In recent years, new leadership models have emerged challenging more traditional approaches. Historically, leadership followed a top-down structure, where a leader or manager made decisions and guided an entire organisation. Nowadays, this model is being reimagined, giving rise to new leadership styles where the distinction between leader and follower is becoming less defined. But where does the concept of leadership truly come from?
The concept of leadership
While the term “leadership” is thought to have originated in the 18th or 19th century, derived from the Old English laedere, meaning “one who guides”, the concept itself dates back much further. In ancient times, leadership was associated with religious, political, and military figures, each serving as a singular guiding force leading a group toward a shared goal and common values. Today, this hierarchical structure remains deeply rooted in industries such as pharmaceuticals.
However, leadership has evolved over the centuries. Theories suggest that leadership has gone through different eras, with the latest beginning in the early 21st century. This new era is shaped by an increasingly complex and dynamic world, where leaders demonstrate greater integrity, resilience, and communication skills, placing a stronger emphasis on the leadership potential of their followers.
With the rise of these new leadership models, we wanted to explore their influence in the pharmaceutical industry. What defines the leadership of tomorrow? Are we witnessing the end of an era, a shift away from traditional leadership? Or do the limitations of these emerging models highlight the continued need for a more hierarchical and authoritative approach, one that ensures efficiency and adaptability, especially in times of crisis?
This new era [of leadership] is shaped by an increasingly complex and dynamic world, where leaders demonstrate greater integrity, resilience, and communication skills, placing a stronger emphasis on the leadership potential of their followers.
A model running out of steam
In management, leadership is not just about guiding others, it is about influencing, motivating, and inspiring teams while providing a clear vision to achieve shared goals. Traditionally, these goals have been centred on strengthening a company’s market position. In the pharmaceutical industry, they extend beyond business performance to ensure team efficiency, high product quality, and strict regulatory compliance. While this approach has long been the dominant model, it establishes a one-directional dynamic between leaders and their teams.
Although traditional leadership has proven its effectiveness over time, it is increasingly reaching its limits, particularly in recent years, as the world becomes more complex and people’s expectations of leadership evolve.
When the pyramid hierarchy hinders innovation
The pyramid hierarchy has long been the backbone of pharmaceutical companies, offering stability, clarity, and order. Rooted in the Taylorist “command and control” model, it ensured compliance and operational control. However, what was once a strength has become a limitation. Rigid and slow, traditional hierarchy now hinders innovation. With multiple management layers and lengthy approval processes, new ideas struggle to gain momentum, often stalling before reaching implementation.
This vertical structure also creates communication barriers, limiting collaboration and slowing progress. Once a source of control, it now obstructs innovation in an industry where agility is crucial.
Beyond its impact on innovation, rigid hierarchy affects employee engagement. The traditional top-down approach no longer resonates with younger professionals, who seek autonomy, flexibility, and purpose. Raised in a digital and collaborative culture, they want to contribute to ideas and participate in decisions. When excluded, they feel disengaged and unmotivated.
However, studies show they do not reject hierarchy itself but expect it to be more dynamic. The issue is not the chain of command but how it operates daily, either fostering collaboration or restricting autonomy.
A model misaligned with future generations
While older generations accepted hierarchy based on status, younger professionals expect leadership that is collaborative and grounded in shared knowledge. If the traditional model remains unchanged, it risks creating dissatisfaction, a decline in motivation, and eventually, a loss of talent. Many will seek workplaces that offer greater engagement and meaning.
At the same time, the traditional model is struggling to meet the challenges of a rapidly evolving world. The pharmaceutical industry is undergoing major changes driven by scientific breakthroughs such as gene therapies and mRNA vaccines, digital transformation, intense global competition, and unpredictable public health crises. These challenges require organisations to be fast, flexible, and responsive.
However, centralised and bureaucratic leadership often fails to keep pace. When every decision must travel up and down a long hierarchy, the ability to adapt quickly is lost. Time, a critical resource in periods of rapid innovation or crisis, is often wasted. Analysts describe the current moment as a turning point for the pharmaceutical industry, where traditional ways of working no longer meet the demands of the present and future generations.
Transformational leadership, which focuses on inspiration, motivation, and employee involvement, is particularly relevant in a sector like the pharmaceutical industry.
Challenges in today’s environment
As the pharmaceutical landscape continues to evolve, a clear tension is emerging between the stability of the past and the agility required today. From entry-level roles to top leadership, the established system is being called into question. Can rigid leadership still be effective when rapid change and collaboration are essential? This is not just a theoretical question. It highlights the urgent need to rethink leadership altogether. The goal is not to remove structure entirely, but to redesign it in a way that retains its strengths while adding flexibility and purpose.
It is clear that the time has come to move from a rigid hierarchy to a more adaptable model, one that is equipped to meet the demands of the future.
A shift toward agility in pharma
In the current context of the pharmaceutical industry, the need to rethink leadership has become essential. Faced with a constantly changing environment marked by economic, social, and technological challenges, traditional management models based on rigid hierarchies are showing their limits. The shift toward a more agile and collaborative leadership is now a priority for companies looking to remain competitive and innovative.
Traditional leadership approaches are gradually being replaced by more transformational and agile models. Transformational leadership, which focuses on inspiration, motivation, and employee involvement, is particularly relevant in a sector like the pharmaceutical industry. It seeks to address the growing need for flexibility, innovation, and adaptability. This model relies on the ability to stimulate creativity and foster team engagement while reinforcing collaboration within the company.
A notable example of this shift in the pharmaceutical industry is Novartis’ “Unboss” initiative. The company transformed traditional hierarchical leadership into a model that emphasises servant leadership. In this approach, leaders support their teams by providing clear goals, removing obstacles, and empowering employees to take initiative. This shift fosters a collaborative environment where innovation can thrive, as associates are encouraged to share ideas and take calculated risks without fear.
Additionally, Novartis invests in continuous learning, offering access to thousands of courses through platforms, and supporting the professional development of its workforce. By promoting autonomy, continuous learning, and a supportive leadership style, Novartis aims to enhance employee engagement and drive innovation within the pharmaceutical industry.
The agility paradox: leadership in times of crisis
However, while this model has shown effectiveness in a stable environment conducive to innovation, its limits become apparent during times of crisis. Indeed, when the company faces urgent and complex challenges, traditional hierarchy tends to reassert itself. This reintroduction of vertical structure can create tensions, as it contradicts the principles of autonomy and empowerment promoted by the agile model. Leaders may resort to a more authoritarian approach to management, which can affect team engagement and collaboration dynamics.
This phenomenon illustrates that a purely agile leadership model cannot be universally applied and that finding a balance between agility and authority remains a complex challenge, especially during turbulent times.
A new kind of leadership
In today’s fast-changing pharmaceutical environment, traditional leadership models are increasingly being challenged. Their rigid, top-down structures often hinder innovation, slow decision-making, and fail to meet the expectations of younger, purpose-driven professionals. In response, companies are adopting more agile and collaborative leadership styles that emphasise empowerment, flexibility, and shared responsibility.
However, these new models also face limitations, particularly in times of crisis, when swift decisions and clear authority are critical. This tension reveals that no single model is universally effective. In the end, it is possible to think that the future of leadership lies in finding the right balance between structure and agility, authority and collaboration.
This article is adapted from a whitepaper that was written as part of ESCP’s MSc in Biopharmaceutical Management programme and in collaboration with Naji Gehchan and spreadloveio. You can listen to the SpreadLove In Organisations podcast here.