Olivia: A recent study found only 18% of people believe business leaders are truthful. Jackson: Eighteen percent? That’s shockingly low. That’s less than people trust weather forecasters. Or pigeons. Olivia: Exactly. It’s a trust rating lower than most used car salesmen. It begs the question: is leadership fundamentally broken, or are leaders just using a hopelessly outdated map for a brand new world? Jackson: That's a fantastic question, and it feels like the perfect entry point for the book we're talking about today. Olivia: It is. That's the core question tackled in the award-winning book we're diving into: The Leadership Lab: Understanding Leadership in the 21st Century by Chris Lewis and Dr. Pippa Malmgren. Jackson: And these aren't just academics writing from an ivory tower. Dr. Malmgren was a presidential advisor in the White House, and Lewis runs a massive global creative agency. They wrote this right in the chaotic aftermath of Brexit and the 2016 US election, trying to make sense of why the old rules of power suddenly stopped working. Olivia: Precisely. They argue that the entire operating system for leadership needs a serious upgrade. And their diagnosis starts with a bold proclamation: the era of the "hero CEO" is officially over.

Jackson: Hold on, the hero CEO is dead? Are you sure? Because it feels like we still worship at the altar of figures like Elon Musk or the late Steve Jobs—these singular, visionary geniuses. Olivia: We do, but the book argues that's a dangerous hangover from a bygone era. That model of the lone, all-knowing leader is a relic of 20th-century thinking, and it’s failing us spectacularly. The perfect illustration of this comes from a story in the book about the 2008 financial crisis. Jackson: Oh, I'm leaning in. Olivia: After the global economy melted down, Queen Elizabeth II visited the London School of Economics and asked a room full of the world's most brilliant economists a very simple, very British question: "Why did no one see it coming?" Jackson: That’s a brutal question. What did they say? Olivia: It took them six months to reply. And their answer is the key to this whole book. They wrote back to the Queen and said the crisis was due to "a failure of the collective imagination of many bright people." Jackson: Wow. Not a failure of data, not a failure of models, but a failure of imagination. So they had all the numbers, but they couldn't imagine a world where those numbers added up to a complete disaster. That's terrifying. Olivia: It's the heart of the problem. The authors call this over-reliance on data "Western Reductionism." It’s this obsession with what can be measured—KPIs, metrics, analytics—that we forget to look up from the spreadsheet and see the bigger picture. We honor the rational mind, the faithful servant, but we've forgotten the intuitive mind, the sacred gift. Jackson: It’s like trying to drive a car by only looking at the speedometer and never looking out the windshield. You know your speed perfectly, right up until you drive off a cliff. Olivia: Perfect analogy. And this isn't just about economics. The book argues this has led to a massive "inversion of values" across society. For example, one of the architects of Britain's New Labour party once said he was "intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich." Jackson: I remember that. It was the mantra of an era. Olivia: But that attitude, combined with a system that rewards short-term, reckless behavior, created staggering inequality. The book points out that saving money, a traditional virtue, is now punished by near-zero interest rates, while going into debt is actively encouraged. Hard work is devalued when a CEO can run a company into the ground, lay off hundreds of people, and walk away with a multi-million-dollar payout. Jackson: Right, like that SeaWorld story. The CEO gets a massive bonus while 311 people lose their jobs. It’s that feeling of ‘rules for thee, but not for me’ that makes people lose all faith in the system. Olivia: Exactly. The old map isn't just wrong; it's upside down. And trying to navigate this new, inverted world with it is what’s causing this crisis of leadership.

