The Leadership Gap Is Bigger Than I Thought
Last week I wrote about the unspoken leadership tension running through almost every organisation I work with right now. The gap between leaders navigating uncertainty at the top and teams absorbing the weight at the bottom. I promised a deep dive into five strategies the best organisations are deploying to navigate it.
Then I dived deeper into the story that the data is showing
It paints a more challenging picture (although I think that there are still clear signals on the best strategies to use)
Glassdoor analysed millions of employee reviews heading into 2026 and found that mentions of "misalignment" in reviews of senior leadership surged 149% in a single year. "Disconnect" rose 24%. "Distrust" rose 26%. Source: Glassdoor
ManpowerGroup surveyed nearly 14,000 workers across 19 countries and found that AI use jumped 13% while confidence in using that technology fell 18%. For the first time in three years, overall worker confidence declined. 63% report burnout. 56% received no recent training. Source: ManpowerGroup
HBR researchers found that AI is intensifying rather than reducing workload noted that the extra effort is often voluntary and framed as enjoyable experimentation which makes it easy for leaders to overlook how much additional load their people are actually carrying. Source: The Register
This isn’t tomorrow’s problem on the horizon. It’s here right now.
Here’s what I think the data is telling us
The picture isn't complicated. It’s just uncomfortable.
Most organisations are asking their people to use more tools, absorb more change, and deliver more output while failing to keep pace with the training, support and honest communication that would make any of that sustainable.
The result is people who are confident in what they can do today but deeply uncertain about tomorrow. 43% fear automation will replace their job within the next two years. And rather than leaving, 64% are "job hugging". Staying put and waiting for their leaders to build the bridge between what they can do now and what they'll need to do next.
The trust is still there, just about. But it is eroding. And the gap between what leaders believe is happening and what employees are actually experiencing keeps widening.
So what can we rely on with some higher degree of certainty about what actually works?
This is where I want to be careful. The honest answer is that clean, proven, current examples of organisations navigating this well are rare. Most of the celebrated case studies are old, reversed, or incomplete.
There are three things we know with confidence because the evidence for them is deep and consistent.
The first is Microsoft and Nadella's shift from know-it-all to learn-it-all. Not as a culture slogan but as a genuine operating principle. The organisations that will navigate this period aren't the ones that project confidence they don't have. They're the ones that build the muscle of learning faster than the environment is changing. That requires leaders who model not knowing, openly, consistently, without apology.
The second is psychological safety. Google's Project Aristotle analysed over 180 teams and found it was the single strongest predictor of performance — above skill, experience or structure. When people fear saying what they actually think, problems become invisible until they become crises. In an environment where workload creep is already hidden from leaders by the very people experiencing it, that matters more than ever.
The third is transparency about what you don't know. Ray Dalio built Bridgewater around the principle that naming reality, including uncomfortable reality that produces better decisions than managing perception. Not because it feels good, but because it closes the gap between what is actually happening and what leaders think is happening. That gap, right now, is where the 149% misalignment stat is very much alive and well.
None of these are new ideas. What's new is the scale of the consequences of ignoring them.
The honest question to sit with
Workers aren't leaving. They're hunkering down and waiting. Waiting for leaders to build the bridge between what they can do today and what they'll be asked to do next.
The question isn't whether you have a strategy for AI, or a plan for change, or a wellbeing programme. The question is whether the conversations you're having with your people are honest enough, and deep enough, to actually close the gap.
In the next issue I'm going to share a framework I've been developing for measuring exactly where any conversation is, and what it would take to move it forward. Because in an environment where the data is this stark, surface-level communication isn't just insufficient. It's making things worse.
Three Experiments This Week 🧪
Two-Minute Experiment
Think about the 149% misalignment number. Could that exist in your team? Where do you think it's coming from? Not in general but specifically. Name one conversation that isn't happening at the depth it needs to.
Five-Minute Experiment
Think of someone on your team who you suspect is carrying more than they're letting on. Not the person who raises everything, but the one who doesn't. What would it take for them to tell you what's really going on? And what does your honest answer tell you about the environment you've created?
Ten-Minute Experiment
Pick one thing your organisation is currently doing in response to AI or change that you're not sure is actually working. Write down what you would need to see to know whether it's working or not.
SERVICES I OFFER: