Cull or cultivate? Protecting your entry-level leadership pipeline
Protect your pipeline: actionable steps to develop leaders from entry-level roles as AI transforms junior work tasks....
Leadership
The long arc of leadership: Where ancient wisdom meets modern science
A recent survey of 123 senior executives exploring the “Long Arc of Leadership” reveals an uncomfortable gap between what executives value and what organizations reward.
Rapid read:
- Based on a survey of 123 senior executives, leaders are internally ahead of their organizations: they feel a pull toward long-term, more human-centered leadership, but operate in systems dominated by short-term performance and control.
- A clear “knowing–doing gap” emerges: executives value stewardship, inner awareness, and integrity, yet report their organizations reward metrics and outcomes—limiting alignment and authenticity.
- The core issue is legitimacy, not belief: most leaders already embrace long-term, human-centered leadership principles but lack the language, incentives, and cultural permission to act on them.
There is a conversation happening inside the C-suite, the boardroom, and the VP layer of major organizations across the globe.
There is a conversation happening inside the C-suite, the boardroom, and the VP layer of major organizations across the globe. It is more muted than the talk of AI disruption or geopolitical risk, and arguably more consequential: the inner conversation leaders have with themselves beyond the daily pressures and the focus on quarterly targets.
Many report a feeling that something is missing. This feeling is a signal that something is trying to emerge; something long carried but made hard to name by the pace, space, and language of organizational life. In a recent survey, 123 senior executives gave that private knowing a public voice – exploring what we, the authors, call “The Long Arc of Leadership.”
What the survey reveals is that senior leaders privately seek the model of leadership that the most forward-thinking research and the oldest wisdom traditions agree upon: service over self-interest, long horizon over short, integrity over image, inner development as the foundation of outer effectiveness. However, they lack the language, incentives, and cultural permission to act on these values.
Leaders have a responsibility to consider the well-being of future generations.
Five core findings of the survey
The data (both quantitative and qualitative) reveals an uncomfortable gap between what executives value and what organizations reward (see Table 1 below).
1. Near-universal conviction about responsibility to the future
There is near-universal conviction about a sense of stewardship: 99% of respondents agreed that “leaders have a responsibility to consider the well-being of future generations.” This may not be a surprising result, but the implication matters: the belief is settled. The unresolved question is not whether long-horizon thinking matters, but whether organizations will allow it to guide their short-term actions.
2. The inner-awareness gap is the largest signal in the dataset
On the statement “leadership development should include attention to inner awareness as well as external capability,” personal agreement averages 4.49 out of 5. Agreement that their organization treats it this way averages 3.13. This gap (+1.36) is the largest in the survey. The distribution is stark: 76 respondents gave the personal statement a 5; only 13 did so for the organizational version.
3. Short-term performance prioritized over people and long-term outlook
Two items capture this. On “leadership success is primarily measured through performance and results,” respondents personally score 3.26, but believe their organization scores 4.22. On “leaders are expected to prioritize measurable outcomes even in complex or uncertain situations,” personal is 3.57, and organizational is 4.24. Both gaps point in the same direction: respondents feel their organizations are more performance-fixated than they themselves believe is wise. There is one group that does not fit the overall pattern: respondents aged 30–39 personally endorse performance-as-success more than they say their organization does, a reversal of every other age group. More than half of the respondents (57%) personally place service orientation first with responsibility for wider systems over performance attainment. When asked to rank their organization’s view, 73% say their organization places performance attainment first. The open text reinforces it without ambiguity. More than 30 respondents used some form of the short-term, long-term, or P&L/people framing unprompted.
4. Stated values vs lived behavior is the single most common tension
Across 86 stated tensions between personal and organizational views, the most frequently articulated grievance is about integrity: the gap between what leaders say in public and what they do under pressure. “Psychological safety” promoted while truth-telling is punished. “Values-driven” claimed while layoffs are handled without care. “People first” invoked while wellness days are calculated as lost productivity. In the SM/VP/Director layer, value alignment averages just 3.49 out of 5, below both C-suite (3.92) and entrepreneur/founder cohorts (4.07). The shift toward long-arc thinking appears to crystallize through the forties, most acutely between 40 and 49, where values vs lived behavior alignment is at its lowest (3.43).
