THE ART OF LEADING: CREATING SPACES FOR RESPONSES AND TRANSFORMATIONS

Have you ever reflected on the role of a leader in creating truly transformative environments? At some point, have you questioned the real meaning of leading? Is leadership synonymous with having all the answers or, perhaps, with the ability to cultivate spaces where the right questions emerge, and solutions arise organically and collectively?

The concept of leadership is ubiquitous, often associated with the central figure of an individual seen as “the bearer of all power and knowledge.” However, does leading mean controlling and knowing everything? Or is it more relevant to have the skill to build contexts where collaboration thrives and the best ideas emerge from multiple perspectives?

In contemporary society, the myth of the heroic leader is still highly valued, overshadowing the transformative power of teamwork. This is reflected, for example, in corporate programs that promise to create “exceptional leaders,” yet neglect the fact that true success is rarely the result of a single individual. It is, at its core, born from collective synergy.

A striking example can be found in the daily life of organizations. Think of a busy restaurant: the chef is often seen as the main star, but the success of each meal depends on the integrated effort of the team – from the cooks and assistants to the waitstaff and even the suppliers. Without this coordinated collaboration, the customer would not have the desired experience.

Another simple yet powerful example can be found in school or academic projects. A successful group project rarely depends on a single brilliant student. It is born from the collective effort: while one may be more creative, another may excel in organization, and another still, in executing technical tasks. The final result is always more impactful when everyone collaborates with their unique talents.

The Human Genome Project is another example we can also use. Although leaders like Francis Collins and Craig Venter are often remembered, the success of this monumental scientific initiative resulted from global collaboration, involving diverse teams of scientists, technicians, and researchers. It was the collective strength, not the isolated actions of a central figure, that made this historic achievement possible.

Now, let’s look at a symbolic example that “changed the world” and is as fascinating as the dynamic between leaders and teams in the case of Steve Jobs and the creation of the iPhone. Initially, Jobs did not want to enter the mobile phone market. He was skeptical about Apple’s ability to compete with giants like Nokia, Motorola, and BlackBerry, and he rejected the idea presented by his team several times. The proposal to create an innovative phone seemed like a distraction from Apple’s focus on products like the iPod.

However, faced with the increasing dominance of BlackBerry, the Apple team persisted. With their collective vision, engineers and designers were able to convince Jobs that Apple should not only enter the phone market but could also revolutionize it by integrating music, the internet, and other functionalities into a single device. Jobs’ initial resistance was overcome by the strength of internal collaboration, and in the end, the idea was embraced, culminating in the creation of the iPhone.

This scenario strongly contrasts with what happened with BlackBerry. BlackBerry was one of the leading companies in the smartphone market, especially in the corporate environment, with a business model focused on emails and security. However, its leadership resisted the idea of evolving and incorporating more open and intuitive internet navigation, something its own engineers and development teams already saw as essential for the future of the smartphone market.

During the early 2000s, BlackBerry dominated the enterprise smartphone segment, offering an unprecedented email experience. However, when the iPhone was launched by Apple in 2007, bringing a friendlier interface with internet browsing, apps, and a touchscreen, BlackBerry found itself without an adequate response. BlackBerry’s internal team suggested adding more robust internet navigation to their devices, but the company’s leadership was reluctant, believing that its corporate customer base wasn’t interested in consumer-oriented devices and that BlackBerry already dominated the market with its productivity-focused features.

Additionally, the resistance to change and the belief that BlackBerry’s business model was enough for long-term success prevented the company from adapting to rapid changes in the market. This resulted in a strategic failure, with BlackBerry losing its leadership to competitors like Apple and Android, who adopted a more open, innovation-focused approach.

This story illustrates how resistance to innovation and a lack of active listening to the team can result in missed opportunities, something that contrasts with Apple’s collaborative leadership model, as I mentioned earlier.

These two examples show the difference between leaders who create space for solutions to emerge from collective collaboration and those who, by resisting change, limit the possibilities for innovation. The Apple team, by persisting with their vision, demonstrated that true leadership is not about having all the answers, but about listening and allowing the best ideas to develop collectively. On the other hand, BlackBerry illustrates the risk of a leader who does not listen to their team and fails to perceive the necessary transformations in the market.

