WHEN IMPOSSIBLE GOALS TEST LEADERSHIP
Leading in the era of Permavucalution means moving forward without fixed maps, in a territory where the ground constantly shifts beneath your feet. In this new paradigm, the most effective leaders are not those who try to eliminate uncertainty but those who develop a lucid coexistence with it—turning it into fuel for innovation, reinvention, and sustainable growth.
The term VUCA—Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, and Ambiguity—emerged at the end of the 20th century, initially in a military context, to describe the unstable landscape of the post-Cold War period. Quickly, the concept migrated to the corporate world, becoming a strategic lens through which to understand the economic, geopolitical, and social dynamics of an ever-accelerating world. However, as we advance through the 21st century, the premises of VUCA have not only intensified—they have become permanent.
Globalization, the digital revolution, and the increasing interdependence between economic systems have elevated unpredictability to a new level. Volatility is no longer episodic; it has institutionalized itself; uncertainty, once associated with moments of crisis, has become the new normal. In this environment, predicting the future is no longer a strategic exercise but an illusion of control.
Complexity and ambiguity, in turn, have also amplified. The interconnection between markets, technologies, and cultures has created a tangled web of variables where decisions must be made under multiple simultaneous pressures—often with incomplete or contradictory data. Obvious solutions have become rare exceptions.
Events like the 2008 financial crisis and, more recently, the COVID-19 pandemic have brutally exposed the fragilities of global systems. They not only revealed structural vulnerabilities but consolidated the perception that we are no longer facing isolated crises. We are immersed in a continuous state of instability, where successive shocks overlap, amplify, and reinforce each other.
It is in this context that futurist Bob Johansen introduced, in 2017, the concept of Permavucalution—a fusion of permanence, VUCA, and evolution. He not only named a new era but proposed a new mindset: that chronic instability is the new fabric of the world. According to Johansen, the old logic of “crisis followed by stability” is obsolete. In its place emerges the need for leadership capable of operating in the midst of turmoil, seeing chaos not as an enemy to be tamed, but as raw material for transformation.
The organizations that have thrived in this environment are not the ones that resisted change, but those that knew how to unlearn to relearn. They didn’t just respond to disruptions—they integrated them into their culture. What for some was a temporary patch, such as remote work, for others became a new operational and identity model.
Johansen doesn’t just offer a new jargon; he proposes a new framework for organizational awareness. An invitation to adaptive maturity, where leaders learn to integrate instability into their way of thinking, deciding, and acting. In this new horizon, leadership is a philosophical act, a systemic exercise, and a practice of deep listening to the present that is always disintegrating.
Traditional leadership—driven by control, predictability, and stability—no longer suffices. The leader of the future is a facilitator of transitions, an orchestrator of learning, a designer of resilient cultures. They do not flee from chaos: they transform it into momentum to create desirable futures, even in the face of inevitable unpredictability.
The Art of Saying Strategic No
If you’re reading this article, you likely already know that effective leadership today is less about speed of response and more about wisdom in choosing battles. The pressure for immediate results—driven by increasingly accelerated markets and goals often disconnected from operational reality—places leaders before a silent but corrosive dilemma: what is the inflection point between responsible commitment and destructive overload?
The prevailing logic of “always more” needs to be replaced by the intelligence of “what really matters.” Throughout my career working with high-performance leaders, a critical pattern repeats itself: many reach a point where they realize that certain goals are simply unattainable without sacrificing quality, purpose, or team integrity. What is required at this moment is not brute force, but strategic clarity—the mature courage to recognize that saying “no” can be the most responsible and effective act of leadership.
This “no” is not an act of refusal but of direction. It’s not about avoiding responsibility, but about protecting what is essential to sustain performance in the long term. As Jim Collins aptly noted in Good to Great, exceptional organizations focus their efforts on areas of real impact. They do not scatter trying to do everything; they do what matters with excellence. This is the essence of strategic focus.
A notable example of this wisdom occurred during the pandemic with the American startup Headspace Health. Facing an explosion in demand for mental health services, leadership resisted the temptation to grow exponentially without criterion. Instead, they said “no” to a series of side projects and redirected efforts toward consolidating the core platform, strengthening delivery quality and employee well-being. The result? Sustainable growth, global recognition, and a more cohesive and engaged team.
