When Leadership Fails; Restoring Trust in Uncertain Times

By Dr. Aiden M.A. Thornton 

This quote conveys a sentiment that echoes across boardrooms, communities, and political spaces alike. It’s not just disillusionment—it’s exhaustion. Perhaps it’s an admission that some systems we’ve relied on, and some leaders who steward them, may no longer be up to the task. 

And yet, this experience of complexity, while deeply felt today, is not new. That our leaders and institutions are struggling to keep pace with a rapidly evolving world has surfaced time and again throughout history. 

Complexity Is Not a Surprise 

Complexity isn’t a passing condition. It’s an inherent feature of social systems. These systems comprise countless interacting elements: people, processes, technologies, roles, rules, institutions, histories, expectations, emotions, and more. As these elements interact, new patterns, tensions, and possibilities constantly emerge. In this sense, complexity is self-generating. The world hasn’t simply become more complex over time. Its very structure produces complexity. That’s why the challenges of the 21st century are not necessarily discontinuous from those of the past. 

Many scholars have contributed to this understanding by describing how systems tend to become more complex over time. A few of my personal favourites include Herbert Simon’s work on the architecture of complexity; Edgar Morin’s reflections on the evolution of interconnectivity; Bar-Yam’s studies on complexity in human systems; John Holland’s approach to complex adaptive systems; and John Stewart’s observations on the evolutionary processes that contribute to increasing systemic complexity. 

Thought leaders have been sounding the alarm on this issue long before modern political scuffles and corporate scandals captured our attention via social media and the evening news. From ancient philosophy to modern sociology, the idea of a “complexity gap”—where systemic complexity outstrips leaders’ capabilities—has deep historical roots. 

In The Republic, Plato explores this gap through a dialogue between Socrates and Adeimantus. Socrates argues that many citizens, lacking the requisite knowledge and reasoning skills, are ill-equipped to meaningfully participate in democracy. It’s a provocative idea, and one that raises an enduring question: how do we prepare people to lead in an increasingly complex world? 

In the 20th century, American sociologist Professor Daniel Bell picked up this thread. He foresaw post-industrial societies, driven by service sectors, science-based industries, and technological elites, generating new levels of systemic complexity. Bell warned that managing these “organised complexities” would require fresh approaches to leadership that had not yet been conceived. 

German philosopher Professor Jürgen Habermas also offered a prescient warning. He predicted a “legitimation crisis,” where institutions would retain formal authority while losing the trust of the public. Leaders, he argued, might still wield power, but would lack legitimacy. 

Despite these warnings, some leadership scholars and practitioners continue to rely on traditional conceptions of leadership and approaches to developing it. These models, often rooted in static values, personality traits, or relatively simple leader–follower dynamics, may be ill-suited to the realities of today’s world. 

Trust in Leadership Is Fraying 

Today, we may not just be observing a decline in trust in individual leaders, but also in the institutions they represent:  governments, corporations, health systems, and the media. When trust erodes, the consequences can be profound: disengagement, workplace dysfunction, resistance to reform, and a broader breakdown in social cohesion. 

In conversations I’ve had with leaders across multiple industry sectors, what I hear most often is not just frustration. It’s fatigue. The burden of complexity is deeply personal. It reveals itself through sleepless nights, political strain within families, the emotional toll of leading in polarised environments, treading on eggshells to ensure one doesn’t say the wrong thing, and never really feeling quite ‘good enough’ to do one’s job. 

And for those they lead, the impact is just as real. Without trust, there is less willingness to follow, collaborate, or even believe that meaningful change is possible. 

A Different Way Forward: Complexity Leadership 

So, where do we go from here? 

Perhaps the issue is not simply that leadership has failed. Perhaps we’ve been working with outdated assumptions about the essential nature of leadership and how to develop it. 

Complexity Leadership offers a different approach. It’s not a rebrand of familiar models. It represents a fundamental shift in how leadership is conceptualised and how it might be developed to meet the demands of the 21st century. 

This approach begins by recognising the inexorable relationship between leadership and complexity. Leadership is not only a process that emerges from complexity, but simultaneously helps us navigate it. First, leadership emerges from the interplay of biological, psychological, behavioural, interpersonal, systemic, cultural, epistemic, ethical and many other factors.  Leadership is not merely taught, but it arises when the right conditions are cultivated.  Second, certain types of leadership  (e.g., systems-oriented, adaptive, collaborative) may be better suited to navigating complexity than traditional, hierarchical leadership models. 

Complexity Leadership calls for an integrated blend of capabilities that may include: 

• approaches that enable leaders to engage directly with the scale, complexity, and nuance of the issues we face;  

• adaptive skills that allow leaders to regulate and change their psychological, behavioural, and interpersonal responses to rapidly changing conditions; and 

• collaborative skills that help us work productively towards common goals in unpredictable environments. 

These are not simply “soft skills.” They are survival skills. 

Currently, many complexity leadership efforts focus on stages of adult development, adaptive leadership models, and systems thinking. But many outstanding questions remain  Which models of adult development help us make sense of complexity in particular?  To what extent are adaptive forms of leadership more effective than less adaptive forms of leadership?  How strong is the relation between systems thinking and effective leadership? 

Skills that predict leadership effectiveness in complex conditions remain an open empirical question.  To better understand the requisite skills leaders to navigate these complexities, we developed a Complexity Leadership Skills Framework based on insights from a Complexity Leadership Lab I facilitated in collaboration with Tasmanian Leaders and several other works.  You can check it out in Image 1 and Table 1 of my latest white paper. Tasmanian Leaders are currently iterating these skills for use in future leadership development initiatives.  We continue to explore this topic at The Australian National University’s Complexity Leadership Lab through a systematic literature review on individual and collective capabilities required to navigate complexity along with an associated program of empirical research to rigorously test our findings. 

Restoring Trust Through New Leadership 

Rebuilding trust will not be quick or easy. But there is reason for hope. 

If we can shift how we think about the nature of leadership—how it emerges, how it’s developed, and how it is practised—we may begin to restore confidence in both leaders and the institutions they represent. 

Complexity Leadership does not promise easy answers. In many ways, it is just damn hard work! But it may offer something better: a way of seeing, being, and leading that is fit for the moment we’re in, and the uncertain futures we’re yet to face.