Leading, however, is much more than having ready-made answers. It is about having the wisdom to cultivate the conditions for the right questions to be asked and for genuine, transformative answers to be built collectively. This is the invitation to rethink leadership: not as an act of centralization, but as the art of facilitating collective processes and creating spaces where human potential can be fully realized.

The Leadership Challenge: Answers or Processes?

Simon Sinek argues that “great leaders are not those who have all the answers, but those who create an environment where the answers can be found.” This statement challenges us to rethink leadership as a dynamic process, rather than as a function of absolute control or a simple transmission of solutions. As we’ve seen so far, leadership should not be understood as something centralized in a single individual, but as a space where everyone can contribute to solving the challenges that arise. Leadership, thus, becomes more about facilitating than commanding, more about inspiring than controlling.

Historically, the vision of leadership has undergone profound transformations, reflecting changes in social, political, and organizational structures over time. In Ancient Greece, for example, the Agora was the place where citizens gathered to discuss political and social issues. Leadership in this context was not solely in the hands of a single ruler, but emerged from the collective through debate and consensus. Philosophers like Aristotle viewed leadership as something involving the virtue of dialogue and collective action, transcending the domain of a single leader. Leadership was, then, more about the contribution of many than about the command of one ruler.

Over the centuries, this conception was reformulated. In the empires that arose after the fall of Rome, such as Alexander the Great’s empire and later, Napoleon Bonaparte’s, leadership took on a centralized and authoritarian form. Leadership during this period was associated with absolute power and control by a single leader over their followers. However, even leaders as powerful as Napoleon needed the collaboration of armies and allies to achieve their victories. Success depended on the actions of many people around them, despite the centralized leadership model.

The Impact of the Industrial Revolution and Organizational Culture

During the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century, leadership became marked by a highly centralized model, focused on efficiency and control, reflecting the needs of large-scale production and a rigid hierarchy in organizations. However, over time, especially in the following decades, the perception of leadership began to be questioned, leading to a series of transformations in the way organizations were structured.

In the Second Industrial Revolution, the quest for efficiency and control made the management model even more hierarchical. Thinkers like Frederick Taylor and Henri Fayol advocated for a leadership model based on a clear division of functions, with a leader at the top of the pyramid making decisions that would be rigidly followed by subordinates. This model reinforced the idea that leadership is an executive and individualistic function, where the leader is the central figure responsible for all decisions. However, with the advent of the Third Industrial Revolution (Revolution 3.0), globalization and the complexity of organizations made it clear that this approach would no longer be sufficient to address the challenges of an increasingly interconnected world.

During this period, Douglas McGregor, in his work “The Human Side of Enterprise,” observed that, often within organizations, what are called “teams” are, in fact, just a set of isolated relationships with a boss. In this context, the true unity of purpose is lost, and collaboration becomes superficial. This point was similarly highlighted by Henry Mintzberg, who, in his analysis of management and leadership in the 1960s and 1970s, criticized the “heroic” and “egocentric” view of leadership, which places the leader at the center of all decisions.

Mintzberg proposed that the organizations of the future, especially in the post-Industrial Revolution era, should adopt a more collaborative and inclusive model, where the emphasis would be on the development of teams and the creation of a community of practice. This model reflects a more horizontal view of leadership, where the leader acts as a facilitator, helping to unite individual efforts into a collective goal. Throughout the 20th century, criticism of the traditional leadership model grew, especially with the rise of movements that valued the participation of all members of the organization, reflecting the social and economic changes that were underway, including in organizations driven by the Technological Revolution and globalization.

The Third Industrial Revolution and the Emergence of Organizational Culture

The Third Industrial Revolution, characterized by the introduction of information and communication technologies, brought a new paradigm. Organizations began to realize that, in addition to hierarchy, collaboration, creativity, and flexibility had become essential for innovation and adaptation to the market. Leadership, therefore, began to be seen as a collective and systemic process, where all members of the organization contribute actively to the success of the whole. No longer was the leader the center of all answers, but rather a facilitator who creates the environment in which solutions can emerge collaboratively.

