Leadership in Crisis Management

74% of managers say Gen Z is the hardest generation to work with. I manage Gen Z. I am Gen Z. Here's my perspective 👇 I'm Gen Z. I manage Gen Z. And I see exactly what the reports describe. Gen Z changes jobs more frequently than previous generations. In our company? We have people who've stayed 3–5 years. Why? I don't fight who Gen Z is. I started building a company around who they are. According to data (Deloitte 2025, 23,482 respondents): → 89% of Gen Z want a job with purpose, not just a paycheck → 48% don't feel financially secure (up from 30% the year before) → More than half live paycheck to paycheck This isn't a lazy generation. It's a generation that grew up through crises. Recession, pandemic, war, inflation. Their whole adult lives have been defined by uncertainty. They've also seen their parents work themselves to exhaustion for little reward. Of course they want flexibility and financial safety. 💡 The biggest mistake companies make? They assume Gen Z doesn't want to work hard. Gen Z does want to work hard, but on their own terms. 59% believe AI skills are important for career advancement. But 86% say soft skills like communication, leadership, and empathy are even more critical. Gen Z isn't running away from work. They're running away from places where they can't grow. → What works in my company? Autonomy with accountability. Everyone knows what's expected of them, but has freedom in how to deliver it. We don't count hours. We count results. Financial and decision-making transparency. Everyone has access to all documents. Everyone sees where we stand. That builds trust. Flexibility as the default. Remote, asynchronous, at the hours that work for you. The purpose of work is clear. Everyone knows why we do what we do. ESOP for everyone. Everyone owns shares. You're not an employee, you're a co-owner. → The hardest part about managing Gen Z? They expect honesty. You can't lie to them with slogans like "we're a family" while paying minimum wage. Gen Z has the internet. They'll check your before sending a CV. You can't preach values and not live by them. They'll spot it in a minute and leave. Why do companies "have a problem" with Gen Z? Because Gen Z has a problem with companies that: – Pay less than it costs to live – Demand mentorship but give managers no time to mentor (managers spend only 13% of their time developing people) – Say one thing and do another Reports say "Gen Z is difficult." I see "Gen Z doesn't tolerate nonsense." 💭 My perspective as a Gen Z founder: They're a great generation for any organization that wants to grow. Fast, curious, honest, unafraid to speak their mind. But stop trying to fit them into 1990s systems. They won't stay 40 years in one corporation. They won't pretend work is their life. And that's okay. If your company "has a problem with Gen Z" maybe the problem isn't Gen Z. — Follow me (Wiktoria Wójcik) for more on Gen Z, gaming & product — from someone living it.

'I'd rather manage anyone else'—why Gen Z has become the least wanted generation in corporate America. As someone in Gen Z, this data is... interesting. ResumeTemplates surveyed 1,000+ managers. 68% say managing Gen Z feels like "raising children." The complaints are predictable: need constant reminders, require emotional reassurance, can't handle basic workplace norms. Here's the uncomfortable truth: they're not entirely wrong. But they're missing the bigger picture. We grew up with infinite feedback loops (likes, comments, streaks). We expect rapid iteration and transparent communication. Traditional managers interpret this as "needy" when it's actually how we're wired to perform at our highest level. What Gen Z actually wants (and why it drives results): - Frequent feedback cycles: Not annual reviews—weekly check-ins with clear metrics and course corrections - Transparent communication: Direct feedback without corporate fluff. Tell us exactly what success looks like and how we're tracking - Growth frameworks: Clear progression paths with specific skills to develop, not vague promises of "future opportunities" - Flexible systems: We optimize for output, not hours in a chair Practical tools that actually work: - Dextego: Soft skills training for sales teams that speaks our language—gamified, data-driven skill development - 15Five: Weekly check-ins that create the feedback loops we crave without overwhelming managers - Notion/Monday.com: Project management that gives us ownership and visibility into impact - BetterUp: 1:1 coaching that addresses the "emotional reassurance" gap with professional development The real opportunity here: For Gen Z: Stop waiting for permission. Learn the game, then change it. Every complaint in that survey is a skill you can develop in 30-90 days if you're intentional about it. For managers: The Gen Z employees who scale fastest get clear frameworks, frequent check-ins, and direct feedback. Treat us like the high-performance systems we are, not the corporate drones you're used to. For companies: The first organizations to crack the Gen Z code will dominate the next decade. We're not going anywhere—we're your future workforce, customers, and leaders. Most people will read this survey and complain. Smart companies will see it as a competitive advantage waiting to be captured. Your move.

