Rethinking: The Systemic Discordance of Leadership Concepts and Its Profound Consequences

„Leadership isn’t about trends – it’s about mastery.“

The Rethinking Impulse as a RethinkAudio – Listen. Reflect. Analyze. Advance.

Misconceptions, misinterpretations and toxic mindsets around leadership discordance

The modern world of leadership is characterised by a strange paradox: while theories, methods and strategies are developing at a rapid pace, the practical implementation of basic leadership skills often remains at an antiquated level. This systemic misalignment is not just a discrepancy between theory and practice, but a structural dissonance that is deeply rooted in the thought and action patterns of companies and their managers.

False assumptions about leadership and leadership discordance are widespread. One of the most persistent misconceptions is that a supervisor role automatically goes hand in hand with leadership ability. This idea leads to a blind trust in hierarchy instead of competence. Another toxic mindset is the illusion that modern leadership is all about innovation and agility. In reality, however, leadership is essentially always linked to the ability to communicate clearly, make consistent decisions and lead employees authentically – skills that are often neglected because they are taken for granted.

Equally problematic is the assumption that leadership can be optimised through the mere accumulation of knowledge. Countless seminars, training courses and coaching sessions are constantly imparting new concepts, but they are not implemented because they do not bring about a profound change in our own way of thinking. This mental stagnation is a core problem of leadership discordance: the cognitive map of many managers remains the same, even though it is constantly being enriched with new models. The result is an intellectual overload without practical transformation.

The widespread overemphasis on “soft factors” in leadership is another misinterpretation. Of course, empathy, emotional intelligence and psychological safety are essential, but they do not replace the need for clear structures, assertive decision-making and real accountability. Leadership does not only mean harmony, but also clarity, goal-orientation and the ability to make difficult decisions.

Leadership discordance – a detailed definition and its systemic dimension

Leadership discordance describes the deep gap between the exponential development of leadership concepts and the simultaneous stagnation in actual leadership practice. It is not just a discrepancy, but a structural aberration that leads to a dysfunctional leadership style in many organisations. While companies experiment with innovative methods, the daily reality in teams remains characterised by unclear communication, a lack of consistency and a lack of decisiveness.

The causes of this dissonance are manifold. On the one hand, there is a conceptual hyperdynamic in which leadership is seen as a field of continuous reinvention. New buzzwords emerge every decade: transformational leadership, servant leadership, agile leadership, holacracy, new work, empowerment strategies – the list is growing inexorably. This development leads to leadership becoming more of an intellectual discourse than a real practice.

On the other hand, there is a simultaneous practical stagnation. Many team leaders lack the fundamental skills of effective leadership – clear communication, thoughtful delegation, motivational leadership and consistent decision-making. This is not due to a lack of knowledge, but to the lack of cognitive transformation that would be necessary for sustainable behavioural change.

The leadership discordance creates a fatal tension: companies invest in progressive leadership programmes, while in practice the same leadership problems have persisted for decades. This dissonance manifests itself in chronic inefficiency: high staff turnover, low employee retention, lack of personal responsibility and the constant repetition of organisational problems.

Philosophical perspective: leadership as a dialectic field of tension

From a philosophical perspective, leadership is an area of tension between change and constancy. While innovation is a necessity for every organisation, leadership always remains bound to classic principles such as clarity, responsibility and orientation. The leadership discordance is an expression of a false dialectical understanding: the dynamism of the new is overestimated, while the constancy of the essential is underestimated.

The problem lies in a false concept of progress. Many leadership theories are based on the assumption that change is better per se. However, not every transformation makes sense – especially if it takes place without a stable foundation. A manager who constantly adapts to new methods without having a clear identity and a stable value system loses their authenticity and becomes a projection surface for changing management fashions.

Psychological and depth-psychological analysis: cognitive overload and emotional insecurity

From a psychological perspective, leadership discordance creates cognitive dissonance. Managers are confronted with a flood of concepts, but their own leadership behaviour remains unreflected. This leads to a paradoxical situation: they feel informed but not competent. The result is a latent insecurity that leads to leadership weakness.

In terms of depth psychology, the cause often lies in the fear of losing control. Many line managers cling to familiar leadership patterns because any change represents a threat to their own self-image. The inner voice says: “I have to do it differently”, but unconscious resistance keeps them trapped in old patterns. This psychological rigidity means that even the most modern management concepts are ineffective.

Work and health psychological consequences: Stress, exhaustion and demotivation

From an industrial psychology perspective, leadership discordance leads to structural exhaustion. The discrepancy between theoretical expectations and practical reality creates permanent stress. Managers are under pressure to be innovative, but at the same time not to master the basics. This double burden leads to chronic overload and a feeling of inadequacy.

In terms of health psychology, this tension has an impact on the entire corporate culture. Employees experience leadership as inconsistent and untrustworthy. A lack of clarity in leadership increases the stress levels of everyone involved, which leads to demotivation and internal resignation in the long term.

Why rethinking is the key – relevance for managers in self-management and team leadership

A profound rethink is necessary to transform leadership from a theoretical construct into a lived practice. This begins with a radical change of perspective: instead of constantly integrating new methods, there must be a return to the essential leadership competences. Effective leadership requires clarity, consistency and communicative excellence – everything else is an afterthought.

In self-management, this means developing a stable inner attitude that is free from short-term trends. In team leadership, it means focussing less on management fads and more on substantive, consistent principles.

The R2A formula of rethinking: Reflect, Analyse, Advance

Reflect – honestly scrutinise your own leadership reality

Managers should reflect on the extent to which their behaviour actually meets the requirements of their role. This requires honest self-questioning: Am I really implementing the basics? Or am I hiding behind theories to conceal my insecurities?

Analyse – recognising and resolving dissonance

The analyse phase means understanding where the discrepancy between knowledge and implementation lies. What unconscious blockages are preventing me from acting consistently?

Advance – develop concrete implementation steps

Instead of getting lost in theories, clear, immediately realisable measures must be defined. This means consistently establishing proven leadership elements.

Key learning

Leadership is not a theoretical field, but a conscious, daily practice. Only those who master the fundamentals can achieve true excellence.