In this context, an important example comes from the growing influence of collaborative and management models from the East, particularly from Japanese models. Japanese management philosophy, with its principles of kaizen (continuous improvement) and hiyaku (acceleration through collaboration), has increasingly been recognized in the West. Companies adopting these models emphasize collaboration among team members, the continuous involvement of workers in the improvement process, and the valuing of collective knowledge, an approach that aligns with Mintzberg’s proposals for a more horizontal and inclusive leadership model.

While in the West, the vision of leadership was still tied to a hierarchical and centralized model, based on the ideas of the Industrial Revolution and thinkers like Frederick Taylor and Henri Fayol, the East had already been implementing practices that prioritized integrating all members of the organization in a continuous learning and adaptation process. The introduction of these practices in the West was facilitated by globalization and the growing need for innovation and agility in the markets.

The cultural revolution this caused in Western organizations was significant. Management models that had previously been based on centralized power began to give way to team autonomy and collaboration, something already rooted in Eastern models. This marked the transition to leadership that views itself not as a central authority, but as a facilitator of a collaborative process, where everyone is responsible for creating solutions and for continuous development.

The Challenge of Leadership: Responses or Processes?

Simon Sinek asserts that “great leaders are not those who have all the answers, but those who create an environment where answers can be found.” This statement encourages us to rethink leadership as a dynamic process, rather than a function of absolute control or a simple transmission of solutions. As we have seen so far, leadership should not be understood as something centralized in a single individual, but rather as a space where everyone can contribute to solving the challenges that arise. Leadership, therefore, becomes more about facilitating than commanding, more about inspiring than controlling.

Historically, the concept of leadership has undergone profound transformations, reflecting changes in social, political, and organizational structures over time. In Ancient Greece, for example, the Agora was the place where citizens gathered to discuss political and social issues. Leadership, in this context, was not solely in the hands of a single ruler, but emerged from the collective, through debate and consensus. Philosophers like Aristotle saw leadership as something that involved the virtue of dialogue and collective action, transcending the domain of a single leader. Leadership was, then, more about the contribution of many than the mandate of a single ruler.

With the passing of the centuries, this conception was reformulated. In the empires that arose after the fall of Rome, such as the empire of Alexander the Great and later that of Napoleon Bonaparte, leadership assumed a centralized and authoritarian form. Leadership, during that period, was associated with absolute power and control by a single leader over their followers. However, even powerful leaders like Napoleon needed the collaboration of armies and allies to achieve their victories. Success depended on the actions of many around them, despite the centralized leadership model.

The Impact of the Industrial Revolution and Organizational Culture

During the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century, leadership became marked by a highly centralized model, focusing on efficiency and control, reflecting the needs of large-scale production and rigid organizational hierarchies. However, over time, especially in the decades that followed, the view of leadership began to be questioned, leading to a series of transformations in how organizations were structured.

In the Second Industrial Revolution, the pursuit of efficiency and control made the management model even more hierarchical. Thinkers like Frederick Taylor and Henri Fayol advocated for a leadership model based on the clear division of roles, with a leader at the top of the pyramid making decisions that would be rigidly followed by subordinates. This model reinforced the idea that leadership is an executive and individualistic function, where the leader is the central figure responsible for all decisions. However, with the arrival of the Third Industrial Revolution (Industry 3.0), globalization and organizational complexity made it clear that this approach would no longer be sufficient to face the challenges of an increasingly interconnected world.

During this period, Douglas McGregor, in his work The Human Side of Enterprise, observed that often within organizations, what is called “teams” are, in reality, just a collection of isolated relationships with a boss. In this context, the true unity of purpose is lost, and collaboration becomes superficial. This point was also highlighted by Henry Mintzberg, who, in his analysis of management and leadership during the 1960s and 1970s, criticized the “heroic” and “egocentric” view of leadership, which places the leader at the center of all decisions.

Mintzberg proposed that future organizations, especially those in the post-Industrial Revolution era, should adopt a more collaborative and inclusive model, where the emphasis is on developing teams and creating a community of practice. This model reflects a more horizontal vision of leadership, in which the leader acts as a facilitator, helping to unite individual efforts toward a collective goal. Throughout the 20th century, criticism of the traditional leadership model grew, especially with the rise of movements that valued the participation of all members of the organization, reflecting the social and economic changes that were taking place, even in organizations driven by technological revolution and globalization.

