The Leadership Aspiration Gap
For technology organisations, the leadership aspiration gap is not a soft HR issue; it is a succession and delivery risk. CIOs and transformation leaders are already competing for people who can bridge strategy, architecture, security and change. If high-potential managers increasingly see leadership as high-friction, high-exposure and low-reward, the pipeline for programme sponsors, product owners, service leaders and future executives will narrow long before a formal vacancy appears.
The practical implication is that organisations need to rethink what leadership asks of people, not just how they reward them. Traditional models that reward visibility, control and long hours can deter the very operators who are strongest at collaboration, judgement and cross-functional influence. That raises a management trade-off: pushing more accountability upward may improve short-term control, but it can also reduce willingness to step into roles that carry reputational risk without corresponding support.
Next questions for leadership teams:
- Which roles in the technology portfolio are becoming hardest to fill or retain, and why?
- Do current incentives recognise enterprise impact, or only hierarchy and title?
- Are managers given enough delegated authority, coaching and psychological safety to lead through uncertainty?
- What succession paths exist for technical leaders who do not want a traditional ladder?
The most useful response is often operating-model design: clearer decision rights, better span of control, more visible support from the top, and leadership pathways that value influence as much as positional authority. For technology executives, the issue is whether the organisation can make leadership feel like meaningful stewardship rather than a personal liability.
Rebuilding the appeal of leadership in an age of uncertainty.
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player…
Corporations, societies, nations. All require a mix of different qualities to succeed, including quality leadership. Yet, as todayโs leaders prepare to pass on the mantle to a new generation, leadership seems to be approaching a moment of crisis. A growing body of evidence suggests that fewer young professionals today aspire to traditional leadership roles.
The changing nature of leadership
The Silent Generation (born between 1925 and 1945) was defined by duty, discipline and conformity. Shaped by the war and economic scarcity, they valued job security and hierarchy. Baby Boomers (born between 1946 and 1960) were driven by growth and prosperity, following linear careers paths marked by loyalty and long-term organisational commitment.ย
Younger generations, on the other hand, see the world differently and have different aspirations. Generation X (born between 1960 and 1980) entered the workforce during early digitalisation. They hold a more individualistic and flexible career mindset, and favour competence and autonomy over status.ย
The preference for autonomy, mental well-being and meaningful work over a conventional career path became even more pronounced in the following generations. Millennials (Generation Y, born between 1980 and 1995) and Generation Z (born between 1995 and 2010) were born into a world of abundance and acceleration. Their lives and values have been shaped by global connectivity, systemic uncertainty and constant change โ marked by 9/11, financial crises, climate change, Covid-19 and social justice movements. They embrace portfolio careers, question traditional authority and measure success not just by position, but by impact and balance.ย They are also drawn to alternative models of leadership such as โconscious unbossingโ, choosing to lead through influence, collaboration and purpose.ย
Yet, the waning interest in pursuing leadership roles isnโt simply due to the lag in developing leadership models suited to a new generation. Rather, younger generations increasingly see a world in which assuming almost any leadership position has become an unattractive proposition.ย
The new leadership challenges
The youth of today are reaching maturity in a world that is volatile and uncertain. One that seems only to move from one crisis to the next.
Activism and civic society form important parts of our political discourse, particularly in a world of difficult trade-offs. Yet when public challenge becomes personal and uncompromising, and when single issues dominate complex debates, the space for balanced leadership can narrow and the cost of taking on highly visible roles is set to increase.
No doubt, the personal cost of holding any leadership position in the public eye is increasing. As one C-suite executive of a major corporation revealed to me in a recent conversation: โThe overwhelming emotion gripping our board and executive team for the last five years has been fear.โ
In such a world, itโs unsurprising that many among the younger generation are shunning leadership opportunities. A plush corner office no longer holds much attraction. Neither do ever-larger compensation packages, which have become a source of public criticism themselves. In Deloitteโs 2025 Gen Z and Millennial Survey covering over 23,000 Gen Z and millennial professionals across 44 countries, only 6 percent identified reaching a leadership position as theirย primaryย career goal, despite attaching high value to meaningful work, development and social impact.ย
These pressures are increasingly visible at the very top of organisations. CEO tenures have been steadily declining across major markets, while a growing share of new appointments involve first-time incumbents โ an indication that leadership roles that are not only more exposed and volatile, but also increasingly short-term. Bigger compensation packages are, in part, designed to offset the growing personal and reputational costs of leadership. Yet, by enabling early financial independence, they also lower the barriers to exit when those costs become too high. This reinforces, rather than reverses, the fragility of leadership roles.
Incentives built on traditional ways of thinking are increasingly insufficient to attract younger would-be leaders โ except, perhaps, for those driven by ego or individual advancement. Such motivations may attract certain types of people, but experience suggests they are poorly suited to building the resilient, inclusive leadership systems the world requires.ย
Leadership of hope
As highlighted in the 2025 INSEAD Global Talent Competitiveness Index report, competitiveness isnโt only about developing and attracting talent, but also about creating environments in which people still believe leadership is viable, desirable and impactful. Those conditions are eroding, with significant negative implications for economic and societal development.
Turning this around is possible. It will take true leadership from the current crop of business and political leaders, as well as a shift in approach from those, such as business schools, that have the responsibility for nurturing potential leaders.
The first step is to replace the pervasive apocalyptic narratives โ be they about climate, economic potential or technological developments โ with a narrative of hope. Hope isnโt the same as optimism or believing something will turn up to make everything alright. Itโs what drives us to engage and motivates us to channel our energies to work towards what we believe to be a positive outcome. Opportunities for innovation and continued progress, however imperfect, are worth striving for.ย ย
In this regard, the leaders of today are responsible for demonstrating that there are viable leadership paths for younger generations, and that leadership is about shaping the future, not just managing the present while being fatalistic about (or, worse, uninterested in) the future. They need to recognise that the values and incentives in a financialised world, while still relevant, are no longer enough to inspire.
They also need to demonstrate resilience and the confidence to navigate external pressures with clarity and consistency. When leaders act from a grounded sense of purpose โ rather than reacting to the loudest voices or the shifting political climate โ they earn the respect of younger generations and become the role models they seek.
Institutions and their leaders need to demonstrate greater steadiness and consistency, rather than defaulting to short-term expediency. Above all, we all bear responsibility for the kind of society in which we live. We need a culture that welcomes open discussion without resorting to personal attacks. All of this will determine whether capable individuals step forward or step back from top roles.
As political scientist and writer Dominique Moรฏsi observed, โThe problem is that Europe has become, for the younger generation, a place to be and not a place to do โ and this has to be changed.โ Increasingly, this holds true not only for Europe, but for much of the developed world. We need a new generation of leaders with the courage not just to inhabit, but to shape, protect and advance the world we live in.ย
To do so, leadership must not only be made accessible, but worth aspiring to. Because when the most thoughtful and capable step up โ not despite the complexity, but because of it โ leadership can become a force for connection, progress and hope.
Edited by:
Geraldine EeAbout the author(s)
Ron Soonieus
is a Senior Advisor at Boston Consulting Group (BCG) andย Director in Residence at INSEAD, where heย works closely with the INSEAD Corporate Governance Centre and the INSEAD Ethics and Social Responsibility Initiative.
Enjoyed this article? Sign up for our newsletter to receive regular insights and stay connected.