative effect of underlying causes. Authority often weakens incrementally as cooperation becomes conditional, effort more selective, and commitments increasingly reversible. By the time leadership failure becomes visible, the processes that made it likely have often been unfolding for some time

Leadership is commonly framed as an exercise in control: setting direction, enforcing alignment, and intervening decisively when outcomes deviate from plan. This framing obscures a more fundamental reality

the brain is not a calculating machine that analyses every situation from scratch, it is a forecasting system that relies on patterns, past experience, and expectation. This predictive tendency allows us to move through the world efficiently. Our minds use what psychologists call cognitive shortcuts or heuristics, internal algorithms that help us act swiftly without always thinking consciously

Status change is one of the most underexamined yet psychologically charged experiences in human life. We tend to think of success as resolution, the end of effort or the calm after ascent

Leadership has always involved a performative dimension, yet in the contemporary environment that dimension has metastasised into a paradigm

The question of whether leaders are born or made has long occupied scholars, executives, and strategists. Recent advances in behavioural genetics, epigenetics, stress biology, and neuroscience suggest that this binary framing is overly simplistic. Leadership does not emerge solely from innate talent, nor is it merely a product of learning or experience