It’s not rocket science. Yet in almost every conversation about leadership, someone confuses the gap between what is and what should be.
We hear:
“We should emulate nature: flow like water, act like mushrooms, swarms, beehives, forests, ancient tribes…”
“We should be self-determined, safe, in flow, positive, whole, conscious…”
“We should build resilience into complex, adaptive, regenerative systems—reacting, sensing, surviving…”
And so on. And so on.
But here’s the crux: “is” never automatically means “should.” Description is not prescription.
Science seeks patterns, rules, predictions. It tells us what has happened, and—within limits—what may happen again. But it cannot tell us what ought to happen. A hypothesis may be useful until disproven, but it never resolves the most fundamental normative question: What makes society good?
Nature carries no morality within it. Biology, psychology, physics, neuroscience—they illuminate how things work, but not how we should live. And natural systems are not the same as social systems: social systems always depend on human agency.
This is where leadership steps in. Leadership is not about mirroring nature or waiting on data. It is the courage to reason deliberately: combining clear thought with emotion, imagination, and values. It means distinguishing possibilities with our best grasp of truth (where science helps), and then applying ethical judgment to decide what is good, just, and beautiful.
And leadership is not armchair philosophy. It is commitment—turning those judgments into reality.
The harsh truth? Leadership desperately needs more philosophy. Because leadership without a grounding in philosophy is destined to fail.