It’s easy to assume that a well-recognised brand is a valuable one. In boardrooms and leadership teams, there’s often pride in a polished logo, a clever slogan, or a consistent visual identity splashed across everything from business cards to stadium billboards. But a recognisable brand is not the same as a strategic brand. And in mistaking the two, many organisations leave immense value on the table.

In the intricate tapestry of organisational life, two figures often stand out: the manager and the leader. While frequently used interchangeably, the distinction between them is not merely semantic; it’s fundamental to an organisation's very pulse and future direction. Attempts to impose leadership on individuals who are solely skilled in management can be counterproductive.

Brands are like precious vases, which can easily be dropped if they get into the wrong hands. And this can often happen through third parties. (There’s no intended criticism of those parties here). If a brand is already strong, it can overcome the hiccups that third parties can cause. But if a brand already has a weak image and poor reputation, beware of incremental damage from further shortfalls.

Many leaders speak in hushed tones about a generation that seems disengaged, avoids hierarchy, and brings an unsettling level of emotional candour to the workplace: The “Gen Z problem.” The issue isn’t Gen Z; it’s that we’re trying to fit them into a corporate culture they have no interest in preserving. Instead of briefing them on the culture change programme you designed in isolation, invite them to co-design it with you.