Jackson: Okay, so if the old map is useless and relying only on data is a trap, what's the new compass? What are leaders supposed to do? Olivia: The authors propose a new skill, a new leadership superpower they call "Situational Fluency." Jackson: That sounds a bit like corporate jargon. Isn't that just a fancy term for 'common sense'? What makes it a specific, learnable skill? Olivia: It's more than just common sense. It's the ability to see the world in multiple dimensions at once. It's about understanding that the world isn't a set of isolated problems to be solved, but a web of interconnected systems. It’s about balancing the left-brain analysis—the 'what'—with the right-brain synthesis—the 'so what?' Jackson: Give me a concrete picture. What does a leader who lacks situational fluency look like? Olivia: The book paints a vivid picture of the "waterboarded leader." This is the executive who is drowning in a constant flood of emails, notifications, and data streams. They check their phone 20 times an hour. They can't concentrate for more than a few minutes. They're always reacting, never thinking. Because they're so overloaded, they make snap judgments based on incomplete information and miss the bigger patterns. Jackson: Oh man, that is painfully relatable. My best ideas always come when I'm doing the dishes or on a long walk. It’s never when I’m staring at my inbox. Olivia: You just hit on a key piece of evidence from the book! They surveyed a group of leaders and asked them where they had their biggest breakthroughs. Not a single one said "at my desk." It was always in the shower, at the gym, walking the dog—moments when the analytical left brain recedes and the synthesizing right brain has space to connect the dots. Jackson: So "situational fluency" is about intentionally creating that mental space to see the connections? Olivia: Yes, and it's also about learning to read the qualitative data. The book argues that in our world, how people feel is just as important as the hard numbers. Trust, morale, fear, hope—these aren't on any balance sheet, but they are what actually drive outcomes. A leader with situational fluency understands that chaos is often just a pattern you haven't understood yet. Jackson: It’s like the internet paradox they mention. It connects us to more people than ever, but studies show it's also making us lonelier. A purely data-driven leader sees the connection numbers go up and calls it a success. A fluent leader sees the rising loneliness and asks a different set of questions. Olivia: Precisely. They even offer a thinking tool called the LAB Kythera, which is like a mental compass. It helps leaders map out these paradoxes—how innovation can also lead to intimidation, how internationalism can breed insularity. It’s a tool for navigating a world where two opposing things can be true at the same time.

Jackson: This idea of balancing different ways of thinking feels deeply connected to the book's take on gender, which I heard was pretty controversial. It seems like a minefield. Olivia: It is, and they walk a very careful line. The book makes it clear it's not about gender identity—male or female. It's about different modes of thinking that have been culturally labeled as 'masculine' and 'feminine'. Jackson: Okay, break that down for me. Olivia: They associate 'masculine' thinking with that left-brain, analytical, competitive, data-driven approach we've been talking about. 'Feminine' thinking is associated with the right-brain, synthetic, collaborative, empathetic, and long-term view. The problem isn't that one is better; the problem is that our entire corporate and political structure has been built to exclusively reward the 'masculine' mode. Jackson: But isn't there a huge risk of stereotyping here? Saying women are empathetic and men are analytical feels like a step backward. Olivia: It would be, if that's what they were saying. But they're arguing these are thinking styles available to everyone. The goal isn't to replace male leaders with female leaders. The goal is to cultivate what they call an "androgynous mind" in all leaders—a mind that can fluidly switch between both modes. Jackson: I see. So it’s not about biology, it’s about mental flexibility. Olivia: Exactly. And they back this up with some powerful research. For instance, one study they cite found that in the workplace, men's confidence is often perceived as competence, while a woman displaying the exact same level of confidence is often penalized for being 'abrasive' or 'bossy'. Jackson: I’ve definitely seen that play out. A man is assertive, a woman is aggressive. Olivia: Right. And another study found that women are naturally more collaborative in teams. But here's the fascinating part: that collaboration gap disappears entirely when compensation is tied to team performance instead of individual performance. It shows that the system, not just innate nature, shapes our behavior. Jackson: So the system is designed to reward a certain type of thinking, which has been culturally coded as 'male'. Olivia: Yes, and they argue the internet itself has an "androcentric" design. It was built by men, and it privileges argument, data, and confrontation over connection and empathy. Think about any online comment section. It's a battlefield of logic, not a hub of understanding. The book's ultimate point is that the most efficient and successful organizations will be the ones that break free from this one-sided model and embrace balanced thinking.

Olivia: When you pull it all together, the book's argument is incredibly coherent. The old, rigid, data-obsessed model of leadership is failing because the world has become too complex and paradoxical. Jackson: And the proposed solution is to cultivate this new awareness—this 'situational fluency'—that allows you to see the whole picture, not just the pixels. Olivia: And to achieve that fluency, leaders need to develop an 'androgynous mind' that values empathy, collaboration, and imagination just as much as it values analysis and competition. Jackson: It feels like the core message is that leadership isn't a title you hold, but a state of awareness you cultivate. It's less about 'doing things right'—optimizing the old system—and more about 'doing the right things'—building a new one. Olivia: That's a perfect summary. And the authors leave us with a really powerful, almost haunting question. Penny Mordaunt, a British MP, quotes them in the foreword, asking, "If we, each of us, cannot reach our potential, then what hope does humanity have?" It reframes the entire project of leadership not as a corporate goal, but as a human imperative. Jackson: That really lands. It makes you think about your own workplace or community. What's one 'inverted value' you see every day? Where is imagination being squashed by spreadsheets? Olivia: That's a great question for our listeners. We'd love to hear what you think. What's one 'inverted value' you see in your own world? Let us know on our social channels. It’s a conversation we all need to be having. Jackson: This is Aibrary, signing off.