Leah Henderson
April 1, 2026
)
Everybody wants “better” leaders. But what does it really mean?
This is the question we invited about 100 HR and L&D leaders from around the world to reflect on at our annual Global Summit, hosted at the spectacular Ashridge House in Hertfordshire, UK (our flagship Executive Education campus) – in partnership with EF Corporate Learning.
Over the course of the event, thought leaders shared their perspectives on what “better” leadership really means, and invited attendees to share their insights too.
Spoiler: there is no right answer.
Not only is the definition of “better” leadership always evolving, but leadership is full of grey areas. Dr Vicki Culpin, Professor of Organizational Behavior at Hult International Business School, demonstrates this in an adapted game of would you rather? – swapping inoffensive dilemmas for more consequential ones in the leadership sphere. Would you rather fire ten strangers or one friend, for example?
Recognizing the pursuit of “better" leadership is imperfect and ongoing, our research – The Leaders Research – identified six critical leadership shifts.
)
Discover all findings from the Better Leaders Paradox here.
Culpin asks leaders to reflect on the moments that shaped them as leaders. In the room, we heard stories of authenticity, compassion and well-being (as Culpin quipped, nobody ever mentions a career-defining financial report or PPT).
“When we think about leadership, we think of the human moments. You can dress leadership up however you want, but fundamentally it comes down to human-to-human interaction.”
Reflection question
“As leaders, you have a legacy when you leave the room. What is it that you want people to remember?”
Zooming in on the shift to communication, Dr Christopher McCormick, Chief Academic Officer at EF Corporate Learning, notes that shared language is not the same as shared understanding. Drawing on his experience of living and working in several different countries around the world, he explored cultural interpretations of trust and the universal signals that it travels through: competence (show me you deliver); benevolence – show me you care); and integrity (show me who you are).
Crucially, we all send and receive these signals differently. The message for leaders is to check assumptions: notice what signals they respond to first, and interrogate why that is, reflect on what signals they send and think about how that applies across their organization.
Reflection question
“Which trust signals do you respond to first? Which signals put you off or invite you in – and why?”
With Dr Eve Poole OBE, Associate Faculty Member at Hult International Business School, the conversation turned to AI. “Despite being a rubbish species,” she jokes, “we have survived.” In large part because of what she calls our human junk code, which reveals an enormous capacity for risk mitigation. Emotion enables us to read people. Uncertainty helps us not to make premature decisions. Meaning-making and storytelling mean people listen in a way they don’t to PPTs. You can get the full breakdown here.
So, Poole challenges, why are we not programming humanity into AI, when risk mitigation is so embedded in our code? And pressingly, with AI eating up more junior roles, how are future leaders going to gain the experience they need to learn to nurture their junk code?
Reflection question
“The magic of leadership is in our junk code – so what is your organization doing to improve it?”
Cordi O’Hara OBE – President of UK Energy Distribution at National Grid – sat down with José Manuel Barroso, former Prime Minister of Portugal, 11th President of the European Commission, and Chairman of International Advisors of Goldman Sachs and of the International Affairs Committee at Efekta. From the 1974 Carnation Revolution in Portugal to the 2008 global financial crisis, Barroso shared defining moments that have shaped his leadership.
In our volatile climate, they emphasized the need for leaders to embrace change as a constant and an opportunity – be it change in tech, energy, ESG or geopolitics. To create balance even if all chess pieces not clear. And to avoid the leadership pitfalls of ignorance, arrogance and vanity, which show up in every type of institution – companies, governments, universities.
Ultimately, Barroso has a message of hope and responsibility for leaders to stay curious: “Never lose your enthusiasm, even when you lose you illusions.”
Reflection question
Are you paying attention to the conditions that create conflict in your organization – or have you fallen into the leadership pitfall of ignorance?
)
)
)
)
)
)
Cecilia Sandberg, SVP, Chief Human Resources Officer at Atlas Copco Group, emphasizes this idea that leaders must never stop learning to stay relevant – while also making themselves almost obsolete by setting up their teams for success. “If you are the smartest person in the room, you’re in the wrong room,” says Sandberg. "Leaders don’t need to have all the answers; they should surround themselves with people who do.”
She likens the complexity of leading in a global organization to that of being an orchestra leader. “You let the team perform. You give them space, because when you’re stressed, you default to micromanaging.” This is also what the Better Leaders Paradox research found.
Reflection question
“Am I curious enough? And am I engaging people enough?”
Our upcoming research shows that time is the greatest barrier to learning. In a world of busyness, it’s easy to forget that we – especially senior leaders – do have a choice. Culpin sees this all the time: successful leaders who aren’t doing what they wanted to do because they said yes, getting further and further away from what they really want.
“What you choose to pay attention to defines you, your leadership and your life.”
But when time is a finite resource, you will never have enough of it to do everything you want. The only way you can prioritize what matters to you is if you are proactive, whether that means blocking time for yourself, or striking “middling” priorities from your list.
Leaders who end up where they didn’t intend to be didn’t get there by making giant decisions – they said lots of small yesses. And every unsaid “no” has a consequence.
Reflection question
“What are the consequences of doing nothing over time – of being reactive instead of proactive?”
Megan Reitz, Professor of Leadership and Dialogue at Hult International Business School, explored how organizations can create cultures of speaking up. Many factors affect whether or not people speak up – confidence, relationships, cultural differences, and the labels we give to others – consciously or not.
But if one thing that determines what gets talked about and who gets heard, it's status and power. “Speaking up is political ,” says Reitz, “and when you have a high status label, you don't see the power difference. We know from 25,000 survey responses that as you get more senior you are more likely to overestimate the degree to which people are speaking up. When you have titles and labels, we forget how scary we are.”
This is why she calls on leaders to challenge themselves as a listener. If you want to invite difference into the conversation, you need the capacity to question who you trust by default – or risk being stuck in an echo chamber. You need to form questions people can disagree with. You need to understand how your responses impact the speaker.
Reflection question
“Who in your organization might find you intimidating?”
Space is critical for creating a speak-up culture too. But, in what Reitz calls “pathologically busy” systems, her research finds that 70% of people describe meetings as rushed and 32% are unable to pause during the day. “We find ourselves in a world where it feels radical and even career-limiting to pause,” she says. The research shows that teams want more conversations around creativity, learning, and relationships – but tasks consistently dominate.
“You can ask for strategic thinking all you like, but if the most powerful person in the room begins conversations about quarterly targets, you couldn't be clearer.”
Reitz highlights the imbalance between our “doing” and “spacious” modes. Doing is a narrow, goal-oriented form of attention. Spaciousness is expansive, open, and receptive. It’s the realm of attention where we get insight and experience wonder.
)
Reitz, M and Higgins, J (2026)
Reitz calls for "radical prioritization" of time. She highlights the importance of psychological safety, attention as a capability that can be trained, different perspectives, and environment as areas for leaders and organizations to focus on.
Reflection question
“What do you need to do to enable your team and organization to ‘flourish’?”
More leadership reflection questions:
1. What does “better” look like in your organization?
2. What moments have shaped your leadership?
3. What would you like to do with one extra hour in work day? What would you actually do?
4. Why do you struggle to say no?
5. What affects your ability to speak up? What affects your ability to listen?
Further reading:
The Better Leaders Paradox – Hult Ashridge research by Vicki Culpin and Debbie Bayntun-Lees
Speaking truth to power at work by Megan Reitz, Viktor O. Nilsson, Emma Day and John Higgins
Permission to pause: Rediscovering ‘spaciousness’ at work by Megan Reitz and John Higgins
Robot Souls by Eve Poole
Our speakers
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