5. Deep reflection is provoked by crucible moments
Of the 97 respondents who described what prompted them to reflect more deeply, the vast majority named a significant life or work event. Frequencies in the text: personal or family health crisis (28+), bereavement (20+), parenthood (12+), redundancy or job loss (10+), organizational crisis or restructure (15+), ageing or mid-life transition (10+). A small but meaningful number named coaching, wisdom traditions, or specific programs, though these were almost always cited alongside a life event, not instead of one.
Table 1: Long Arc of Leadership survey findings
| Statement | Quantitative findings: Quantitative Likert scales (1–5) | Qualitative findings |
|---|---|---|
| “Leaders have a responsibility to consider the well-being of future generations” | 99% of respondents agree with this statement | “I think it is still important to deliver and get results but our society forgets the spirituality, the deeper meaning of why we are here.” C-suite Executive Coach, Europe |
| “Leadership development should include attention to inner awareness as well as external capability” | Respondents personally score 4.49 and believe their organization scores 3.13. | “I’d like to have everyone in the organization do more inner work, but it’s expensive and not everyone is open to it. So it often doesn’t get implemented.” Senior Leader, Europe |
| “Leadership success is primarily measured through performance and results” | Respondents personally score 3.26 and believe their organization scores 4.22 | “The organization’s focus on quarterly and annual targets has created a myopic operating model, where short-term initiatives consistently take precedence over meaningful advancement of long-term strategy.” VP, large corporate |
| “Leaders are expected to prioritize measurable outcomes even in complex or uncertain situations” | Respondents personally score 3.57 and believe their organization scores 4.24 | “When trying to meet clients’ expectations, many are still more focused on short-term results rather than long-term value creation.” Entrepreneur / Founder, Latin America |
| The values of the individual and the organization are aligned |
SM/VP/Director 3.49 C-suite 3.92 Entrepreneur/Founder cohorts 4.07 |
“The biggest disappointment in corporations is always when you realize that many public commitments are not being lived or sacrificed too quickly when it suits.” C-suite leader |
From control to conscious collaboration
The Long Arc of Leadership is a tradition of human guidance stretching across millennia, weaving together the accumulated wisdom of indigenous knowledge, philosophy, contemplative practice, and the natural world with the discoveries of modern science, from complexity theory and systems biology to developmental psychology. At its heart is the recognition that humans are a part of nature, not apart from it. And that organizations, communities, and ecosystems are living systems that need to be nurtured to flourish. Leaders within this tradition integrate multiple ways of knowing in the understanding that we are interdependent beings embedded in a wider web of life. They cultivate the conditions for collective wisdom to emerge over time, making decisions with both the short and long-term health of people, communities, and the living world in mind.
By contrast, what we refer to as the Short Arc of Leadership is a historically bounded paradigm born of the Industrial Revolution and shaped by the logic of the machine. It brought specialization, rigid hierarchy, and centralized control to the fore, viewing organizations as complicated mechanisms where efficiency can always be engineered upward and human beings are inputs to be managed. Driven by cost reduction, productivity metrics, and shareholder profit within the shortest possible time horizon, it mistakes speed for wisdom and output for value.
What emerges from the survey is a sense that experienced leaders are feeling, largely through crucible moments, a pull towards the long arc of leadership while their organizations still chase after and prize the short arc (see Table 2 below).
From Buddhist mindfulness to Stoic reflection, from indigenous ecological wisdom to contemplative practices within monotheistic faiths, ancient traditions have long emphasized qualities now rediscovered in leadership science:
- Attention shapes perception: the way we make sense of the world
- Inner state influences outer impact
- Wisdom emerges through reflection, not reaction
- Human systems are embedded within and entirely interdependent with larger living systems
Modern science is catching up, providing scientific evidence for what humans have known deep in their bones since the dawn of our time. Neuroscience confirms that attention regulates emotional reactivity. Complexity science, the study of complex, adaptive systems, shows that systems cannot be controlled, only influenced. Modern leadership research increasingly highlights self-awareness, psychological safety, and adaptability as key drivers of performance. The long arc integrates these insights, moving them from philosophy alone to a daily practice.
The legitimacy problem: An invitation to reclaim the spiritual
The survey respondents do not speak of learning a new model of leadership. They speak of a return to ancient wisdom; recovering a way of seeing that has been covered over by the busyness and mechanistic language of organizational life.
This reflects a genuine phenomenology of development that wisdom traditions across cultures have named consistently: that maturity is less an acquisition than an uncovering. The capacities most needed (presence, care, discernment, the ability to hold complexity without collapsing it) are inherent possibilities, waiting beneath layers of urgency and performance logic.