Industry 4.0 and the New Leadership Model

With the advent of Industry 4.0, which integrates advanced digital technologies, artificial intelligence, and automation, the transformation of leadership has gained new momentum. Industry 4.0 brought about global interconnection and an unprecedented speed of change, requiring a new form of systemic leadership. The hierarchical and centralized model became obsolete in the face of the need for rapid innovation and continuous collaboration. The Industry 4.0 leader is not the “holder of the truth,” but rather someone who facilitates the creation of collective solutions and fosters an environment where collaboration is key to success. The modern leader must create conditions for their team to act autonomously, innovatively, and adaptively to the rapid transformations of the market.

This new leadership model, based on a collaborative organizational culture, represents a step beyond centralization. It values the autonomy and active participation of all members, recognizing that true innovation arises from the systemic ability to share and integrate different perspectives. Leadership ceases to be a function of control and becomes a dynamic process of facilitation, learning, and adaptation.

Behavioral Development in Leadership

“Leadership is not about having all the answers. It is about creating a space where answers can be discovered together.” – Marcello de Souza

In this context, Behavioral Development offers a valuable lens through which we can understand the complex group dynamics and how individual behaviors impact collective processes. Within leadership, interactions between leaders and teams go beyond a simple exchange of authority or command. They reflect a deep set of beliefs, values, and social norms that permeate organizational systems, requiring a more holistic and sensitive understanding. Communication, in this scenario, transcends its role as a mere tool and becomes a continuous process, sustaining trust, fostering innovation, and promoting organizational flexibility.

For a leader to create an environment conducive to the collective discovery of solutions, it is essential that they understand the impact of social interactions within the team. This goes beyond formal power structures or hierarchy, extending to the behavioral flow that occurs in informal networks, cultural norms, and information flows that permeate the organization. Every interaction, whether direct or indirect, carries transformative potential.

In this context, communication reveals itself as the key bridge to trust. It is not just about transmitting information, but about establishing an open and honest channel where all team members feel safe to share their ideas. Leaders who practice active listening do not just emit words; they engage in genuine dialogue, creating an environment where clarity translates into trust. This space of vulnerable communication not only facilitates the expression of differences but also nurtures innovation, as everyone knows their contributions are respected and valued. In a transparent environment, collaboration is not just encouraged; it is nurtured by mutual trust.

Furthermore, human behavior reveals itself as a powerful tool for meeting the emotional and cognitive needs of the team. Leaders who can perceive not only the verbal content but also the emotional and psychological context of their collaborators can adjust their approach more effectively, aligning their decisions with the values and interests of the group. This type of leadership, based on empathy and a deep understanding of human interactions, enhances collective performance, as it creates an environment where people feel truly understood and motivated.

Collaborative leadership, therefore, emerges as a form of distributed power, where the leader no longer sees themselves as the exclusive holder of answers, but as a facilitator of the collective process. Based on the principles of social psychology, this approach demonstrates that people feel more motivated and committed when they have an active voice in decisions that affect the collective. Trust, in this process, becomes an essential pillar for creating a safe and creative organizational environment where all members feel integral to the solution.

This communicational process is not one-way. The leader’s behavior must be constant and bidirectional. They must not only communicate expectations and feedback but also open channels for continuous team feedback, encouraging the exchange of ideas and openness to adjustments as new perspectives emerge. Active listening, encouraging open discussions, and the courage to modify approaches as needed are essential practices in this environment.

For this to materialize, the organizational system must create the right conditions for this collaborative leadership. Effective feedback structures, transparent communication channels, and policies that encourage innovation should be integrated into the fabric of the organization, creating a genuine culture of co-creation. When organizational processes respect and nurture the behavioral complexity of individuals, the leader becomes not just a facilitator, but a catalyst for collective success.

Ultimately, when behavior becomes the foundation of organizational culture and leadership recognizes it as such, the organization thrives. By respecting the relational complexities of individuals and fostering an environment of mutual trust, the organization not only becomes more resilient, but also more capable of reinventing itself, facing challenges with agility, and building an innovative future.

