the three "ion" in leadership

In corporate boardrooms and global management literature, we often hear the classic narrative that leadership is a matter of accumulated seniority, extensive flight hours, and the ability to maintain stability. Many organizations operate under a conventional assumption: the longer someone is at the helm, the safer and more stable the organization will be. However, reality on the ground often confronts us with contradictory phenomena.

We frequently see corporate giants or global organizations suddenly falter, lose direction, and even experience a decline in performance precisely when a central figure retires or transfers. On the other hand, we also witness phenomena where instructions from the top are reduced to confusing formal documents for subordinates, creating an ivory tower that distances leaders from the reality of their team's work. This phenomenon indicates a widening gap between what has long been believed to be leadership and what an organization actually needs to survive across eras.

True leadership is not a static status; rather, I believe it is a dynamic process built on three main pillars: Instruction, Inspiration, and Succession. If any one of these is fragile, the future sustainability of the organization becomes highly compromised.

The most fundamental duty of a leader is to give instructions. However, field phenomena show that many instructions end up as loose cannons due to poor communication. Effective instruction is not about passing the workload downward just to cross off obligations, but rather clearly distributing responsibilities according to one's authority, without leaving any question marks.

A prime example of how an instruction can go wrong occurred when the international retail industry began shifting toward e-commerce. Many conventional retail CEOs simply instructed, "We must start selling online next year." Without clear workflows and distributed responsibilities, this instruction only bred panic at the execution level. Conversely, let's look at how Satya Nadella acted when taking over Microsoft. He didn't just toss out a command that "we must move to the Cloud"; instead, he tactically transformed internal workflows through precise communication. He clearly divided roles: who would remap the infrastructure, who would secure the IT ecosystem, and what the success indicators would be, so that the transformation to Azure ran measuredly.

If instructions move physical actions and rules, inspiration moves hearts and beliefs. There is a deeply relevant noble proverb: “In front, setting an example; in the middle, building spirit; and in the back, providing support.” Inspiration here is based on the premise that a team is a reflection of its leader. Shared organizational values like integrity, professionalism, or innovation will never come alive if they remain mere slogans on office walls. A leader must prove these values through daily attitudes, behaviors, and concrete statements so the team doesn't lose its way.

We can look at Howard Schultz of Starbucks. During the 2008 economic crisis, he chose to close thousands of stores across the United States for a full afternoon to retrain his baristas on how to pull the perfect espresso. This concrete action sent a powerful, inspiring message to all ranks: that product quality and the company's core values must not be sacrificed for short-term efficiency. Nelson Mandela also inspired global change not through threats of instruction, but through the exemplary nature of his behavior, choosing the path of reconciliation and forgiving the past, a stance that was then mirrored by all his supporters in building a new order.

A good organization is recognized not only because its achievements skyrocket today, but because those achievements remain sustainable and continue to climb even when its leader has changed. Why is succession so crucial today? Because the productive age of humans has biological limits. No one can hold the reins forever; there comes a time when productivity plateaus, and the organization must keep running.

Talking about succession often brings us to a sensitive, classic debate: The Age Factor. There is a common belief that the older a person is, the higher their wisdom and maturity in making decisions. However, this view often triggers the biased conclusion that younger individuals are automatically not mature enough or not yet trustworthy enough to be leaders.

Leadership is about the readiness to formulate strategies and ensure they are executed well to achieve targets, regardless of the obstacles faced. Let us dissect this phenomenon using the Psychological Maturity Theory approach and the concept of intelligence in cognitive psychology. Senior leaders are generally rich in Crystallized Intelligence: knowledge, wisdom, and experience accumulated over decades. On the other hand, the younger generation has a natural advantage in Fluid Intelligence, the ability to think logically and quickly, solve new abstract problems, and adapt amidst technological disruption. Good succession bridges these two types of intelligence.

History notes that Alexander the Great led a massive empire in his 20s. In the modern era, we see Jacinda Ardern becoming the Prime Minister of New Zealand at the age of 37, successfully leading her country through major crises with immense tact and empathy. In the business world, Mark Zuckerberg and Larry Page founded and led global tech giants from a young age with strategies that changed the world landscape. Conversely, we cannot deny how Lee Kuan Yew led and navigated Singapore's transformation well into his twilight years, or how Warren Buffett, in his mature age, remains the world's investment compass due to his analytical sharpness. Age is not the sole barrier to success.

In the dynamics of organizational design and human resource management, I see this phenomenon not as an arena of competition or a clash between generations. This is about how we build a healthy collaborative ecosystem. What organizations need today is not an endless debate about who is greater between the senior or the young. What we need is trust and institutionalized mentorship within succession programs.

The task of the older or senior generation is to open spaces of trust, provide resources, and pass down core leadership values. Meanwhile, the prepared younger generation must be encouraged to possess the skills, adaptability, and mastery of technological tools evolving in their era. When these two forces are united through a mature succession program, we are not merely sustaining the organization; we are ensuring that our organization's steps forward will continue to ascend day by day.

What about your workplace? Are these three pillars of leadership running in balance?