Ambidextrous leadership
“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind and still retain the ability to function.”
F. Scott Fitzgerald
In an age of disruption, leaders and organisations must evolve. In our previous discussions, we argued that the key to navigating this turbulence lies in developing ambidextrous leadership—balancing Directive Leadership with Collective Intelligence. In this article, we will examine the challenges leaders face when trying to manage this balance, and in the second half, we will outline the leadership characteristics necessary to thrive in this dynamic environment.
At the outset, it is vital to recognise that leaders of teams and groups must fulfil two distinct roles. Firstly, as the group’s leader, they are the ‘host’ of the Collective Intelligence process. Whether they possess the facilitation skills to guide the meeting or choose to enlist external support, the meeting is still perceived as their responsibility. This means that the leader must create an environment where every voice is heard, and where speaking truth to power is not only safe but encouraged. This is especially crucial during disruptive change, which often requires double-loop learning—challenging both the organisation’s and the group’s foundational strategies and practices. This process can stir strong emotions, making it essential for the leader to foster an atmosphere where deep inquiry and authentic advocacy can flourish, even when the stakes are high.
Ambidextrous leaders must be able to transition fluidly between Directive Leadership and Collective Intelligence, adapting to the complexity of the situation. This creates a significant dilemma, particularly concerning power dynamics. On the one hand, leaders need to project strength and control; on the other, they must acknowledge that some problems have no easy answers. They must assert direction while encouraging open challenge to their own views. Despite their own potential fear and anxiety, they must inspire their teams to confront and overcome their own uncertainties. These dual demands compel leaders to embrace a paradox—acting in ways that, at times, may seem contradictory.
This power dilemma also presents challenges for team members. For instance, a team member may participate in an operational meeting on Monday where their leader takes a directive role—chairing discussions, advocating positions, and making unilateral decisions when necessary. Then, on Tuesday, they find themselves in a Collective Intelligence session where the leader is encouraging honest feedback on the strategy, the team, and even themselves. Here, the leader must be especially effective in establishing Psychological Safety, or they risk appearing inconsistent or inauthentic. If this happens, team members may find themselves trapped in a double-bind: either they speak up and risk consequences, or they remain silent and behave inauthentically.
Sadly, this lack of psychological safety is all too common in organisational life today. Too often, we don’t feel safe expressing our true thoughts and feelings, leading to distorted feedback and unspoken tensions. Everyone knows this is happening, but it often goes unaddressed. As a result, we play games—complex, silent games—that obscure the real issues preventing the organisation from moving forward. In our work with leadership teams, we are frequently surprised by the amount of hidden information we uncover during confidential one-to-ones. The issues that are not being shared are often the very ones that the group needs to confront in order to break through the challenges they face.
The Head, Heart, and Hand of Collective Intelligence
How can leaders navigate these paradoxes and avoid being paralysed by them? How do they transition between the role of “hero” and “host”? Resolving this challenge requires a significant shift in mental and emotional complexity—a transformation that involves developing a new set of cognitive, relational, and action-oriented capabilities. At Living Systems, we refer to this as the head, heart, and hand of Collective Intelligence.
From a cognitive perspective, leaders must develop systemic awareness. This means expanding their view of the organisation and learning to take a holistic perspective, recognising the interconnectedness of organisational, group, and personal dynamics. Leaders must be able to engage in double-loop learning—questioning the assumptions that shape their behaviours, as well as those of the team and the organisation. This requires metacognition: the ability to reflect on and regulate one’s own thinking and impulses.
Relationally, leaders must enhance their emotional intelligence and interpersonal effectiveness. Challenging the status quo or addressing uncomfortable truths can provoke strong reactions. Leaders must be aware of their emotions in real time and be able to self-regulate. When there are breakdowns between teams or functions, leaders must be able to undo negative projections—those assumptions or narratives that damage relationships and hinder performance. This requires deep empathy and the ability to rebuild connection.
Finally, leaders must foster collective action and group agility. Unlike Directive Leadership meetings, which are characterised by rigid agendas, Collective Intelligence meetings are based on the principle of “notional design and planned emergence,” as described by our colleague Jenny Mackewn. While the group enters the meeting with a clear agenda, the expectation is that this agenda will evolve in response to what emerges within the group. The leader’s role here is not to make unilateral decisions but to facilitate collective decision-making by the group as a whole.
Balancing Horizontal with Vertical Development
Admittedly, the attributes required of leaders can seem overwhelming. Where does one even begin? The good news is that this is a journey that can be taken step by step. This journey towards greater mental and emotional complexity is known as vertical development, distinct from horizontal development (which focuses on knowledge transfer and skills acquisition). While horizontal development teaches you what to know, vertical development focuses on how you know. It involves becoming increasingly aware of how you think, feel, and interpret the world around you. Both are necessary, but the former is incremental, while the latter is transformational. It’s akin to updating software versus overhauling your computer’s hardware. Vertical development broadens a leader’s perspective and enhances their awareness, enabling them to handle ambiguity and react to complex situations with greater agility.
Conclusion: A New Kind of Leadership for a New Era
An age of disruption demands a new type of leadership. What got us here will not necessarily guide us into the future. In a world facing increasing global crises, we need leaders with a clear sense of purpose and commitment to their role in the world—leaders who embrace the lifelong journey of vertical development. In an era marked by volatility and uncertainty, we need leaders who are present, open to the world around them, and comfortable with ambiguity and the unknown. And in a time of escalating complexity, we need leaders who possess the cognitive, relational, and action-oriented capabilities necessary to lead transformative change. Only by rising to the challenges of vertical development will we be able to face the unpredictable future with confident uncertainty.