Neuroscience and the Impact of Leadership on the Brain

“True leadership is not measured by the answers we provide, but by the questions we create along the path of self-knowledge.” – Marcello de Souza

The human brain, especially what I call the “social brain,” responds distinctly to different leadership environments. Recent neuroscience research shows that leadership that promotes collaborative thinking activates brain circuits associated with creativity, problem-solving, and learning. When people feel part of a creation process, the brain activates areas responsible for empathy, collaboration, and the generation of new ideas.

In authoritarian environments, where there is little space for idea exchange and co-creation, the brain activates regions linked to stress, resistance, and fear. This type of environment can block creative flow, reduce engagement, and harm the mental well-being of employees. In contrast, a leader who creates a safe environment where everyone can contribute and explore their ideas not only stimulates innovation but also enhances the brain functions responsible for problem-solving and seeking sustainable solutions.

The impact of leadership on the brain illustrates how a collaborative model can benefit both organizational outcomes and the mental health and cognitive development of employees. When leaders encourage active participation and co-creation, they not only foster the resolution of complex problems but also strengthen neural networks that drive continuous innovation. This positive cycle contributes to the creation of a resilient organizational environment, where employees not only solve current challenges but are also increasingly prepared for future demands.

Furthermore, a leader who fosters a collaborative environment creates ideal conditions for collective innovation, allowing the best ideas to emerge from various areas of the organization. Leadership is not about having the answers but creating the conditions for them to be discovered together. The integration of behavioral development, social psychology, and advancements in neuroscience reveals that collaborative leaders not only achieve better results but also build healthier and more productive environments. They facilitate the transformation of their teams and organizations, enabling everyone to contribute, innovate, and continuously develop.

By adopting collaborative leadership, leaders not only create more effective solutions but also build a legacy of trust, learning, and innovation. This model is not just desirable but essential for sustainable success in an increasingly complex and interconnected world.

Focus on Personal and Interpersonal Impact

The transformation of leadership mindset is not limited to the organizational sphere; it reverberates deeply in interpersonal relationships, changing the way we connect and interact with others, whether at work or in our personal lives. This impact transcends corporate walls and penetrates the core of our everyday interactions, revealing a leadership model that extends beyond the professional space and, in light of neuroscience, shows how collaborative leadership can catalyze changes in people’s brain circuits.

When a leader adopts a more collaborative approach, they not only change the dynamics of their team but also create a neural and emotional effect that triggers positive responses in the people around them. The human brain, particularly the dopamine and oxytocin systems, responds positively to environments where there is empathy, collaboration, and trust. This means that by adopting inclusive leadership, the leader not only improves the team’s performance but also influences the emotional well-being of individuals, promoting a deep connection between the parties.

This behavior is not limited to the work environment but extends to all relationships: at home, with friends and family, or in everyday situations. Neuroscience shows that our social interactions are directly related to the release of bonding substances like oxytocin, which is released when we experience trust and genuine connection. When a leader positions themselves as a facilitator — someone who listens, questions, and supports with empathy — they create an environment where these biochemical processes favor collaboration and mutual learning.

True leadership, therefore, is not just a corporate practice, but a philosophy that shapes and transforms all human interactions. By cultivating a collaborative leadership stance, we are not just guiding people toward professional goals, but activating a cycle of emotional and cognitive reciprocity that resonates in people’s brains, fostering greater engagement, creativity, and trust.

This leadership model generates a multiplier effect. By adopting an inclusive and collaborative leadership approach, we are not only promoting changes within the organization but transforming the quality of personal and interpersonal relationships. We create a safe space where people can share their ideas without fear of judgment, generating a cycle of innovation and joint growth. This cycle, when it expands, not only benefits the team or organization but projects outward, creating a significant impact on family and social relationships.

Adopting this leadership, then, is more than just a style change: it is a personal and collective transformation that reaches the deepest spheres of our daily life. When we allow ourselves to be more empathetic and vulnerable while maintaining a posture of respect and collaboration, we create a space of trust where people feel motivated to contribute their best. Neuroscience confirms that this type of environment stimulates areas of the brain associated with collaborative decision-making, increasing the effectiveness of proposed solutions and reinforcing group cohesion.