This type of decision reflects leadership that not only survives Permavucalution but thrives within it. It is a strategic refusal, grounded in both data and values, that drives innovation, strengthens organizational culture, and preserves the vitality of teams.
Denying what doesn’t make sense is, therefore, a high-value competency. Leaders who understand this do not act impulsively, but with discernment. They understand that every “yes” carries with it the renunciation of other potentials, and that the scarcity of resources—human, emotional, and financial—demands conscious choices, not compulsive commitments.
Recent studies reinforce this urgency. According to Gallup’s State of the Global Workplace 2023, 76% of workers report constant stress or overload, which undermines engagement, harms performance, and directly affects organizational health. By ignoring these signs, leaders risk not only results but the sustainability of the very human ecosystem that sustains the company.
In today’s scenario, saying “no” is no longer a barrier. It’s a tool for innovation, a systemic choice, and proof of organizational maturity. An ethical and strategic act that, far from being evasive, is deeply committed to what truly matters.
The Leader’s Dilemma: Refuse or Give In?
One of the most critical—and least discussed—points in the journey of high-performance leaders is the moment when it becomes necessary to recognize the infeasibility of certain goals. When objectives exceed the limits of possibility, remaining disconnected from operational capacity and available resources, insisting on their execution is not a sign of commitment but of strategic negligence.
Contrary to what many believe, refusing disproportionate tasks or goals is not an act of weakness or a failure of vision. On the contrary, it represents rare maturity: the ability to make unpopular but necessary decisions in the name of the team’s sustainability and the integrity of deliverables. It is at this point that the leader reveals their true greatness—not by accepting everything, but by saying “yes” only to what makes sense within a coherent vision for the future.
As Jim Collins emphasizes in Good to Great, strategic focus is one of the key pillars of organizational success. Effective leaders avoid scattering efforts on low-impact tasks and prioritize what truly drives the organization toward its long-term goals. The clarity of priorities is, therefore, as valuable a resource as financial or technological capital.
Parallel to this dilemma, a silent yet devastating threat emerges: change fatigue. Conceptualized by scholars like Jeffrey Pfeffer, a professor at Stanford University, this fatigue represents the emotional, cognitive, and physical wear caused by constant exposure to unprocessed organizational transformations. As Pfeffer (2018) points out, the pressure for continuous change, combined with a lack of space for assimilation, creates a cycle of exhaustion that erodes motivation and undermines performance.
According to McKinsey & Company, companies today face five times more change initiatives than a decade ago. When these initiatives are accompanied by unrealistic goals, the negative impact is exponential: engagement declines, delivery quality drops, and turnover rates tend to rise. Culture weakens, the sense of belonging dissolves, and organizational purpose gets lost amidst urgency and overload.
Leaders who fail to recognize this scenario become unwitting agents of burnout. Meanwhile, those who develop the courage to halt the vicious cycle of over-demand and reposition their teams with focus, clarity, and respect for human limits become builders of regenerative and resilient cultures—not just performance managers.
The Art of Saying No: A Scientific Approach
Strategic refusal is not an act of passive resistance but an essential competence for leaders committed to organizational sustainability and delivering real value. The question that arises is: how can leaders make refusal decisions that are ethical, grounded, and effective? The answer lies at the intersection of decision science and behavioral psychology principles.
Herbert Simon, Nobel Prize-winning economist, introduced the concept of bounded rationality in his Decision Theory, which posits that leaders operate under cognitive, emotional, and time constraints that prevent them from choosing the perfect option. Instead, they must make decisions that are “good enough” (satisficing), based on the available information and the conditions at the time. This perspective challenges the ideal of absolute control and emphasizes the importance of strategic decisions that recognize both the leader’s and the organization’s limits.
From a psychological standpoint, chronic overload and the constant sense of urgency are among the key predictors of professional burnout. Dr. Christina Maslach, a world-leading researcher on burnout, identifies three critical dimensions of this phenomenon: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization (or cynicism), and reduced professional efficacy. These symptoms, when present in leaders and teams, undermine not only mental health but also the ability to make clear and sustainable decisions.