While 74% of respondents say earlier wisdom traditions, from Stoic reflection to Buddhist practice, from contemplative Christianity to indigenous ecological thinking, shape how they lead, many note that in technical or corporate environments, drawing on that inheritance openly remains risky. One respondent put it plainly: expressing such beliefs can lead to “not being taken seriously.” The legitimacy problem is not only institutional. It is linguistic.
The habit of using mechanistic language treats organizations as machines, leaders as operators, and human complexity as a problem to be engineered away. The language of modern business is populated with metaphors from both wars and machines: must-win battles, bullet points, deadlines, execution, the engine of growth to name but a few.
Part of the shift toward legitimacy involves recovering the original meaning of a word we have been too quick to set aside: Spirituality. The root of the word is ‘spiritus’, which means breath. To be spiritual, in its most elemental sense, is simply to be a living, breathing being: present, animate, in relationship with the world. The yearning that surfaces across this survey, in the overall findings, the open-text responses, the reflections on crucible moments, is a desire for organizations that honour the full humanity of those within them.
As mentioned earlier, almost every senior leader who participated already seeks, in private, the model of leadership that values service over self-interest, long horizon over short, integrity over image, inner development as the foundation of outer effectiveness. Beneath this lies something older than management theory: a deeply human movement that has quietly endured across generations, waiting for conditions in which it can come forward and take its rightful place beside power. The problem is not conviction. The problem is legitimacy. And it can only be resolved when those who already hold this model find the language, the community, and the institutional courage to say so in public.
The long arc of leadership leads people to a recognition that what was forgotten was never truly lost. As the survey shows, 93% of these leaders already engage in some type of reflective practice. This is why so many of them, when given space to speak, describe a journey not toward something new, but toward remembering, recovering, and reawakening what is already known.
Three practices for immediate application
Three practices offer a starting point that draws on both contemplative tradition and contemporary neuroscience. The long arc is cultivated in moments: in the pause before a difficult decision, in the widening of perspective, in the discipline of honest reflection:
- The pause practice: see more clearly. Before key decisions: take three to five conscious breaths, bring awareness to body, emotion and thought, then ask: what might I be missing? Even a brief pause regulates amygdala activation and re-engages the prefrontal cortex, interrupting the reactive patterns that short-term pressure reinforces. How many daily decisions truly need to be taken in the moment or could wait to be slept on? Most of them.
- The widening lens: choose more wisely. For high-stakes decisions, move through four lenses: immediate performance; systemic and long-term; human and relational; inner alignment. Ask: does this decision feel coherent with my values? The 57%/73% service-versus-performance inversion shows most of these leaders already know which lens matters most to them; this practice honours that conviction in the moment it is most tested.
- The daily reflection: lead more consciously. Take five to ten minutes to reflect on three questions: Where was I most present? Where did I react rather than respond? What am I grateful for today? Every major contemplative tradition holds a version of this (the Jesuit examen, the Stoic evening review, the Buddhist dedication), because character is developed through ordinary moments examined honestly. The sacred in the everyday.
Methodology Note
*Survey conducted April 2026. 123 valid responses analyzed. 69% C-Suite or SM/VP/Director level. 63% aged 50 or older. 61 female, 62 male. 84 respondents based in Europe, 20 in North America, 9 in Asia-Pacific, 7 in MENA, 3 in Latin America. Quantitative Likert scales (1–5) supplemented by ranking exercises and open-text narratives; 86 tension narratives coded thematically.
Authors
Related
How to close the great divide in a rewired world
Learn strategies for leadership in a post-traditional era, focusing on responsibility, transparent communication, and understanding public sentiment...
Audio available
Hit the pause button so you and your team can fast forward
Explore Jan's journey of leadership self-discovery to enhance team trust and foster a collaborative workplace....
Five leadership challenges faced by techies and how to meet them
Learn effective strategies for techies transitioning into leadership roles, including embracing human nature and fostering team cohesion....
Learn Brain Circuits
Join us for daily exercises focusing on issues from team building to developing an actionable sustainability plan to personal development. Go on - they only take five minutes.
Explore Leadership
What makes a great leader? Do you need charisma? How do you inspire your team? Our experts offer actionable insights through first-person narratives, behind-the-scenes interviews and The Help Desk.
Join Membership
Log in here to join in the conversation with the I by IMD community. Your subscription grants you access to the quarterly magazine plus daily articles, videos, podcasts and learning exercises.