Leadership Model and its Impact Beyond Work

This leadership model, which values each individual as a co-creator of solutions and not just as an executor of orders, allows the impact to extend beyond the workplace. By applying these principles to our personal lives, we become agents of change, not only in the corporate context but in any environment — whether in family, among friends, or in the community. We are creating a cycle of transformation that not only benefits us as individuals but also improves the quality of human interactions in all spheres of life.

Therefore, leadership is not a title or a position but a life stance that permeates all our relationships, creating fairer, more collaborative, and inclusive spaces where everyone has the opportunity to contribute and thrive together. This model reflects a new vision of the leader’s role: not as a holder of truth, but as someone who facilitates collective growth, sharing the responsibility for building innovative and sustainable solutions.

Philosophy and the Building of Critical Thinking

Behind every effective leadership, there is deep thinking that transcends the superficial. As Socrates rightly said, “I know that I know nothing.” True wisdom, according to him, does not lie in having all the answers but in recognizing the limitation of knowledge and, from that, opening the way for continuous questioning. The great Greek philosopher teaches us that often it is the search for the right question that leads us to the true solution. Leadership that does not rest on constant questioning tends to stagnate, a stagnation that reflects the lack of innovation and organizational evolution.

Plato, his disciple, reinforces this idea by warning us that “The human mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be kindled.” This metaphor is essential for understanding that the leader is not the exclusive holder of knowledge but a facilitator of reflection and self-discovery. Great leaders know that true wisdom lies in healthy doubt, in the ability to question and challenge certainties, a process that requires open-mindedness and a willingness to deal with uncertainty. A leader does not fear uncertainty but uses it as a tool to inspire reflection and collective growth. The true role of leadership is to build an environment where critical thinking is nurtured, where ideas are challenged and questioned but also respected and valued.

Sartre, speaking about the importance of freedom and responsibility, reminds us that “Freedom is what we do with what is done to us.” In the context of leadership, this means that the leader must be responsible for creating an environment where freedom of thought and the freedom to question become the foundation for creative and innovative solutions. The leader must become a facilitator of intellectual freedom, encouraging the mental autonomy of each team member, stimulating collaboration and collective critical thinking. Only in a space where everyone has a voice and freedom of expression can innovative answers emerge organically and sustainably.

Therefore, leadership is not about imposing solutions or providing quick answers but about nurturing a continuous process of discovery, as Friedrich Nietzsche teaches us: “He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.” True leadership requires the leader to maintain humility in the face of challenges, aware that in trying to solve complex problems, they must be careful not to lose sight of the holistic perspective of the situation. The greatest challenge, then, is cultivating collective awareness, not mastering individual answers.

Moreover, behavioral development within organizations is essential to foster the practice of critical thinking. When leaders encourage practices such as active listening, collaborative reflection, and constructive feedback, they create a cycle of continuous learning, where each individual feels like an active part of the discovery process. This process is what differentiates an innovative and adaptive organization from a static and resistant-to-change organization.

Thus, philosophy teaches us that true leadership is the one that constantly seeks to question the status quo, cultivate healthy doubt, and inspire others to think critically. It is leadership that promotes intellectual freedom, allowing team members not only to solve problems creatively but also to challenge assumptions and explore new possibilities. In this environment, critical thinking becomes the driving force of progress, propelling organizations into the future.

The Challenge of Leading by Example

Ultimately, a great leader does not need to have all the answers. What they need is a clear vision of how to create a space of trust, creativity, and reflection, where answers can emerge collectively. Therefore, true leadership is not about authority or control, but about inspiring, questioning, and allowing the potential of the group to manifest collaboratively. Instead of imposing solutions, the leader should facilitate the discovery process, creating the ideal conditions for everyone in the group to feel valued and motivated to contribute their ideas.

As I said: “True leadership is not the relentless search for answers but the creation of an environment where the search becomes a collective process of self-discovery and transformation.” – Marcello de Souza

This concept of leadership is not just a philosophical ideal but a challenging and transformative practice. Leading by example requires that the leader places themselves at the forefront, not just telling what must be done, but demonstrating through their actions what they expect from the group. This challenge is profound, as it requires coherence, authenticity, and constant self-awareness. The leader must be the first to practice active listening, foster collaboration, and cultivate trust.

