Kalle Reflects on Where did all the Leaders go?
Kalle reflects on leaders, where did they all go?
Takeaway for Leaders at all levels everywhere.
Where did all the real leaders go, the ones who brought us from feudalism to our vulnerable democracy?
Trust is the ultimate test of leadership. Decades of research and lived experience point to three pillars of trustworthiness. Real leaders who gain and keep trust demonstrate (i) Intention: they mean well, serving the common good; (ii) Competence: they deliver results that advance it; and (iii) Character under Pressure: they demonstrate benevolence and remain true to an inner moral compass even when temptations or pressures pull in other directions.
Yet as wars rage, natural resources are irreversibly depleted or polluted, and ecosystems and communities are increasingly degraded, many ask: where are the real leaders today? Have they disappeared, or are they simply less visible amid the noise?
Leadership has never been easy. Throughout history, those who challenged prevailing interests and stepped forward to solve difficult problems often faced fierce resistance. But there are reasons to believe that the challenge has become even greater in our time.
Never before has humanity combined such a large population with such immense technological power. Never before have decisions by governments, corporations, and wealthy individuals carried such far-reaching consequences on a planetary scale. And never before have so many institutions, together with their systems for decision-making and accounting, been shaped by incentives that undermine the enlightened self-interest required for leadership that generates immediate benefits while systematically moving society toward long-term success.
This Reflection explores how the structures governing modern societies can make genuine leadership more difficult to exercise and more difficult to recognize. Yet it also argues that there is something we can do about it.
More in detail
The above-mentioned criteria for leaders deserving common trust are not abstract ideals. They are observable qualities that build trust between individuals, institutions, and society. When any one of them is absent, trust erodes. When all three are present, trust can flourish.
Today’s accelerating degradation of ecosystems, depletion and pollution of natural resources, erosion of social cohesion, and weakening of democratic norms suggest that humanity is operating within a shrinking funnel of social and ecological degrees of freedom. Yet some commentators shrug: “There is no evidence that things were better before.” Really?
Was it better before? A sober comparison
“Before” can mean many things depending on our age, culture, and perspective. But rigorous comparison suggests that the destructive potential available to poor leadership is far greater today than at any previous point in human history. This is not because human nature has changed, nor because our DNA has somehow worsened. Rather, the tools available for both good and harm have become vastly more powerful.
Three developments in particular amplify the consequences of poor decisions:
Rapid population growth unmatched by corresponding advances in global solidarity, cooperation, and care.
Industrial and technological power deployed within flawed societal designs, including systems that continue to reward armed conflict and other destructive activities.
Sophisticated media ecosystems capable of shaping perceptions at unprecedented scale, sometimes enabling imperial ambitions, narrowing opinion corridors, and marginalizing dissenting voices.
The leaders themselves may not be worse than before. The stakes are simply higher, and so are the tools available for both constructive and destructive action.
Sweden’s golden decades: What real leaders built
As a Swede writing from Swedish experience, I look back on my country’s own arc of leadership, with its triumphs, missteps, and lessons. While every nation has its own story, Sweden offers a compelling example of how leaders can work across differences to build prosperity, trust, and social cohesion, and of what such leadership requires.
My formative years spanned the 1950s through the mid-1980s, a period during which Sweden achieved remarkable outcomes across multiple dimensions. Leaders from different political parties, labour unions, business organizations, government agencies, and civil society collaborated within what became known as Folkhemmet (“the People’s Home”) and the broader Swedish model.
Rooted in the landmark Saltsjöbaden Agreement of 1938, this model evolved through cross-sector collaboration and mutual problem-solving, a culture that later became known as the Saltsjöbaden spirit. It was not merely an agreement preserved in archives; it became a living tradition that shaped decision-making for decades.
By the 1970s and 1980s, the results were striking:
World-leading performance across key public institutions, including schools, healthcare systems, and social services.
The world’s lowest child mortality rates.
World’s leading level of trust between citizens and public institutions, as well as between citizens themselves.
An innovative National Labour Market Board (Arbetsmarknadsstyrelsen, AMS), designed to stabilize employment and facilitate restructuring during economic downturns.
High trust enabled high levels of cooperation. In turn, a remarkable number of globally competitive companies emerged from a small country: Volvo, Saab, IKEA, Scania, Ericsson, Securitas, Atlas Copco, ASEA, and many others.
Their success contributed to national prosperity, while the institutions and norms of the Swedish model promoted social cohesion and a relatively fair distribution of opportunities and outcomes.
In effect, Sweden practiced a version of the mixed economy that Adam Smith himself envisioned: harnessing the innovative power of markets while embedding them within social norms and institutional frameworks designed to serve the common good.
For a period, Sweden became one of the world’s most successful societies, not merely as measured by economic output, but also by trust, social stability, public health, and quality of life.
A few leaders as examples
Many individuals contributed to this story by consistently demonstrating the three qualities described earlier: intention, competence, and character under pressure.
If one person symbolizes this ethos, it is Ernst Wigforss (1881-1977), Sweden’s long-serving finance minister and one of the principal architects of the Swedish model. Wigforss described himself simply as a democrat committed to practical solutions. Throughout decades of public service, he sought policies that advanced broad societal well-being rather than narrow partisan interests.
Swedish foreign policy and humanitarian work also produced leaders of exceptional courage. Dag Hammarskjöld, Secretary-General of the United Nations, and Folke Bernadotte, whose White Buses operation helped save thousands of Jews from Nazi concentration camps, remain powerful examples.
Like all human beings, they were imperfect. Yet they were widely regarded as principled, competent, and courageous individuals who followed their inner moral compasses even when the stakes were extraordinarily high. Some ultimately paid with their lives.
