“Generational changes are always a challenge… there are many older leaders at sea to understand how to approach leadership with the younger generations.”
This quote from Leading in Complexity: An Initial Enquiry in Tasmania vividly illustrates a tension that many leaders are feeling: how to lead across difference in a time when society feels increasingly divided. Generational divides may be one obvious example, but they may be just a surface-level manifestation of deeper epistemic and cultural shifts.
A Landscape of Division
The divides that leaders must navigate today are rarely limited to age. They often span social groups, cultural identities, political views, and fundamentally different ways of making sense of the world we occupy. Some of these differences are longstanding. Others have accelerated in response to recent disruptions such as the COVID-19 pandemic, rapid technological change, and shifting global dynamics.
The quote specifically points to generational difference, and there is merit in taking this difference seriously. Each generation grows up in different historical, technological, social contexts. These contexts likely shape what we notice about the world, how we communicate, and how we understand the nature of leadership. For example:
- some older leaders may have built their careers in environments that prioritised hierarchy, tradition, or individual resilience.
- some younger leaders may be coming of age in contexts that foreground collaboration, identity, activism, and digital fluency.
But generational differences can only reveal so much. They may be proxies for something more fundamental: the presence of multiple, and often colliding, worldviews.
Beyond Generations: The Collision of Worldviews
A worldview is not simply a belief or opinion. It is a broader framework through which we interpret, experience, and make sense of reality. It shapes how we conceptualise the nature of truth, relate to others, and understand our place in the world. While worldviews may correlate with generational cohorts, they are not bound by them.
In today’s leadership landscape, six worldviews appear to be particularly salient in public discourse:
- Indigenous: rooted in indigenous traditions with connections to place, story, and intergenerational knowledge.
- Traditional: grounded in theological frameworks, often valuing continuity, order, and established norms.
- Modernism: emphasising evidence, rationality, objectivity, and scientific reasoning.
- Classical Postmodernist: questioning the existing universal truths and highlighting the role of power, narrative, and perspective.
- Critical Social Justice: focusing on identity, intersectionality, perceived systemic inequities, and often linked to activism.
- Metamodern: an emergent worldview that attempts to integrate the tensions of others.
It’s important to note that these worldviews are not rigid categories, nor do they represent homogeneous perspectives. People rarely fit neatly into a single worldview, and within each, there is significant variation. Different indigenous nations may hold distinct traditions and worldviews. Modernists may disagree on what constitutes valid evidence. Even classical postmodern thinkers often diverge sharply on questions of knowledge and truth. What matters for leaders is not to stereotype or oversimplify, but to recognise the diversity that exists both between and within these ways of seeing the world.
Notwithstanding this variability, these worldviews are active, shaping leadership conversations across sectors. We may encounter:
- A senior leader who holds a more traditional worldview working with a younger activist shaped by critical social justice frameworks.
- A scientist trained in modern epistemology trying to influence a policymaker who engages with postmodern concepts of narrative and perspective.
Leaders are not only navigating different personalities, roles, and values in their colleagues and team members, but are also working across these deeper epistemic divides. This can create confusion, misalignment, or even paralysis if we do not have the tools to engage across generational and worldview differences effectively.
While acknowledging the existence of diverse worldviews is important, some would argue that this insight alone is relatively trivial. The more difficult and consequential question is whether a given worldview has anything in common with the world. In other words, is it true? In democratic societies, it is essential to allow space for diverse worldviews. This is a matter of civic principle. When it comes to leadership and decision-making, we need worldviews that are epistemically sound. That is, worldviews that help us make sense of the world so we can act effectively within it. In this sense, diverse and true worldviews play somewhat different roles. One protects democracy and social cohesion. The other safeguards our ability to navigate the real-world consequences of our actions.
Complexity Leadership and the Need for New Skills
As introduced in previous articles, the white paper Leading in Complexity: An Initial Enquiry in Tasmania explores the capabilities that may help leaders to lead more effectively in complex conditions.
The Complexity Leadership Skills Framework emerged from a participatory process with Tasmanian Leaders. It identifies capabilities across three domains:
- Foundational Skills: such as resilience, emotional regulation, and managing group dynamics.
- Relational Skills: such as creating collaborative spaces and boundary spanning.
- Systemic Skills: such as foresight and systems thinking.
One skill particularly relevant to the challenge of cross-generational and cross-worldview leadership is Boundary Spanning and Relationship Building, defined as:
“The ability to build bridges across people, relationships, teams, organisations, or sectors by fostering meaningful connections. This involves holding relationships, recognising common goals, and creating partnerships that contribute to a shared purpose”
It is about bridging epistemic divides and creating the conditions where people can work together without avoiding the significance of those differences.
A Tool for the Times: Street Epistemology
One promising method for cultivating the skill of boundary spanning and potentially navigating these divides is street epistemology. Street epistemology draws from the Socratic tradition and is especially useful for:
- Clarifying what someone believes
- The justification for holding a particular belief
- Surfacing the underlying worldview
- Creating space to reflect on the epistemic adequacy of the justification and worldview
Street epistemology is not about persuading someone to change their mind. It is about creating the space for people to examine whether they are persuaded by their own beliefs, and to do so in dialogue with others.
For leaders, this approach may offer a powerful tool for navigating conversations that might otherwise become polarised or stuck. Whether it is bridging generational divides, engaging with diverse worldviews, or working through clashing organisational logics, street epistemology may offer a structured way to stay curious and constructive.
We will be introducing this method further in an upcoming webinar series via the Menzies Leadership Foundation, as well as at the 2025 Leadership Summit to be hosted by The Australian National University, where we will demonstrate how it can be applied to address thorny leadership issues.
For readers who are keen to learn more in the meantime, I recommend checking out the Street Epistemology International website, Peter Boghossian’s book on having impossible conversations, and various YouTube channels that demonstrate street epistemology in action (example 1, example 2, example 3).
Final Reflections
In an age of shifting cultural norms, colliding worldviews, and generational churn, leaders must go beyond traditional models of influence. They need the capability to span boundaries, not only between people, but between competing systems of understanding the world we inhabit.
If you are leading in an environment where disagreement is not just about values, but about competing understandings of reality itself, then the challenge is clear:
- How do you build common ground across competing worldviews?
- How do you lead people who make sense of the the same situation in fundamentally different ways?
- How do you hold steady in the face of epistemic complexity?
These are difficult questions. But they are leadership questions. And we need to treat them as such.
If this resonates with your experience, or if you are interested in learning more about complexity-informed leadership, the ANU Complexity Leadership Lab would welcome a conversation.
Follow Aiden on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/aidenmathornto
At the Menzies Leadership Foundation, we recognise that leadership today means more than achieving consensus — it means learning to lead across difference.
Whether it’s generational gaps, cultural shifts, or clashing worldviews, leaders now find themselves navigating not just teams, but tectonic changes in how people make sense of the world.
In these moments, it’s not clarity of message that matters most — but clarity of engagement. Leaders must develop the capacity to span boundaries, build shared understanding, and stay curious in the face of complexity.
Because when reality feels fragmented, leadership must be integrative. And when the ground beneath us shifts, the future belongs to those who can still find common ground.
In a world of complexity and difference, how do you choose to lead differently?