To illustrate more tangibly and inspiringly, we can look at historical figures who exemplified the power of collaborative leadership and how they led by example, thus becoming true heroes. A clear example of this is Nelson Mandela, one of the greatest collaborative leaders in recent history. During his government in South Africa, after decades of segregationist rule, Mandela did not limit himself to being an authoritarian leader who imposed solutions. On the contrary, he knew how to cultivate an environment of active listening, consensus-building, and forgiveness.

Instead of seeking quick and easy answers, Mandela focused on creating a collective process of healing and transformation. He frequently gathered different groups and political forces to discuss the future of the country, without imposing his vision unilaterally. He knew that a deeply divided country needed open dialogue, where all sides would be heard and respected. By creating a space of trust and collaboration, Mandela not only shaped a new South Africa but also demonstrated how collaborative leadership can change not only politics but also human relations on a deep level.

Mandela led with actions that perfectly aligned with his ideals of justice and equality. He was willing to walk alongside others, listening and seeking a joint solution, rather than placing himself above or ahead of his team or the nation. His example of forgiveness and reconciliation is a leadership model that, beyond being political, directly reflects interpersonal relationships, showing how leading by example can transform conflicts into collaborative solutions.

Another example can be observed in innovation teams within technology companies. In these environments, collaborative leadership is not expressed through centralized authority, but by stimulating creative thinking and joint work. Leading innovation companies have a common leadership motivation that facilitates the active participation of all employees in building ideas and solutions. They know that true innovation comes from open collaboration, where the brightest idea can come from anyone in the organization, regardless of their position or experience.

For example, Google created the famous “20% Time” program, where employees were encouraged to dedicate 20% of their work time to personal projects that could benefit the company. This program demonstrated the leadership’s trust in the creative capacity of its employees, creating an environment where everyone felt part of the innovation and the future-building process of the company. This not only generated great innovations but also strengthened the organizational culture, where collaboration and collective thinking are recognized as essential to success.

These examples demonstrate that collaborative leadership is not just an abstract concept, but something that can be put into practice in any context, with profound and transformative impacts, both within organizations and in our personal lives.

The Impact of Leading by Example

The challenge of leading by example goes beyond acting correctly. The leader must become a reflection of the virtues they wish to see in their followers. This authenticity creates a culture of trust and engagement, where team members feel encouraged to take initiative, take responsibility for the collective process, and give their best. When a leader truly leads by example, they become the mirror of the attitudes they expect from their followers, showing that it is not just about commitment to results, but about the process of building together.

The true challenge of leading by example lies in consistency. The leader cannot expect their team to behave in a way that they themselves do not exemplify. This requires self-discipline, self-awareness, and, most importantly, a genuine commitment to personal and collective development. The leader who practices active listening, who values the opinions of their team, who promotes collaboration, and who takes responsibility for mistakes, creates an environment where answers are not just dictated but built together.

In the end, the leader who is able to inspire through their actions leaves a legacy of autonomy, shared responsibility, and continuous growth. They teach that true leadership is more about facilitating the collective journey than about commanding the way. And this journey, when made with integrity, generates lasting and meaningful results, both for the organization and for the individuals involved.

Conclusion

In a constantly changing world, collaborative leadership emerges not only as an effective model but as an urgent necessity for sustainable success and the development of healthier and more productive relationships. By leaving behind the authoritarian mindset and embracing an inclusive and participatory approach, we create an environment where solutions do not come from top to bottom, but from the collective intelligence and collaboration of an engaged group.

This is a powerful challenge and opportunity. Leading by example means being the first to make space for others, fostering genuine dialogue, listening truthfully, and, above all, inspiring those around us to also engage in the transformation process. When we adopt this posture, leadership not only becomes more effective but also transforms into a life practice, generating profound and lasting results that resonate at all levels of the organization and in our interpersonal relationships.

