We live in a disconfigured and uncertain world that could well be defined by the title of the famous action movie saga Fast and Furious, in which the idea of the need for strong leaders seems to prevail. That is, the widespread belief that in a politically, economically, and socially complex situation and in the face of growing distrust in institutions, we need charismatic leaders who act decisively and even with an iron fist if necessary. A highly attractive narrative in times of uncertainty. Human beings need answers and a sense of security in the face of so much complexity, which is why we are attracted to figures who make quick, firm decisions and bring order.
According to data from the Edelman Trust Barometer in its 2025 edition, 61% of the global population expresses a feeling of moderate or high discontent with both public and private organizations. Among those who feel a high level of discontent, they distrust the four main institutions (businesses, governments, media, and NGOs), as well as executives and artificial intelligence. And when institutions are not trustworthy, discontent intensifies, and the vision of the future darkens. This is where political and emotional spaces are generated for the emergence of personalistic, populist, or autocratic leaderships.
Some may consider that strong leaders do not necessarily have to be a bad thing. The issue is not so much in their strength, but in their praxis. Throughout contemporary history, the problems generated by unchallengeable leaders have been amply demonstrated, even in very democratically consolidated regimes. On the one hand, the dynamic of power concentration in a single person weakens our collective decision-making system and weakens organizations. In the medium term, institutions and organizations often enter a deep crisis because neither the processes nor collective participation is solid, since everything depended on the will of the leader.
Strong leaders seem to solve things quickly, but they often override democratic procedures, rights, or the diversity of ideas.On the other hand, when all major decisions depend on one person's decision, it is usually associated with false efficiency. Strong leaders seem to solve things quickly, but they often override democratic procedures, rights, or diversity of ideas.The result is a lack of nuances and contrasts within organizations and institutions, losing efficiency.
The antithesis of the strong leader are solid and collaborative leaderships. The paradox of our institutions today is that there is a temptation to replace collective leaderships based on strong institutions, with clear rules and methods of cooperation and control, with the search for the hero (usually male) who can save us from our own collective incapacities. The most evident and clear case is that of Donald Trump, which shows how no democracy, however consolidated it may be, is immune to the danger of populism and authoritarianism or autocracy in the exercise of power.
Trump is the paradigm of the strong leader that emerges in Western democratic societies. He has a clear and highly emotional purpose: Make America Great Again. He has reached the White House twice after free elections, although propelled by massive and sophisticated communication campaigns based on disinformation and fake news. But once installed in power, he is a machine for eroding the very democratic system that allowed him to govern, showing the weaknesses and limitations of an institutional and political system. Despite the long tradition and solidity of the separation of powers in American democracy, it is dissolving like a sugar cube in coffee before one of these so-called strong leaders.
New platforms and coalitions that go beyond parties and institutions must be generated to build new coherencesWhat is truly worrying is that the Trump style is creating a school and apprentices throughout the world, including in Europe. A good part of American society ---and global--- is beginning to justify authoritarian practices in the face of the incapacities of liberal democracies.The aforementioned Edelman Trust Barometer reflects that so-called hostile activism is perceived as a legitimate tool for change. Four out of ten people approve of one of the following forms: attacking people online, intentionally spreading disinformation, threatening or exercising violence, or damaging public or private property. A sentiment that grows among respondents aged 18 to 34 (up to 53%). These are signals that should awaken all democrats, whether progressive, liberal, or conservative, to an authoritarian cancer spreading throughout all our societies.
Given this reality, new platforms and coalitions must be generated that go beyond parties and institutions to build new coherences. The evident loss of centrality and real power of democratic institutions demands new forms of governance based on the network society in which we all are part of the decision and the solution. The traditional top-down process is no longer useful; it has been overwhelmed and disarmed by the magnitude and speed of the new problems that are added to the old problems we have to face.
Given the growing global distrust, trust is built from the proximate and the localThe collective challenge thus lies in designing truly resilient organizations and institutions capable of reacting to and managing systemic crises by collaborating everyone with everyone. Today's world requires new, agile, efficient, and supportive responses among the different actors of society, and the responses and forms of the old world are no longer useful. The institutional rituals of our democracies and our current leaders have become old-fashioned.We need a new culture of public and private management that is not based on the hierarchy of command and control, but in the collaboration of a multiplicity of relationships and actors to articulate a distributed collective intelligence that allows deploying all the economic, institutional, and social muscle in a coherent and efficient way.
It is, in short, a new collective mission through a reengineering of processes both internally and externally of institutions with renewed energies and methods to reconfigure power centers into collaboration networks to better face the management of the new complexity. A culture of management and leadership that overflows the capacities and limits of most current leaderships, both in politics and in institutions. Governing and leading today requires a culture of leadership and management that goes far beyond the dialectic of leaders. The prominence or power of each of the actors is not what is relevant, but rather the efficiency, empathy, proximity, and collective responses that we are capable of offering to the community and society, especially at the local level. And it is that, in the face of growing global distrust, trust is built from the close and the local.
The culture of social innovation must reach and contaminate political power centers. Far from constituting a weakening of institutions or political leaderships, it enriches, strengthens, and legitimizes them. It is about opening spaces for interaction and co-creation with new economic and social actors, as well as with their respective ecosystems and value chains. Only distributed and collaborative talent and the strength of weak ties around great shared challenges and causes can improve our organizations and institutions. Faced with the myth of strong leaders, collaboration, shared democratic decision-making, and participation are the indispensable elements for survival and sustainability in this new uncertain and turbulent era.
Add The New Barcelona Post as your preferred Google source for free
Stay informed with the latest news.