It is at this point that strategic refusal emerges as an act of conscious leadership: it protects the organization’s human capital and strengthens commitment to what truly matters. Refusal, in this context, is not a sign of weakness or aversion to risk, but of decision-making maturity—an alignment between purpose, priorities, and the real possibilities for execution.
The Strategic Refusal Matrix: An Essential Approach to Demand Management in the Organizational Context
In the seminal article When You’re Asked to Meet Impossible Goals, authors Luis Velasquez and Jordan Stark offer a crucial reflection on the challenges of management in the contemporary corporate environment. In a setting characterized by multiplying demands and limited resources, the ability to make strategic decisions stands out as a key differentiator for leaders. In this context, leadership is not just about executing goals; it also involves the ability to make tough choices, including the act of refusing requests that, though urgent or seemingly important, may divert focus and compromise organizational resources.
The Strategic Refusal Matrix, developed by Velasquez and Stark (2025), is a framework that classifies demands, helping leaders navigate these complex decisions by aligning them with the long-term vision and the real capabilities of the organization. By providing a clear structure, the matrix enables a thoughtful evaluation of demands, contributing to more assertive and results-oriented leadership.
Foundations of the Strategic Refusal Matrix
The matrix classifies requests into four main quadrants based on two central factors: feasibility of execution and strategic importance. By positioning demands within this matrix, leaders can make more informed decisions about where to allocate the organization’s resources and which commitments truly deserve attention. Below is a detailed analysis of each category in the matrix:
1. Low Feasibility and Low Strategic Importance: The solution here is simple: refuse the request. When a demand has low strategic relevance and the organization lacks the capacity or resources to execute it effectively, refusal should not be seen as a failure but as a fundamental strategic decision. Example: “This task will not significantly impact our long-term objectives, so we should focus our efforts on more impactful initiatives.”
2. High Feasibility and Low Strategic Importance: Although the execution of this task is feasible, it does not hold significant strategic relevance. In this case, the recommendation is to deprioritize. Feasibility does not justify deviating focus, and the task should be reassessed or delegated to a more opportune time when resources are better suited. Example: “The execution of this task is feasible, but it diverts our attention from projects that are more aligned with our priorities. Let’s delay it until a more suitable time.”
3. Low Feasibility and High Strategic Importance: When a task is strategic but execution is limited by lack of resources or capacity, the best approach is renegotiation. The leader should evaluate alternatives, such as adjusting deadlines, seeking additional resources, or adapting the execution to make the demand feasible without compromising other priorities. Example: “This project is critical to our long-term objectives, but we lack the necessary resources to execute it right now. Can we renegotiate the deadline or seek additional support to make execution possible?”
4. High Feasibility and High Strategic Importance: When both feasibility and importance of a demand are high, the decision is clear: commit to it. In this scenario, the leader should allocate the necessary resources and prioritize execution, ensuring that the project is completed with excellence and aligned with the organization’s strategic objectives. Example: “This initiative is crucial to our objectives, and we have the resources to implement it effectively. Let’s prioritize and ensure its high-quality execution.”
Reframing Refusal as a Strategic Action
The simple decision to refuse a request, no matter how necessary it may be, is not enough to guarantee the success of that action. According to Velasquez and Stark, the biggest challenge is not just identifying when to say no, but how to communicate that refusal constructively. Reframing refusal strategically can be the turning point that determines whether it will be seen as an opportunity for focus or as an obstacle.
1. Reframing the Way to Say No
Framing refusal not as a direct “no” but as a strategic prioritization transforms an apparently negative action into a clear and focused leadership choice. The leader should avoid justifying the refusal solely based on resource limitations, as this can weaken the decision. Instead, it is necessary to contextualize the refusal within a broader vision, highlighting the positive impact that prioritizing other demands will have on organizational goals. An example of such an approach would be:
“Although the execution of this request is viable, at this moment, we need to focus our efforts on projects that add greater strategic value to the organization.”
By reframing the “no” in this way, the decision is contextualized within a long-term vision, making it more understandable and, in many cases, more acceptable to the team and stakeholders.
