Trust is built through authenticity, logic, and empathy, not charisma.

Admitting uncertainty strengthens credibility more than projecting certainty.

Leadership improves when problems are examined systematically, not emotionally.

Psychological safety grows from consistency, structure, and confidentiality.

Leadership today comes with a peculiar contradiction. The higher someone rises in an organization, the fewer places there are to admit uncertainty. Senior executives are expected to project clarity and confidence even when markets shift overnight, teams fragment, or strategy falters. Yet behind the scenes, many of them are asking the same quiet question: Where can I think out loud without being judged?

The need for such spaces has become more urgent in recent years. According to Gallup’s 2024 State of the Global Workplace report, global employee engagement has fallen to 23 percent, and managers account for roughly 70 percent of the variance in team engagement. When leaders struggle, the effects ripple outward. At the same time, trust in leadership remains fragile. The 2024 Edelman Trust Barometer found that only 42 percent of respondents globally believe business leaders are trustworthy. Add to that the Harvard Business Review’s reporting that many CEOs describe their roles as deeply lonely, and the picture becomes clearer. Leadership carries visibility and authority, but it often lacks psychological safety.

This broader context is what makes certain experiments in public learning worth paying attention to. I recently logged into Harvard Business School professor Frances Frei’s Friday Office Hours a few minutes before noon. The Zoom room was already filling with a mix of faces from corporate offices, kitchens, and airport lounges. When she appeared on screen, there was no preamble. She began teaching almost immediately.

For the first half hour, she delivered a focused lesson on leadership, trust, or strategy. The tone was calm and direct. Afterward, she opened the floor to questions. What followed did not feel rehearsed. Participants asked about fractured teams, failed product launches, distrustful boards, and stalled careers. The questions were practical and often personal. Frei listened carefully before responding. Rather than offering sweeping generalities, she asked clarifying questions and then worked through the problem in real time.

What struck me was not only the content of the discussion but the structure around it. The sessions are live and not recorded. That detail changes the atmosphere. People seem more willing to admit missteps when they know their comments will not circulate beyond the room. Amy Edmondson’s research on psychological safety shows that teams learn more effectively when members feel safe to take interpersonal risks. While her work focuses largely on teams within organizations, the same principle applies to leaders themselves. They also need environments where they can surface mistakes and blind spots without fear of reputational damage.

Frei often frames leadership challenges through the lens of trust. She describes trust as grounded in perceptions of authenticity, logic, and empathy. Organizational research supports this behavioral view. Studies in the Journal of Applied Psychology have found that followers evaluate leaders based on perceived competence, integrity, and benevolence. When one of those dimensions weakens, trust declines. During the question and answer portion of the session, you can watch this analysis unfold. A participant may describe a struggling team, and through a series of questions, it becomes clear that the issue lies not in motivation but in a breakdown of clarity or care. The conversation moves from vague frustration to a more precise diagnosis.

The weekly rhythm also matters. Learning science consistently shows that spaced, repeated engagement leads to stronger retention than one time interventions. Executive education programs often deliver insight in concentrated bursts, but without ongoing reinforcement, much of it fades. A predictable weekly gathering creates continuity. Participants begin to recognize one another. The chat becomes a place for resource sharing and encouragement. Over time, a community forms around the shared work of becoming more effective leaders.

The appeal of such spaces reflects a broader shift in the workplace. The American Psychological Association’s 2023 Work in America survey found that 77 percent of workers reported work related stress in the previous month. Leaders are not immune to that strain. Remote and hybrid work arrangements have reduced informal feedback loops, leaving many managers uncertain about how their decisions are landing. In that context, a live forum where unfinished problems can be examined openly serves an important function.

It is tempting to view leadership as a performance, especially in an era shaped by social media and constant visibility. Yet the psychological evidence suggests that sustainable leadership depends on something quieter. Leaders who model intellectual humility and invite input tend to foster higher engagement and innovation. Research has shown that when leaders acknowledge limitations and seek feedback, teams are more likely to contribute ideas and speak up about risks.

As the session I attended came to a close, Frei thanked the participants and signed off. The chat lingered for a few seconds before disappearing. What stayed with me was not a particular framework or quotation but the tone of the exchange. There was seriousness without grandstanding and curiosity without defensiveness. In a culture that often equates authority with certainty, the willingness to think carefully in public felt refreshing.

Professor Frances Frei’s Office Hours offer something rare in modern leadership: a live, psychologically safe space where trust is rebuilt, strategy is sharpened, and real learning happens in public.

The larger lesson extends beyond one program or one professor. Leaders at every level benefit from structured opportunities to reflect, receive candid input, and revisit first principles. Organizations can create similar conditions by building regular forums for dialogue, protecting confidentiality, and reinforcing the idea that learning is continuous rather than episodic. Individual leaders can cultivate their own habits of reflection by seeking out peer groups, mentoring relationships, or facilitated discussions that encourage honest examination rather than polished presentation.

The challenges facing today’s leaders are unlikely to ease soon. Economic uncertainty, technological change, and social polarization ensure that complexity will remain part of the job description. Yet complexity does not have to lead to isolation. When leaders make space for disciplined conversation and shared inquiry, they strengthen not only their own judgment but the health of the systems they guide.

In that sense, the most hopeful development may not be a new leadership model or management trend. It may simply be the revival of an old academic tradition: showing up regularly, asking better questions, and allowing room for learning. In a moment when trust feels fragile and engagement feels thin, that practice offers a quiet but meaningful source of renewal.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vTN4mt16Ot-eTks6z6iX6q7qLkeCsIO0IDEOwtFvf3M4EMpi8UnE1S0QhBwJGbTBj6EZU24DQhRZp8A/pub

© Psychology Today