Leadership Trends and the Trust Deficit - What leadership really requires

Working in recruitment across the association and membership sector gives you a front row seat to leadership in practice. Not just what is said publicly, but what happens in boardrooms, executive meetings and day‑to‑day decision making when the pressure is on.

And honestly, it’s one of the reasons I’ve stayed in this sector and chosen to build my career here.

The depth of talent, commitment and care across membership organisations is genuinely impressive. Purpose is not a slogan; it's lived. People are invested because the work matters, and that creates an energy you don’t find everywhere.

But it also creates a quiet tension.

Purpose driven environments move fast. There’s always more to do, more to deliver, more people depending on outcomes. In that momentum, reflection often becomes a luxury rather than a discipline. And without space to pause, leadership can become reactive instead of deliberate.

That pause and reflection is no longer optional. In 2026, I believe it’s a leadership responsibility.

The environments we’re operating in are shifting too quickly to rely on leadership models designed for stability. Workforce expectations, technology, trust and capability are all in motion at the same time. Concerningly, only 37% of employees strongly agree they understand how their work connects to organisational priorities (Gallup, State of the Global Workplace).

To lead well through that, we need a fresh view of what leadership actually requires now, especially if we want teams that can hold autonomy and accountability in parallel without losing clarity or cohesion.

I was reminded of this recently in one of those rare in-between moments. Somewhere between designing an executive role for a new board, co-ordinating a CEO roundtable, and spending a school holiday day at the zoo with my son, I found myself reflecting on what’s really separating good teams from great teams right now.

Two things keep standing out.

Skills over roles - designing for movement, not permanence

The move towards skills-based hiring isn’t new, but it is now firmly established. LinkedIn’s workforce research shows that organisations using skills‑based approaches expand their talent pools significantly and improve internal mobility outcomes. According to Deloitte, the Global Human Capital Trends 2025 reported that 73% of organisations globally are already using or actively moving towards skills‑based workforce models.

In practice, though, many organisations are still anchored to structures built for a different era. Fixed role descriptions that are not personalised, linear career paths and organisational charts that assume predictability rather than change.

Work has already moved on.

Careers are increasingly non‑linear. Capability is built across sectors, environments and life stages. The idea of a role as a fixed container for work is giving way to a sharper focus on the skills needed to deliver outcomes. In the not too distant future (2027) 44% of workers’ skills will be disrupted, according to the World Economic Forum, Future of Jobs Report 2023.

More progressive organisations have shifted the question entirely. Not “who fits this role?”, but “what capability do we need, and how quickly can we build, grow or access it?”

This demands a different leadership stance. Capability building becomes an operating principle, not a side conversation. Internal mobility shifts from a retention initiative to a strategic lever. Transferable skills move from the margins to the centre of workforce design. Organisations with strong internal mobility consistently fill roles faster and reduce hiring costs, with LinkedIn research pointing to improvements of up to 41% and 20% respectively.

There is discipline required here. Skills-based models only work when standards are clear. Without a shared understanding of what good looks like, mobility creates noise rather than momentum.

At an executive level, the implication is simple. The organisations that outperform won’t just be the ones that hire well. They’ll be the ones that build capability faster than they can recruit it. And, an additional positive is that organisations that prioritise reskilling are 2.8× more likely to be innovation leaders, Boston Consulting Group.

Trust as leadership currency - consistency beats charisma

Alongside this structural shift sits something more human, and far more fragile. Trust has become one of the defining variables in leadership effectiveness.

Gallup’s State of the Global Workplace research consistently shows that employee engagement remains stubbornly low globally, with managers accounting for around 70% of the variance in team engagement. In simple terms, people’s experience of leadership day to day matters more than almost anything else when it comes to trust and performance.

In practice, that trust is built less through vision statements and more through consistency. People aren’t looking for charisma or constant reassurance. They’re looking for leaders who are clear on expectations, follow through on commitments, and explain decisions, even when those decisions are difficult.

Employees are significantly more likely to trust leaders who demonstrate transparency and explain the rationale behind decisions. Trust deteriorates most often when information is withheld, decisions are reversed without explanation, or accountability feels uneven.

It’s rarely the big moments that erode trust. It’s the accumulation of smaller ones. The conversation that’s avoided, the decision that changes quietly or the priority that shifts without acknowledgement.

When trust weakens, performance follows. Engagement dips, discretionary effort reduces, and retention becomes more fragile. Organisations often look externally for explanations, but the drivers are frequently internal and behavioural. Trust is fundamental, as low trust environments experience up to 50% lower productivity. (Harvard Business Review)

People rarely leave the organisation in isolation - they leave environments where leadership feels inconsistent or unclear.

What ‘people first’ looks like in practice

Most organisations now describe themselves as 'people first'. The language is not uncommon, but from our interactions with candidates, we know the experience is far less consistent.

At leadership level, it shows up in clarity of priorities, intentional role design, investment in manager capability, and honest conversations about capacity and trade-offs.

At organisational level, it’s evident in hybrid models that are designed rather than defaulted, through visible and accessible career pathways, and in mentorship that’s built into the system rather than left to chance.

At cultural level, it’s reflected in recognition that is specific and meaningful, and in leadership that’s demonstrated through everyday behaviour, not values posters.

None of this is new - the challenge isn’t understanding what good looks like, it is sustaining behavioural consistency over time.



In the membership sector, where purpose already runs deep, leadership that is deliberate, consistent and human has an outsized impact. The teams that thrive will be led by people who create clarity, build trust through action, and design work around capability rather than titles. I believe that’s what modern leadership now requires.