2. The Cost of Saying Yes
As published in Harvard Business Review (2025), leaders today face one of the greatest challenges: correctly visualizing the hidden costs of accepting new requests. Planning bias often leads to underestimating challenges and overestimating execution capacity. When these costs are clearly exposed, the decision to refuse becomes easier to understand and accept. To achieve this, it is essential to involve leadership in discussions about feasibility and capacity, highlighting the trade-offs that must be made. Example:
“Accepting this new request would mean delaying essential projects that already have allocated resources. How would we prefer to prioritize at this time?”
This approach allows for a more open and strategic discussion about available resources and the implications of each choice, fostering greater understanding and collaboration among all involved.
3. Creating a Culture of Strategic Refusal
Implementing strategic refusal as an ongoing practice requires the organization to develop a culture of prioritization. Refusal should not be seen as a sign of weakness or leadership failure but as a proactive action aligned with strategic objectives. For this to become a normal practice, it must be integrated into organizational processes, becoming part of the decision-making routine.
Creating an organizational culture that views strategic refusal as a normal and necessary practice is crucial. Companies like Google and Netflix have consistently shown that when strategic refusal is an integral part of corporate culture, the results are more robust, both in terms of innovation and employee well-being. By normalizing prioritization, refusal becomes a tool for engagement with priorities rather than resistance to demand.
Strategic Refusal as Organizational Culture
When well-implemented, strategic refusal should not be an isolated practice but a structured and continuous part of organizational culture. Organizations that promote a culture of strategic focus, like the ones mentioned, demonstrate that refusal, far from being an obstacle, is a facilitator of more focused, innovative, and, consequently, more successful work. Strategic refusal thus becomes a pillar of successful execution and organizational agility.
Choosing is an Act of Freedom and Responsibility
At its core, leadership is a constant exercise of choice—and every true choice involves renunciation. As Viktor Frankl once pointed out, “Between stimulus and response, there is a space. In that space lies our power to choose our response. And in that response, lies our freedom and our growth.” Applied to leadership, this space is the territory where the strategic “no” reveals itself not as a denial, but as a conscious affirmation of what truly matters.
Through the lens of systems thinking, every decision a leader makes reverberates like a wave: it affects people, processes, culture, and the future of the organization. Saying “yes” indiscriminately is akin to destabilizing the system, overloading its gears, and compromising its sustainability. In contrast, the leader who develops the courage to choose clearly and refuse wisely acts as a guardian of the health of the organizational ecosystem—understanding that preserving collective vitality is more strategic than addressing urgencies disconnected from purpose.
Refusal, therefore, is an act of deep respect: respect for human limits, the integrity of relationships, and the intelligence of the system as a whole. It is also a demonstration of presence and awareness—qualities that distinguish leaders who operate on autopilot from those who lead with purpose, intentionality, and lasting impact.
In the era of hyper-demand, the true differentiator will not be doing more, but knowing what not to do. A leader’s time is a scarce resource—and it needs to be invested wisely in the right causes, for the right reasons, with the right people.
References
• Collins, Jim. Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap… and Others Don’t. HarperBusiness, 2001.
• Pfeffer, Jeffrey. Dying for a Paycheck: How Modern Management Harms Employee Health and Company Performance — and What We Can Do About It. Harper Business, 2018.
• Maslach, Christina; Leiter, Michael P. The Truth About Burnout: How Organizations Cause Personal Stress and What to Do About It. Jossey-Bass, 1997.
• Simon, Herbert A. Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations. Free Press, 1947.
• Gallup. State of the Global Workplace Report, 2023. Available at: https://www.gallup.com.
• McKinsey & Company. The Business of Change, 2023. Available at: https://www.mckinsey.com.
• Velasquez, Luis; Stark, Jordan. When You’re Asked to Meet Impossible Goals. Harvard Business Review, 2025. Available at: https://hbr.org/2025/05/when-youre-asked-to-meet-impossible-goals
#marcellodesouza #marcellodesouzaoficial #coachingevoce #strategicmanagement #consciousleadership #decisionmaking #strategicrefusal #careerplanning