Where did all the real leaders go?
So do real leaders still exist in Sweden today? Almost certainly. But they may be less visible than before, particularly at the highest levels of national and geopolitical decision-making.
Structural and cultural changes have altered the environment in which leadership operates. Modern media often rewards volume over wisdom, conflict over diplomacy, and attention-grabbing simplicity over thoughtful consideration.
Meanwhile, the rapid expansion of digital media and social platforms can make the penalties for dissent swifter and harsher. De-platforming, reputational attacks, public shaming, and professional exclusion can narrow the space for honest debate and reinforce increasingly restrictive opinion corridors.
Research on cognitive dissonance sheds light on part of this dynamic. Human beings often choose belonging over truth-telling when speaking openly threatens identity, status, income, or social acceptance.
Real leaders resist this pull. They accept the personal cost of standing apart when circumstances demand it. They endure the discomfort of dissent and speak uncomfortable truths, not to undermine institutions, but to preserve and improve them.
Trustworthy leadership has not necessarily become rarer. What has changed is that our systems now give poor leadership greater leverage, while giving genuine leadership fewer opportunities to emerge, succeed, and be recognized.
Real leaders in current practice: Stepwise progress and FSSD
I know such leaders still exist because I work with them.
Consider the Stepwise network, where owners, executives, and organizations align their activities with a structured, science-based framework for sustainability and value creation: the Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development (FSSD) and its ABCD process.
Together they:
Define robust sustainability boundary conditions and principles for success (A).
Assess current reality and key gaps relative to those conditions (B).
Generate innovative solutions and strategic opportunities (C).
Prioritize stepwise actions that move systematically toward sustainability while strengthening performance and return on investment from the very first steps (D).
The leaders involved often report that staying the course year after year is challenging. Yet they also describe it as deeply rewarding. Trust grows both inside their organizations and among customers, investors, suppliers, and other stakeholders because intention, competence, and character under pressure become visible in practice.
This is what real leaders do. They connect purpose with performance, principles with profitability, and long-term success with benefits that can begin immediately.
The FSSD Global platform extends this support to leaders at multiple scales. It helps clarify what success looks like in a sustainable society while making the transition strategically sound, operationally feasible, and financially attractive. Rather than demanding sacrifice first and benefits later, it enables leaders to identify actions that strengthen resilience, competitiveness, and sustainability simultaneously.
How we can help real leaders lead
If real leaders are less visible, our task is not merely to find them. It is to recognize, support, and amplify them.
That requires courage from all of us:
Reward intention that serves the common good rather than narrow interests.
Reward competence rather than rhetoric.
Reward character under pressure rather than conformity under pressure.
Insist on evidence, transparency, and strategic thinking.
Support cross-sector cooperation, even when it challenges partisan narratives.
Encourage whistleblowers who seek to repair and improve rather than merely disrupt.
In short, we must widen the opinion corridors and apply the three tests of trust in our own conduct: intention, competence, and character under pressure.
Conclusion: Calling the real leaders forward
Real leaders have not vanished. They are all around us.
They are building, often outside the spotlight, in companies, communities, institutions, and coalitions. They are navigating unprecedented challenges while holding fast to timeless principles.
If we want more of them at the helm, we must make trustworthiness visible and valuable again. We must reward intention that serves the common good, competence that delivers results, and character under pressure that remains true to principle when it matters most.
The world’s funnel of options may be narrowing. Yet if we recognize, support, and become trustworthy leaders ourselves, the path ahead can still widen.
[1] Fact Box
The FSSD Operative System “ABCD-in-Funnel” is the shared foundation behind the organizations Stepwise Global and Stegvis, Kalle’s Reflections and their associated podcasts, and related applications.
Funnel: It refers to that the ABCD planning occurs in a global context, where all vital subsystems are gradually declining, per design, until civilization would not be able to support itself anymore; Forests, Cropland, Water-tables, Biodiversity, Social trust.
Boundary conditions: Eight hands-on conditions for operationally defining the opening of the funnel: In the sustainable society, nature is not subject to systematically increasing…
1 …concentrations of compounds from the earth’s crust, e.g. fossil coal and metals.
2 … concentrations of compounds from societal production, e.g. nitrogen oxides and CFCs..
3 …degradation by physical means, e.g. overfishing and large clear-cuts.
felt as self-evident as gravity.”
…and in that society, people are not exposed to structural barriers to
4. health (e.g. working conditions),
5. influence (e.g. polls),
6. competence (e.g. education programs),
7. impartiality (e.g. composition of boards) and
8. meaning-making (e.g. purposeful missions).
ABCD:
A = Desired future state, modelled within the eight boundary conditions for sustainability.
B = Current reality in relation to A, revealing the gap between present conditions and the desired future.
C = Brainstormed actions capable of bridging that gap.
D = A strategically prioritized action plan derived from the C-list.
For deeper exploration, please refer to the resources listed below.
________________________________________
References
The science of the Operative System with references Operative System for Strategic Sustainable Development—Coordinating Analysis, Planning, Action, and Use of Supports Such as the Sustainable Development Goals, Planetary Boundaries, Circular Economy, and Science‐Based Targets” published in Sustainable Development (Volume 33, Issue 4, pages 4759–4774)
For more Reflections, Podcasts, Applications and Courses in general
https://www.stepwise.global/
A few other Reflections stick out for this particular, the ones on “Whistle Blowers” and “Oligarchs”, respectively.
• Erosion of Terms Behind Unclarity of Minds
• An Attractive Sustainable World at A
• ABCD Workshops and Their Psychology
All hot topic Reflections are direct consequences of our Operative System.
