The Leadership Coherence Problem

The number of organisations operating without leadership coherence is astonishing.

How can we tell?

It takes too long to decide what to do. The final call is rarely clear. Conversations stretch around what everyone thinks should happen, while effort and activity expand without delivering the progress expected. People become cautious about sharing ideas, challenging direction, or disagreeing openly. Capability and talent are not in question, yet the environment begins to feel unusually demanding — more than it used to — even though effort is clearly present.

This is what a coherence problem feels like.

Over recent months, I have written about identity preservation, authority restraint, effort, execution and leadership exhaustion. Each of these conversations explored a different symptom, yet they were all pointing towards the same underlying pattern. Without coherence, effort increases while progress slows. Speed falls, yet the emotional load of leadership slowly rises.

Coherent leadership streamlines operations, clarifies expectations and reduces the emotional load of decision-making.

In reality, incoherence tends to appear through three widening gaps.

The first is the identity gap.

Leadership roles expand over time. Responsibility deepens and the scale of consequence changes. Yet leaders often continue operating from an earlier internal position. The same logic, the same instincts, the same decision habits that were once effective remain in place long after the role has evolved.

Those approaches worked. They were rewarded. They became familiar. But the present reality asks something different. It asks identity to evolve alongside consequence. When that transformation has not fully happened, effort increases. Leaders push harder using ways of working that no longer match the scale of responsibility they now hold.

The second is the authority gap.

Leadership carries responsibility by design, yet authority is frequently treated as something that must be socially negotiated. Consensus, approval and recognition are sought and begin to shape how decisions are made. Emotional resolution is required before forward movement feels acceptable.

Over time, this changes the nature of the role. Decisions drag out. Accountability disperses elsewhere in the organisation. Leadership labour becomes entangled with emotional labour. The role begins to feel excessively demanding and unsustainable. Much of this strain comes from authority that is not fully inhabited.

The third is the alignment gap.

Alignment is often spoken about as a feeling. Leaders are expected to ensure everyone feels aligned while simultaneously carrying responsibility for difficult decisions. Gradually, the role accumulates a heavy, palpable emotional burden that is rarely acknowledged but consistently felt.

Leadership was never designed to carry ongoing emotional load on behalf of the organisation. When alignment depends on consensus and reassurance, execution becomes slow and heavy. When alignment is built into structure and clarity, execution becomes lighter and faster.

When these three gaps begin to close, leadership becomes coherent again. Decisions sharpen. Organisations move with greater pace. The role becomes sustainable.

This is the work I do with senior leaders and organisations, helping identify where coherence has been lost and how to restore it.

If this resonates, we should talk.