🌍 New Study Highlight: Why “Strongman” Leaders Resurge in Turbulent Times A multi-authored cross-cultural research project, led by @LasseLaustsen, Xiaotian Sheng & myself (Mark Van Vugt), draws on data from 5,008 participants across 25 countries to show compelling evidence that intergroup conflict—whether perceived or actual—drives increased public support for dominant, authoritarian-style leaders. 🔑 Key Takeaways -Four rigorous tests all indicate that exposure to conflict boosts follower preferences for dominant leadership -In “war” priming experiments, people showed a 54% preference for dominant-looking leaders, vs. ~46% in control and ~42% in peaceful scenarios. -Those scoring high in right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) or social dominance orientation (SDO) were particularly inclined toward dominant leadership—especially when viewing the world as dangerous -Countries with higher military spending or frequent conflicts also showed stronger aggregate preference for dominance in leadership 📌 Relevance Today - Tracing the rise of dominant leaders: From Russia to political campaigns invoking fear (e.g., “the world is dangerous, we need a tough leader”), this study explains why such rhetoric resonates. - A feedback loop risk: Heightened conflict support boosts dominant leaders, who may further escalate intergroup tension—potentially creating cyclical instability - Implications for democracy: Understanding this deep-rooted psychology offers insight into processes fueling polarization, authoritarian tendencies, and challenges in conflict de-escalation. 🧠 Why this matters When people feel threatened by war, terrorism, pandemics, economic downturns, or geopolitical insecurity, they may instinctively prefer more assertive, dominant leaders—even if those leaders don’t deliver long-term benefits. Recognizing this evolutionary instinct is critical for shaping political communications, election strategies, media framing, and public policy—especially during global crises like: - The Ukraine war - Rising tensions in East Asia and North America - Backlashes in democracies facing economic uncertainty or cultural change To reinforce democratic and inclusive leadership, it’s crucial to mitigate fear-based appeals and highlight competence, cooperation, and clarity—particularly during volatile periods. #Leadership #EvolutionaryPsychology #Politics #Conflict #Dominance #Democracy #ScienceCommunication A big thanks to all our co-authors around the world for making this project possible! link to article: https://lnkd.in/eVS9g54q link to interview: https://lnkd.in/eBH3USs9 link to YouTube lecture about how authoritarian leaders rise to power (in Dutch): https://lnkd.in/eY7aig7R

What I Learned About Leadership While Securing an Election No One Thought Would Happen the way it did! We were 48 hours away from a major election in a remote district of Kashmir. Tensions were high. There hadn’t been an incident-free voting in that area in years. Threats coming in. Voter turnout was expected to be low inspite of all efforts, assurances and campaigning. And we were tasked with securing 30 villages spread across rough terrain, leading multi-agency efforts, limited communications, and heightened fear.   I had led complex operations before, but this wasn’t just about troop deployment, operations or logistics. This was about rebuilding trust, in institutions, in people & in the promise that “your vote counts”. The locals weren’t just fearful of violence, they were skeptical of promises and assurances. They were also hopeful- they wanted to see a system, not just security forces. So I changed our approach. I didn’t just place personnel at polling stations but built visibility and omnipresence with our relentless patrolling and connections over calls with key stakeholders. We created layered intelligence and community engagement teams, set up information centres in the villages to counter misinformation, mapped high-risk routes and equipped teams with contingency protocols, personally met with village elders and contestants to explain the safety nets in place and didn’t just saw, but showed them that we are there to protect- NO MATTER WHAT! And then… the morning came. Not just a few—but entire families walked out to vote. Some barefoot. Some carrying their children. Some escorting senior citizens. By the end of the day, voter turnout crossed 60%. Zero incidents. Full coverage. And most importantly: Confidence in democracy restored, trust and hope triumphs! Afterwards, a village elder walked up to me and said: “This is the first time I voted without fear. Thank you for making us feel safe.” I needed nothing more as a testimony, though accolades from top brass followed! And that’s when I truly understood this: Leadership is not about control. It’s about making people feel safe enough to take a step forward. Whether you’re leading an election, a business or a classroom, people don’t need perfection. They need someone who will: Show up, create clarity when systems are foggy and build trust — not with speeches, but through action! So the question I ask today in any leadership room is : Have you built something others can believe in, even when they’re scared to try? That day, we didn’t just secure an election. We protected belief. We created trust. And that’s the kind of leadership the world needs more of. #LeadershipInAction #SecurityAndTrust #ElectionsMatter #PublicService #CrisisLeadership #SystemThinking #TeamworkInTension #ResilientLeadership

HAPPY TUESDAY 🌀 Could you make It? 🌀 The question of whether a leader "could make it" hinges on their ability to effectively navigate complexity, inspire followers, and sustain positive outcomes in a dynamic environment. It is determined by three core pillars: Competency, Character, and Context. 1. Competency: The Skills to Execute 🧠 This pillar assesses the leader's practical ability to lead a group toward a goal. Strategic Acumen: Can the leader not only set a vision but also translate that vision into a clear, executable strategy? Decision-Making Under Ambiguity: A leader frequently faces decisions with incomplete information. Success requires the ability to quickly synthesize data, assess risk, and make timely, calculated choices, often under pressure (as demonstrated by the NASA team in the Apollo 13 example). Talent Development: Great leaders don't just solve problems; they build the capacity for others to solve problems. This involves identifying, mentoring, and empowering future leaders and experts within the team. 2. Character: The Foundation of Trust 🛡️ A leader's character dictates their influence and the organizational culture they create. Trust is the currency of leadership. Integrity and Authenticity: A leader must be consistently honest, ethical, and transparent. A gap between what a leader says and what they do erodes trust immediately and makes it impossible to rally people during a crisis. Resilience and Humility: The successful leader can absorb setbacks without breaking, maintaining composure and focus. Crucially, they must also possess humility—the ability to admit mistakes, seek external advice, and credit the team for success. Empathy and Communication: Effective leaders connect with their team's emotional reality. They must be skilled listeners and communicators who can articulate the mission's importance in a way that resonates personally with their followers, fostering genuine buy-in. 3. Context: Alignment with Environment and Mission 🧭 A leader is only as effective as their fit for the specific challenge and environment. Situational Fit: A leader who "made it" in a turnaround scenario (e.g., cutting costs, restructuring) may fail in a growth scenario (e.g., innovation, cultural expansion). The leader's style and skills must match the organization's current needs. Tolerance for Change: The ability to "make it" today demands a leader who can thrive amidst constant technological, market, and social change. Moral Courage: The willingness to make unpopular but necessary decisions, to stand firm on core values, and to challenge the status quo, even at personal risk. This courage is essential for long-term ethical leadership and sustainable success. In essence, a leader "makes it" not by avoiding failure, but by demonstrating the sustained competence and character required to learn from failure and successfully bring their team through the inevitable crises. Stephen D J A #leadership #courage

New Publication!!! Coup d'états, contested elections, and shrinking civic space are not isolated events, but rather signals of a deeper democratic malaise. The question is: who safeguards West Africa’s democratic future? In my new article for the LSE Africa Blog, I argue that ECOWAS must evolve from being a firefighter, rushing in when crises erupt, to a preventive diplomacy approach that anticipates risks, nurtures trust, and reinforces fragile institutions before they collapse. This piece is both a critique and a call to action: Can regional bodies reinvent themselves to protect democracy before cracks become crises? Preventive diplomacy is not abstract. It is the difference between reacting to a coup and building conditions that make coups less likely. I invite you to read and reflect: https://lnkd.in/dqp5Y87b What does preventive diplomacy look like in practice, and why does it matter now more than ever for West Africa? I look forward to your thoughts. After all, West Africa’s democratic future is of global interest.

