There’s a quiet tension I hear in leadership conversations at the moment.

On paper, many organisations are doing well. Strategy decks are polished. Dashboards glow green. Transformation programs are underway. Technology investments are paying off. From the outside, everything looks fine.

Yet inside boardrooms, executive teams, and leadership offsites, something feels off.

Decisions are taking longer. Confidence feels brittle. People are busy, but not settled. Leaders aren’t failing, but they’re not comfortable either. There’s a sense of holding one’s breath, waiting for something unnamed to land.

This isn’t incompetence. And it isn’t resistance to change.

It’s something deeper.

The problem isn’t failure. It’s collision.

What many leaders are experiencing right now isn’t the breakdown of systems. It’s the collision of them.

Finance is changing at the same time as trust is being redefined.
Work is evolving while education still trains for yesterday.
AI is accelerating decisions just as governance frameworks struggle to keep pace.
Healthcare, mobility, climate, technology, and geopolitics are no longer separate conversations.

Each system works. But they no longer work neatly together.

Most leadership models were designed for sequential change. One transformation at a time. One disruption per cycle. One clear problem to solve.

That world has gone.

Today’s leaders are operating inside overlapping shifts, where actions in one domain create unintended consequences in another. Decisions ripple. Second-order effects matter. Context moves faster than policy.

And yet, many organisations are still trying to manage this complexity with linear tools.

When clarity disappears, prediction becomes tempting

In moments like this, it’s understandable that leaders reach for forecasts, trends, and predictions. They promise clarity. They offer the illusion of certainty. They make the future feel manageable again.

But prediction rarely reduces complexity. It often hides it.

When leaders rely too heavily on forecasts, they end up optimising for what they can see, rather than preparing for what they can’t. They mistake confidence for readiness. They move faster, but not necessarily wiser.

The issue isn’t that leaders don’t know enough.

It’s that the nature of knowing has changed.

Leadership now happens between domains, not within them

Many of the challenges leaders face today don’t belong to a single function or industry.

Who decides when AI and human judgement diverge?
What does accountability look like when decisions are distributed across people, systems, and algorithms?
How do you sustain trust when speed outpaces understanding?
What should remain human, even when automation is possible?

These are not technology questions. They are leadership questions.

And they sit between domains, not inside them.

This is where traditional expertise starts to feel insufficient. Deep knowledge in one area is no longer enough. What matters is the ability to connect dots across contexts, to sense emerging patterns, and to anticipate ripple effects before they harden into problems.

Leaders aren’t struggling because they lack answers. They’re struggling because the questions have changed shape.

The quiet cost of constant adaptation

Another signal I see often is exhaustion disguised as resilience.

Leaders pride themselves on adaptability. They’ve learned to pivot, reframe, and absorb change. But when adaptation becomes constant, it carries a hidden cost.

People stop asking deeper questions. They default to what’s urgent. Reflection gets postponed. Strategy becomes reactive.

Over time, this creates a subtle erosion of confidence. Not dramatic burnout, but a quieter form of fatigue. A sense that decisions are being made at leaders rather than by them.

This is where foresight becomes essential. Not as a prediction tool, but as a stabilising one.

Preparation is different from prediction

Preparation doesn’t promise certainty. It builds capability.

It asks different questions:

• 
  

  What assumptions are we carrying forward without noticing?

  
  


• 
  

  Where are the pressure points between systems?

  
  


• 
  

  Which decisions matter most if conditions change suddenly?

  
  


• 
  

  What values must hold, regardless of what shifts around us?

  
  

Prepared leaders don’t wait for clarity. They design for ambiguity. They don’t seek perfect answers. They build decision confidence.

This is especially critical in environments where technology accelerates action but not understanding. Speed amplifies both good decisions and bad ones. Without preparation, velocity becomes a risk.

Leadership as sense-making

At its core, leadership today is less about control and more about sense-making.

It’s about helping organisations interpret what’s happening around them, connect signals that others dismiss as noise, and create shared understanding before decisions are locked in.

This kind of leadership doesn’t announce itself loudly. It shows up in the quality of conversations. In the way trade-offs are handled. In the confidence teams feel when navigating uncertainty together.

When leaders regain this footing, something interesting happens. Decisions speed up again. Not because things are simpler, but because people trust the process behind the choice.

Everything looks fine. Until it doesn’t.

The leaders who struggle most right now aren’t the ones facing obvious crises. They’re the ones operating in environments where nothing is broken, yet nothing feels settled.

That tension is information.

It’s a signal that the old maps no longer reflect the territory.

The future rarely announces itself with disruption alone. More often, it arrives as unease before it becomes obvious. Leaders who learn to listen to that unease, rather than suppress it, are the ones best positioned to move forward deliberately.

Not by predicting what comes next.

But by preparing for it.

Choose Forward

By Morris Misel

Keywords: AI Ethics, Future of Work, Leadership

Follow Us On

Become a Contributor Newsletter Signup