Now, I extend a direct invitation to you: How can you, in your leadership position, create a more collaborative, open, and transformative environment? How can you encourage critical thinking and autonomy within your team, without resorting to control, but to mutual trust? Think about how your approach can not only change the work dynamic but also generate a positive impact in your daily interactions, both at work and in your personal life.

Leadership begins within us, in the example we set. What kind of leader do you want to be?

Leave your comment below, share your reflections and insights, and don’t forget to give a thumbs up if you resonate with this content. And if you feel you need more support to enhance your leadership journey, know that I’m here to help you. Let’s build a more collaborative and transformative future together.

Did you enjoy this article? 🌟
Thank you for following another exclusive post by Marcello de Souza on human behavior!
Hello, I’m Marcello de Souza! My journey began in 1997 as a leader and manager at a large IT and Telecom company. Since then, I have led significant network structuring and optimization projects in Brazil. Driven by a curiosity and passion for behavioral and social psychology, I delved into the fascinating world of the human mind in 2008.
Today, I am a professional dedicated to uncovering the secrets of human behavior and driving positive change in individuals and organizations. With a Ph.D. in Social Psychology and over 27 years of experience in Cognitive Behavioral and Organizational Human Development, my career spans various areas:

• As a Senior Master Coach & Trainer, I help my clients achieve personal and professional goals, generating extraordinary results.
• As a Chief Happiness Officer (CHO), I cultivate an organizational culture of happiness and well-being, enhancing productivity and team engagement.
• As an Expert in Language & Behavioral Development, I refine communication and self-awareness skills, empowering individuals to face challenges with resilience.
• As a Cognitive Behavioral Therapist, I use advanced techniques to overcome obstacles and promote a balanced mind.
• As a Speaker, Professor, Writer, and Researcher, I share valuable insights at events, trainings, and publications, inspiring positive change.
• As a Consultant & Mentor, my experience in leadership and project management allows me to identify growth opportunities and propose personalized strategies.

My strong academic background includes four postgraduate degrees and a Ph.D. in Social Psychology, as well as international certifications in Management, Leadership, and Cognitive Behavioral Development. I am a co-author of the book “The Secret of Coaching” and the author of “The Map Is Not the Territory, the Territory Is You” and “The Diet Society” (the first of a trilogy on contemporary human behavior – 09/2023).
Allow me to be your partner on this journey of self-discovery and success. Together, we will uncover a universe of behavioral possibilities and achieve extraordinary results. I invite you to be part of my network! As a lover of behavioral psychology, social psychology, and neuroscience, I have created a YouTube channel to share my passion for cognitive behavioral development.
All data and content in this article or video are exclusive, based on philosophical concepts and proven scientific studies, to ensure the best content for you.
Don’t forget to:
• Leave your comment
• Share with friends
• Subscribe to the official Marcello de Souza YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@marcellodesouza_oficial
• Visit the official website: www.coachingevoce.com.br / www.marcellodesouza.com
• Visit my blog: www.marcellodesouza.com.br
• Check out the latest book: https://www.marcellodesouza.com.br/o-mapa-nao-e-o-territorio-o-territorio-e-voce/
• Commercial Contact: comercial@coachingevoce.com.br
• Write to me at: R. Antônio Lapa, 280 – Sixth Floor – Cambuí, Campinas – SP, 13025-240
• Connect with me on social media:
• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/marcellodesouzaoficial/
• Instagram: @marcellodesouza_oficial
• Instagram: @coachingevoce
• Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/encontraroseumelhor/
• Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/coachingevoce.com.br/
• Be a VIP List subscriber to receive exclusive weekly articles authored by me: contato@marcellodesouza.com.br
• Portfolio: https://linktr.ee/marcellodesouza
• Presentation and adaptation: Marcello de Souza

#IdentidadeEmTransformação #IlusãoDoFimDaHistória #CrescimentoPessoal #Autoilusão #MudançaConstante #Autodescoberta #TransformaçãoInterior #CoragemParaCrescer #LiberteSeuPotencial #InspiraçãoParaViver #AceiteSuasImperfeições #CaminhoDaAutenticidade #ConexõesSignificativas #HumanidadeEmEvolução #GratidãoPelaJornada #marcellodesouza #coaching #terapia #terapiacognitivacomportamental #encontreseumelhor