🚨Delivering Democracy: The Critical Role of Social Accountability🚨 In an era marked by democratic erosion and rising authoritarianism, we must champion social accountability and transparency. These principles aren’t just ideals—they are defensive mechanisms that protect democratic integrity from corruption, inequality, and systemic abuse. Social accountability—holding institutions answerable through civic participation—is vital. As Archon Fung (2018) underscores, participatory mechanisms like citizen audits, participatory budgeting, and grassroots oversight empower communities to demand ethical governance. South Korea’s Candlelight Revolution (2016-2017) demonstrated how sustained public scrutiny can oust leaders who undermine democratic norms. Transparency acts as a catalyst for trust. Alina Mungiu-Pippidi (2021) argues that open access to information disrupts “corruption equilibriums” by making hidden power networks visible. When governments operate in secrecy, inequality and distrust flourish. Tools like open-data portals (e.g., Ukraine’s ProZorro system for public contracts ensures decisions serve the many, not the few. As Larry Diamond (2023) warns, opacity enables authoritarian “legal corruption,” where elites manipulate laws to entrench power. Democracies thrive when institutions balance authority with public scrutiny. Rachel Kleinfeld (2020) emphasizes that independent judiciaries, free media, and anti-corruption agencies convert accountability into tangible safeguards. For example, Ghana’s Office of the Special Prosecutor has prosecuted high-level graft, while Brazil’s Lava Jato investigations (despite later controversies) temporarily restored faith in justice systems. Without such structures, even robust democracies risk backsliding, as seen in Hungary’s democratic decline under Viktor Orbán. Accountability is not just about corruption—it’s about justice. Amartya Sen (1999) famously framed democracy as a system of “public reasoning,” where transparency ensures marginalized voices shape policies. India’s Right to Information Act (2005) empowered citizens to challenge bureaucratic opacity, while Colombia’s 2016 peace accord included transparency measures to address historic inequities. When governance excludes vulnerable groups, democracy becomes a façade. Digital tools amplify accountability but also risks. While platforms like IPaidABribe (India) and FollowTheMoney (Africa) crowdsource anti-corruption data, authoritarian regimes weaponize surveillance to suppress dissent. As Steven Feldstein (2021) notes, pro-democracy movements must advocate for ethical tech governance—ensuring AI and blockchain tools prioritize public interest over state control. As Bo Rothstein (2022) asserts, “Quality of government is the invisible glue holding democracies together.” Let’s defend that glue—through open institutions, vigilant citizenship, and unrelenting demand for justice. Democracy survives when citizens refuse to accept complacency. 🌍✊

Just a thought - In large multinational organizations, the interplay between head office directives and field execution is often a delicate balance. The wisdom gained from experience in the field - where leaders bear direct responsibility for profit and loss - can sometimes clash with the centralized intelligence gathered at headquarters. This tension is not unlike a battle-hardened captain receiving orders from a distant general, who, despite their strategic vantage point, may lack the on-the-ground perspective critical to making the right decision. The challenge arises when decisions must be "socialized" within the organization, often requiring the approval of senior executives far removed from the operational realities. This can lead to a situation where political considerations overshadow the practical insights of those leading the charge in the field. The result? Value erosion, as the best ideas are sacrificed on the altar of internal politics. However, this need not be the case. Organizations can thrive when they recognize the value of both perspectives. The "captain on the ground" brings invaluable frontline wisdom, while the "centralized intelligence" from headquarters provides a broader strategic view. The key is to create a culture where these perspectives are integrated, allowing the best ideas to prevail, irrespective of their origin. Critical to this balance is the selection of the right "captain" to lead the company in the field. Just as in battle, choosing a leader who understands the nuances of the terrain and can effectively communicate with headquarters is crucial. This leader must not only excel in execution but also in navigating the complexities of the organization's political landscape. Fostering a culture that values both field wisdom and centralized strategy, and by carefully selecting leaders who can bridge the gap between these two perspectives, organizations can ensure that the best ideas win - leading to sustainable success.

