Leading With Love Redefines Leadership in Polycrisis.
How Leadership Anchored in Humanity Reshapes Organizations in the Age of Polycrisis.
Leadership at a Breaking Point
The old archetype of leadership, commanding, heroic, singular, was shaped in an era of industrial growth and relatively stable market dynamics. It was designed for organizations that could be run like machines: predictable, linear, and responsive to clear inputs. That model was once effective because the external environment was less turbulent and the stakes of global interconnection were lower.
Today the context has shifted. Executives operate within what has been described as a “polycrisis”, a moment in history when crises are not isolated but interwoven, compounding and amplifying each other. Economic shocks link to supply chain fragility. Climate events cascade into political instability. Social divisions intersect with technological disruption. Each of these forces is destabilizing on its own, but together they overwhelm conventional tools of management.
The consequence is profound: leaders cannot lead as though they are machines operating machines. They must lead as humans in human systems. Laura Empson frames this as a historic moment for leadership, an inflection point where survival depends not on control but on connection. The question is no longer how to assert authority, but how to maintain legitimacy, cohesion, and collective resilience in a world defined by volatility.
From Superstars to Shared Humanity
The twentieth century elevated the idea of the “superstar CEO.” These were leaders lionized for their vision, charisma, and ability to singlehandedly steer organizations. Markets, media, and boards reinforced this narrative, rewarding the notion that leadership was embodied in a single figure whose authority could drive growth and protect stability.
Yet Empson argues that this archetype has collapsed under the weight of complexity. No single individual can possibly hold the range of knowledge, skills, and authority required to navigate intersecting crises. Dependence on a singular figure creates fragility: when that figure falters, the entire organization is exposed. In a polycrisis, concentration of leadership power is not resilience, it is risk.
The emerging model demands redistribution of authority. Leadership must be understood as a shared practice that extends beyond one person at the top. This shift requires leaders to abandon the myth of omniscience and to recognize the necessity of collective intelligence. It asks them to show humanity by admitting limitations, engaging with others, and cultivating environments where dialogue is not weakness but strength.
This recalibration marks the end of the celebrity model of leadership. Organizations that cling to it risk brittleness, while those that embrace distributed, relational leadership gain the adaptability to survive systemic shocks.
Leadership is Love
Giampiero Petriglieri’s intervention reframes leadership through the language of love. This is not sentimentality or personal affection, but an acknowledgment of leadership as a fundamentally human act: the work of enabling others to grow, to act, and to matter. To call leadership “a form of love” is to insist that leadership is not about ownership or control, but about recognition and liberation.
This perspective disrupts the mechanical metaphors that dominate management. Too often, people are described as “resources,” teams as “machines,” or organizations as “systems” that can be tuned and optimized. Love challenges that reduction. It resists turning humans into abstractions. It insists on full recognition of people as individuals with agency, creativity, and dignity.
To lead with love is to shift the frame: from strategy as a set of imposed directives to strategy as a platform that allows people to bring their full capacity to the work. It is to understand authority not as power over others, but as responsibility toward others. It is to move from mobilizing through compliance to mobilizing through commitment.
This reframing is difficult because it destabilizes traditional authority. Love in leadership requires vulnerability, openness, and the willingness to let go of rigid control. But it is precisely this letting go that creates the conditions for collective resilience.
The Risks of “Abusive Love”
Petriglieri also warns of the shadow side: “abusive love” in leadership. This occurs when leaders mistake charisma for empowerment, when passion becomes possessiveness, and when the appearance of love conceals a deeper structure of control.
Abusive love captivates followers, sometimes even inspiring them in the short term. But its energy is extractive. It creates dependency on the leader’s personality rather than building the organization’s capacity. In moments of crisis, this dependency proves fatal. Once the leader is absent, discredited, or overwhelmed, the system collapses.
Authentic love in leadership looks different. It is harder to practice because it is less about projection and more about empowerment. It requires leaders to tolerate dissent, to embrace ambiguity, and to resist the temptation to dominate. Authentic love does not seduce; it liberates. It creates organizations that can withstand shocks precisely because people have been prepared to act with agency, not simply to obey orders.
The lesson is clear: the risk is not only the absence of love, but its counterfeit. Leaders must learn to distinguish between inspiration that empowers and inspiration that enslaves. Only the former builds resilience.
Why Love Matters in the Polycrisis
The insistence on love in leadership is not rhetorical. It is structural. Polycrisis conditions demand capabilities that cannot be commanded: adaptability, trust, creativity, and collaboration. These qualities emerge only when people feel valued, safe, and empowered. They cannot be manufactured through fear or compliance.
Love in leadership creates the conditions for these capacities to flourish. By treating people as human beings rather than as instruments of output, leaders unlock the only renewable resource that matters in systemic crisis: collective intelligence. The polycrisis cannot be solved by linear strategies; it must be navigated by communities of people willing to adapt together.
The practical consequence is profound. Leaders must invest in relationships, prioritize dialogue, and build cultures that honor dignity. They must shift from asking “how do I make people follow me?” to “how do I create conditions where people can act together?” In doing so, leadership becomes less about the individual and more about the system, less about command and more about connection.
Leaders
Reject the Superstar CEO Myth: Organizations must outgrow dependency on a singular heroic figure. Distribute authority to build resilience.
Define Leadership As Liberation: Anchor leadership in enabling others, not in consolidating power.
Identify and Resist Abusive Love: Charisma that captivates without empowering breeds fragility. Build systems that outlast personality.
Anchor Strategy In Humanity: Treat people as central to survival, not as replaceable resources.
Embrace Vulnerability: Model humanity by admitting limits and inviting dialogue as a core leadership practice.
Bottom Line : Love is Leadership’s Survival Lever
In the age of polycrisis, leadership cannot rely on control or charisma. To endure, organizations must be led with love: a practice of recognition, liberation, and humanity that transforms fragility into resilience.
