In recent months my focus was in supporting 2 multinationals in roles they empowered me in, or excluded me from. My involvement in each materially different, driven not necessarily by different needs, but by differences in leadership culture. These experiences are sources of learning, what I try to bring to aspiring new leaders. The validation of outcomes between leaders who trust and empower vs. those who control. A correlation between actions and outcomes.
Leaders tend to be biased to either relationship or intellectual approaches. Our brains tend to be locked into either survival or identity, and each have unique outcomes in behaviour. Still a common thread that I observe in the quality of outcomes is the level of courage of “entrusted” leadership. Some discussions are less about facts and logic, and more about a controlling behaviour locked into personal identity (ego). This is partly what shaped the example I will now describe of stark contrasts in business approaches.
On 28 February 2026 the world was plunged into economic turmoil with the military intervention in Iran.
Both companies that I work with have significant raw material impacts of the costs of crude oil, and each have a limited number of strategic customers.
One of the companies did little to ringfence risks, believing in a quick normalisation, or a customer negotiation to recover costs. The other had learned from the impacts of Trump tariffs, noted the February build up of USA troops in the ME. They asked my facilitation in a session of risk mitigation. They had a sense of urgency to act, so we met in the 1st week of March, with the overriding objective to limit the impact of increased raw material costs to their customers.
How this meeting progressed
Trump was characterized as a chaos kid, with balls, who “mostly” came out on the right side of chaos.
The team considered the USA grappling with a 40 trillion debt, internal country divisions, threats to the $ dominance, China emerging trade dominance, inconsistent and narcistic leadership etc. The discussion never degraded to a political discussion or judgement, simply criteria which could shape outcomes and how best to position their business in areas that they could influence.
The team saw the war on Iran differently. They saw quick tactical victories in phase 1 (winning the battle), but considered phase 2 (political) as complex and likely drawn out with longer term impacts on pricing of crude oil. They sought proactive approaches to limit the Iran war impacts on their business and ultimately their customers. Forward cover, buying ahead, were all options considered and acted upon.
The stark contrasts of conclusions reached and actions taken between the two companies was not a factor of academic prowess.
On one hand an all inclusive and transparent sharing of different perspectives, valuing of differences, an inner security to be open and empowering to different perspectives.
On the other, a controlling behaviour, not trusting of others, a lack of communication, and not empowering outside of a small nucleus.
I do not judge between the 2 approaches, customers will. My role is to give insights and facilitate strategic discussion with leaders who subscribe to the view that it is not necessarily their way, but believing that there is likely a better alternative.
Think Bigg-r 