The best talent has options now. Your control fetish doesn't. Exit interview reason: "My manager needed approval for everything." The boomer VP's response: "Kids these days have no work ethic." Wrong diagnosis. Here's what actually happened: Gen Z isn't "soft" about micromanagement. They're just the first generation refusing to pretend it's normal. And that's teaching the rest of us something critical about leadership we've been ignoring for decades. ◻️ The Pattern Everyone's Missing Boomers tolerated micromanagement because job security meant survival. Gen X learned to work around it because that's what you did. Millennials complained about it but stayed anyway. Gen Z? They're gone in 90 days. Not because they can't handle structure. Because they've watched their parents burn out in jobs that demanded loyalty but delivered none. ◻️ What The Data Actually Shows Tracked retention patterns across 43 companies last year. Gen Z employees under micromanagers: 67% turnover within 6 months. Same demographic under autonomy-focused leaders: 89% retention after 12 months. The difference isn't generational weakness. It's generational clarity about what healthy leadership looks like. ◻️ The Real Leadership Lesson Here When a 23-year-old walks because you need to approve their email subject lines... They're not the problem. Your management model is. Gen Z grew up with: → Instant access to information → Self-directed learning through YouTube → Building businesses from their bedrooms → Watching AI automate tasks faster than managers can approve them Then they enter workplaces where grown adults need permission to order office supplies. The cognitive dissonance is deafening. ◻️ What Smart Leaders Are Doing Instead The companies retaining top Gen Z talent aren't lowering standards. They're raising autonomy. Define outcomes, not processes. Measure results, not activity. Trust competence, don't audit effort. Revolutionary? No. Just leadership that actually works when you're competing for talent that has options. ◻️ The Uncomfortable Truth Micromanagement was never good management. We just accepted it because everyone else did. Gen Z's refusal to tolerate it isn't entitlement. It's evolution. They're forcing a reckoning with management practices that survived not because they were effective... But because nobody had the leverage to demand better. Until now. The companies winning the talent war in 2025? They stopped asking "How do we get Gen Z to accept our management style?" And started asking "What can Gen Z's expectations teach us about building better systems?" Different question. Different results. P.S. What's your take -- is Gen Z's low tolerance for micromanagement a problem to fix or a signal to listen to?

The role of a #leader is multifaceted, especially during tough times. Here’s an overview of how a leader can significantly impact and navigate through challenging situations: 1. Vision and Direction •Setting the Vision: Leaders provide a clear vision and direction, helping the team to stay focused on long-term goals even amidst short-term crises. •Communication: Effective leaders communicate the vision and the current reality transparently, reducing uncertainty and anxiety among team members. 2. Decision-Making •Timely Decisions: In tough times, leaders are required to make swift and often difficult decisions. These decisions should be well-informed and aligned with the organization’s values and goals. •Risk #Management: Leaders assess risks and make strategic decisions to mitigate them, ensuring the sustainability and stability of the organization. 3. Motivation and Morale •Inspiring Confidence: Leaders inspire #confidence and optimism, which helps to keep the team’s morale high. They recognize and celebrate small wins to keep the momentum going. •Support and Empathy: Showing #empathy and understanding towards team members’ concerns and well-being is crucial. This helps in building trust and loyalty. 4. Adaptability and #Resilience •Flexibility: Leaders must be adaptable, ready to pivot strategies and approaches as the situation evolves. •Resilience: Demonstrating resilience helps in setting an example for the team. It encourages team members to stay strong and persistent. 5. Problem-Solving •Innovative Solutions: Leaders encourage creativity and innovation, fostering an environment where new ideas and solutions can emerge. •Resource Management: Efficiently managing resources (time, #money, human resources) is critical during tough times. Leaders prioritize and allocate resources where they are most needed. 6. Team Cohesion •Building Unity: Leaders promote collaboration and unity, ensuring that the team works together towards common goals. •Conflict Resolution: Addressing conflicts promptly and fairly is essential to maintain a cohesive and productive team. 7. Stakeholder Management •Communication with #Stakeholders: Keeping stakeholders informed and engaged through regular updates builds trust and ensures their support. •Balancing Interests: Leaders balance the interests of various stakeholders, including employees, #customers, suppliers, and shareholders, to maintain stability. 8. Personal Example •Leading by Example: Leaders who demonstrate integrity, commitment, and a strong work ethic set a standard for others to follow. •Self-Care: Maintaining their own physical and mental health ensures leaders are in the best condition to lead effectively. Leader’s ability to provide vision, make informed decisions, #motivate the team, adapt to changes, solve problems creatively, foster team cohesion, manage stakeholders, and lead by example significantly influences the organization’s ability to navigate and overcome #challenges.