Leadership Strategies for Times of Disruption

In an era where disruption has become the norm, organizations must rethink how they operate and, more importantly, how they lead. Leaders face increasing uncertainty, requiring them to adapt their strategies, foster agility, and empower their teams. But what does this look like in practice?

In this article, Sohrab Salimi, an expert in agile leadership and organizational transformation, shares his thoughts from an interview with Sarah Brasack of the Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger. 

Sohrab explores how leaders can navigate periods of disruption, foster psychological safety, and build resilient, innovative teams. With practical examples and actionable strategies, he explores what it takes to move from traditional leadership approaches to enabling collaboration, trust, and growth in an ever-changing world.

In the economy, disruption has become a permanent state; therefore, continuous upheavals are the new normal. How must leaders change to prepare their companies for the future?

First and foremost, leaders must acknowledge for themselves that neither they nor anyone else can predict the future. Disruption is always easy to recognize in hindsight. For example, when the iPhone was introduced, no one talked about an "iPhone moment." Instead, many experts, including those at Nokia and Microsoft, laughed at Apple's product. Then, all traditional phones disappeared, and everything shifted towards smartphones.Once we accept that we cannot predict the future, several consequences follow. 

An example?

We need to work -- and consequently lead -- in a much more agile way.

What exactly does agile leadership mean?

An important aspect is to lead differently depending on the situation. This is not entirely new, but the intention is new: to speed up decision-making processes. We usually achieve this by decentralizing decisions. For this to work, three things are necessary: employees need context, which means information transparency; we must work on the competencies of our employees so they can make good decisions; and our employees must be brave enough to make decisions. Agile leadership means growing from the role of a decision-maker into the role of an enabler for decision making.

Does this mean a shift from hierarchical leadership to a more collaborative approach?

Hierarchy does not completely disappear. Leaders still make decisions themselves. The most innovative organizations of our time are not completely flat, but the topic of collaboration receives a much different emphasis. Great products and services are always created by teams, and to make this team feel like a team, we need to create an environment where people meet on an equal footing and can make mistakes. One of the core tasks for leaders is to provide this framework for more collaboration.

Do you see companies already doing this?

Many companies claim to do this, but in most cases, these are just lip service. Many leaders like to think that their teams or organizations foster a high level of psychological safety. However, all studies tell a different story. For example, Gallup conducts an annual study on employee engagement, and the results have been consistent for decades across different regions: only 18--20% of employees are fully engaged, roughly the same percentage are disengaged and emotionally detached, and the rest fall somewhere in between. For businesses, this level of untapped productivity should be unacceptable. Achieving genuine equality, true collaboration, and real psychological safety requires specific tools and techniques that are applied systematically.

An example?

Simple practices, like setting clear rules for collaboration, can make a big difference. When I run workshops with leaders, I'm always surprised by how few of them---even those with strong educational backgrounds---have ever heard of these tools and techniques. It's the accumulation of these small steps that leads to real change.

In many organizations, there's a claim of working as equals, but decisions are still made hierarchically: the person highest up in the hierarchy makes the decision, even if they aren't necessarily the most qualified to do so. A true meritocracy would mean that decisions are made by those with the most expertise in a given area. Most organizations are still far from this ideal.

In times of disruption, employees' fears tend to increase. How should leaders best address this?

From my experience, ignoring fears doesn't work. They need to be addressed directly, whether it's fears about losing a job due to no longer being allowed to work from home, or concerns about the lack of raises despite inflation. When employees see that leaders acknowledge these concerns, a significant part of their anxiety is reduced specifically, the fear of bringing up their worries to leadership. Even if there's no immediate solution to the problem, both sides will feel better simply by addressing it. This alone boosts productivity and helps prevent new fears from arising.

Another approach is involving employees in finding solutions. This helps alleviate the fear of being at the mercy of top-down decisions and empowers people to actively engage with the challenges.

Leaders themselves often feel uncertain, realizing that their traditional methods of leadership are no longer effective. What does this lead to?

Many organizations respond to growing uncertainty by doubling down on old practices, trying harder to predict the future or planning budgets in even greater detail. Essentially, they try to exert more control, which usually isn't effective. Instead, leaders should consciously question this instinct. A better alternative is admitting that the future can't be fully predicted and accepting that not every decision made on day one will be perfect.

Why is this helpful?

Simply acknowledging that, as a leader, I will also make mistakes often leads to a greater willingness to seek feedback earlier in the process. The same principles we apply to product or service development can then be applied to our own growth as leaders. This becomes the first step toward building a learning culture within the organization. When leaders adopt this mindset, it naturally influences and inspires others.

What's the difference between a learning culture and a culture of accepting mistakes?

I prefer to speak about a learning culture rather than a failure culture. When people talk about failure culture, I often see a tendency to lump all mistakes together under the same umbrella. This can result in tolerating---or even expecting tolerance for---errors in areas where failure is not an option. I'm firmly against this.

An example?

Take a hospital, for instance: If I'm about to administer a blood transfusion, I must first test the patient's blood type. Failing to do so is a mistake that cannot be tolerated---everyone knows this step is non-negotiable. But in a different context, like developing new products or services, if we test a new feature idea and it doesn't resonate with customers, that could be seen as a failure---or as a valuable learning opportunity.

As a leader, I foster this kind of learning culture by being transparent about my own missteps, avoiding finger-pointing or harsh criticism. Instead, I might address the team with curiosity: Interesting! What assumptions did you base your decision on? What questions should we ask ourselves next time we face a similar situation? What's the next experiment you want to try? This approach shifts the focus toward learning and growth.

Diversity is a major topic in the business world. In your view, do diverse teams actually help address disruptive challenges more effectively?

It depends on the type of diversity. Simply mixing genders or people from different regions can boost productivity and innovation---but it doesn't necessarily have to. The key factor that often makes teams stronger is having members with diverse experiences. These experiences allow them to approach problems from different perspectives, often leading to a broader range of ideas or solutions. For leaders, these varied perspectives should be the decisive factor when building a team.

At the same time, it's crucial to create a team with enough common ground to foster trust. If there's no shared foundation among team members, collaboration becomes difficult. Building such teams isn't easy, but it's essential for success.

It's human nature to prefer being around like-minded people.

Absolutely. But as a leader, you have to question yourself: Do I want people who just agree with everything I say, or do I want to be challenged? A simple technique leaders can use is to present their hypothesis or idea to the team and conclude with, "I could be wrong. Feel free to challenge this idea, team." Then, observe what happens. If everyone just nods in agreement, it's a clear sign that your recruitment process might need rethinking.

What's one practice from successful companies that you would recommend?

Amazon, and now many other companies, distinguish between Type-1 and Type-2 decisions. Type-1 decisions are irreversible or very difficult to reverse---for example, acquiring a company. You can't just return it in two weeks and get your money back. Type-2 decisions, on the other hand, can be reversed relatively quickly and at a low cost, or shifted in a completely different direction.

For Type-1 decisions, Amazon prioritizes increasing the likelihood of making the right decision rather than speed, often involving multiple hierarchy levels, sometimes up to the CEO. For Type-2 decisions, they aim to act as quickly and as decentralized as possible. Companies that adopt this approach are much better equipped to navigate uncertainty in their environments.