Part Two: What’s Missing from the Adaptive Leadership Frame

(and Why It Matters)This is the second in a two part series on a training I attended.

The Adaptive Leadership training left me with an expanded toolkit and a fresh perspective on my purpose, for which I am grateful. And, like any rich learning experience, it also left me with questions. What I want to share here isn’t about writing off the framework, far from it. It’s about holding the “both/and”: the value of what I received and the clarity of what was missing.

One of the ideas introduced at the start of the program was to try out the concepts, to see what fits and what doesn’t. I took that on. In fact, I used one of the tools, perspective taking, in writing this reflection. That’s what gives me confidence to name what didn’t land, not at all to undermine the work, but to expand the conversation. It also feels super edgy to say these things. Here goes.

The biggest gap I noticed was a lack of intersectional analysis. While power and authority were central themes, they were often framed in individual terms — as something we hold or navigate — rather than through a systemic lens. There was little exploration of how identity, lived experience, and structural privilege shape leadership dynamics. Who gets heard? Who is granted informal authority? Who is navigating threat or harm beneath the surface of the “adaptive challenge”?

Without that social context, some of the advice risks landing unevenly. For example, the suggestion to “step onto the balcony” — to get perspective on group dynamics — is helpful. But for someone constantly navigating exclusion or microaggressions, being told to detach or depersonalise can feel like gaslighting. Perhaps we could distinguish between resistance to change and resistance to injustice. I say this ‘from the balcony’.

I know for some readers, this may feel uncomfortable, maybe even like I’m being a bit harsh. Perhaps it sounds like I’m blaming a hammer for not being a wrench. That’s a fair question to sit with. And maybe there’s truth in it. Not every framework needs to do everything. But I also believe it’s worth asking why conversations about trauma, privilege, and marginalisation so often remain outside the frame. When they do, the unspoken message is that inclusion is somehow extra — an add-on rather than core to adaptive capacity.

There was also a missed opportunity to name how abuse of power shows up in leadership. We explored trust, but not how abuse of power and authority can erode it and lead to collective trauma. We talked about formal authority, but not how systems of oppression shape who gets to hold that authority, and who gets scrutinised for using it. These aren’t edge cases. These are central concerns for why people disengage from leadership, burn out or opt out altogether.

This critique doesn’t negate the value of Adaptive Leadership. The tools are incredibly useful, many deeply so. And, any model that becomes widely adopted carries influence. With that comes a responsibility to evolve. Particularly when the model emerges from overrepresented perspectives, we need to ask: What truths are we centring? What voices are missing? What unintended harm might we be overlooking?

I share this as my perspective, shaped by my own identity, experience, and leadership work. It’s not the final word by any stretch. If your experience of this model is different, I welcome your view. That’s the kind of dialogue I believe leadership invites, one that makes space for complexity, for different perspectives and worldviews, and for truths that can coexist.

So, I offer this not as a takedown, but as an invitation. If this critique feels uncomfortable, it could be a sign I’ve pushed too far, or a prompt to expand the frame. Maybe both. What I know for sure is that if we want our organisations and our systems to evolve, it is essential for leadership models to invite continual improvement as times change.