Today’s leaders operate in a volatile and constantly shifting environment. Geopolitical instability, economic uncertainty, cybersecurity threats, and mounting ESG expectations are all reshaping strategic decisions. At the same time, artificial intelligence is significantly transforming the skills, approaches, and ethical frameworks required to lead effectively.
Meanwhile, the people side of leadership is becoming more and more complex. Hybrid workforces, generational differences, talent shortages, and rising expectations around inclusion all require constant adaptation, and research continues to reinforce the importance of employees feeling valued and included for their distinctive selves.
For many leaders, the result can be exhaustion. As one executive put it to me: “I feel like I am on a treadmill, and it never stops, it runs faster, and on top of that, stuff is thrown at me left, right, and center. I am unclear on what to focus on, and a bit fearful of what to expect.”
Leadership norms are shifting from one day to the next, and sustaining people’s performance while keeping them engaged has become a significant challenge. The question is as tempting as it is unavoidable: what’s the “magic pill” for leadership today?
While systemic change is clearly necessary, leaders ultimately hold the most influence over themselves. That’s where human-centricity comes into play. Human-centric leadership involves prioritizing human needs, values, and experiences during decision-making. This is not a soft, unmeasurable people-first approach – far from it. Human-centered leadership is not just about being empathetic or «nice.» It’s about anchoring strategies, systems, and innovations in a clear, evidence-based understanding of how humans actually behave, work, and thrive. When leadership fails to prioritize human design and implementation, performance inevitably follows the same downward trajectory.
This shift is not easy – nothing worthwhile comes easy – but it is transformative. Leaders who intentionally incorporate human-centricity into their everyday actions tend to build healthier organizational cultures and, just as importantly, improved performance. They see greater resilience, more innovation, and a workforce that is willing to stay engaged under pressure.
Global workforce data underscores the urgency of a more human-centric approach. According to Gallup, only 21% of employees worldwide are fully engaged, and declining engagement cost the global economy an estimated $438 billion in lost productivity last year. Loneliness is also on the rise, with more than one in five people reporting that they felt lonely “a lot of the day yesterday.” Retention is fragile as well, with half of North American workers saying they are open to leaving their jobs.
Burnout has become impossible to ignore. It stems from chronic workload, a perceived lack of control, weak recognition and rewards, and the lack of a supportive community where values feel aligned. Leadership should play a crucial role at the center of these conditions, shaping clarity, purpose, psychological safety, and creating a structure that allows people to feel a part of something larger than their individual tasks.
While leaders overwhelmingly recognize the importance of psychological safety – 93% agree it directly impacts performance – many fail to create environments where it can thrive. And according to the International Labor Organization, one in five people experience some form of violence and harassment at work.
Another pattern is equally revealing: a gap in self-awareness. A key point worth considering is the basic need for self-awareness, which is the foundation for great leadership. Studies suggest that only about 15% of people have strong self-awareness, and the connection between how capable leaders think they are and how capable they really are is less than 30%. The same research reveals that a leader’s lack of self-awareness can influence decision-making, teamwork, and conflict resolution.
On top of this is the growing complexity of leading AI-driven organizations, and leaders find themselves attempting the delicate balance of navigating the tension between technological innovation and human-centered approaches. As much as the biggest concerns are about bias in algorithms, data protection, and trust in AI, the big pressure lies on leaders and their ability to translate the context and lead with clarity.
Deloitte and Oxford’s research on global human capital trends reinforces the point that the human element is a crucial link between understanding the future of work and making progress toward concrete outcomes and positive results. Prioritizing human sustainability – through better health, skills, opportunities, equity, and purpose – can lead to improved human and business outcomes, a cycle we call “human performance.”
Most leaders already know this. However, to take action and actually put this theory into practice means letting go of outdated mindsets, operating models, and performance metrics, and taking an honest look at themselves and their own skills and character. The need for human-centered approaches is undeniable. What remains uncertain is whether leaders will commit to the changes required to meet it.
Human-centric leadership requires a fundamental shift in mindset that involves moving from control to empowerment, from perfection to vulnerability, from competition to collaboration, and from pursuing efficiency at all costs to focusing on long-term sustainable performance. This shift starts with the leader.
Many leaders hesitate to take responsibility for their own patterns of behavior and for developing a healthy character. Yet, without that inner work, human centricity remains a concept rather than a lived experience. There are several questions that leaders can use to examine their motivation and orientation:
Why is this important to me? Why do I want to be a human-centric leader? Motivation matters. For some, this is intrinsic—a desire to have a positive impact and influence on people. For others, it’s the recognition that without leading in this way, they will fall behind, deliver weaker results, and potentially fail. A healthy balance that incorporates both can be useful: a little empathy, care, and compassion, along with a bit of fear about what’s at stake if we don’t evolve.
Am I here to influence or manipulate? Influence is a positive and ethical process that promotes shared growth. It depends on transparency and open communication. Manipulation, on the other hand, prioritizes personal gain at the expense of others and often involves withholding information, distorting reality, and other behaviors that ultimately erode trust and workplace culture. When leaders intend to influence, they aim to inspire, motivate, and foster mutual growth. They rely on people’s informed participation and consent. When leaders manipulate, the behaviors are reactive, self-protective, and frequently coercive. Manipulation may achieve short-term results, but over time, it damages a team’s feeling of psychological safety and weakens organizational culture.
What is my gap? Self-awareness is crucial. Leaders must take an honest look at themselves, regardless of the discomfort that comes with it, and seek feedback that challenges their assumptions. Human-centric leadership cannot be faked; it’s built on traits like humility, empathy, courage, curiosity, and flexibility.
The starting point is simple but demanding. Leaders should ask: Where am I now, and who do I want to become? Am I willing to let go of control? Am I ready to stay adaptable, knowing change will continue?
When these qualities translate into action, they lead to consistent and identifiable behaviors: creating psychologically safe environments, empowering others to grow, aligning purpose with performance, and leading with compassion. Over time, these practices produce measurable results: stronger engagement, higher productivity, greater innovation, healthier cultures, and improved organizational resilience.
None of this is easy. Human-centric leadership requires effort, self-reflection, and constant adjustment. But what is intentional is also sustainable. Quick fixes and surface-level changes may offer temporary relief, but only those leaders who consistently put humans at the center of their decisions will create lasting impact.
The contrast between Satya Nadella and Travis Kalanick illustrates this difference. When Nadella took over Microsoft in 2014, the company was known for internal competition and rigid hierarchies. By embedding empathy into strategy and redesigning performance systems around collaboration and growth, Nadella made psychological safety a driver of innovation. The cultural shift was not surface level; it coincided with a dramatic resurgence of performance and reputation.
Uber’s trajectory under Kalanick offers a counterpoint. Aggressive growth came at the expense of trust, safety, and inclusion, and the company culture was marked by fear and internal rivalry. This resulted in reputational damage, leadership turnover (with Kalanick leaving in 2017), and years of rebuilding.
These two cases offer a simple but often overlooked truth: there is no magic pill for leadership. But human centricity comes close. Today, leading with a deep understanding of human behavior is no longer optional; it is the most reliable path to achieving sustained success.
© IE Insights.
