Leadership Is Not One-Size-Fits-All!

The Problem

On many social media platforms "leadership" is often discussed as if it exists in a single ubiquitous environment guided by universal rules that apply equally across all types of organizations in a "one-size-fits-all manner." From a scientific leadership perspective, this assumption oversimplifies a far more complex reality. Leadership is a process, not a role or title, and it emerges through dynamic repetitions of behaviors, the patterned ways leader and follower behaviors align, co-create, reinforce, counterbalance, or degrade one another within a specific context.

This is why generalized leadership advice, often delivered by those who have not studied scientific leadership theories, so often falls short. Behaviors celebrated in one environment; decisiveness, speed, autonomy, or disruption, may form highly effective tessellations in private business, yet create instability, legitimacy and trust loss, or resistance in government settings. Conversely, behaviors associated with restraint, consultation, and procedural rigor may appear weak through a generic leadership lens but form critical stabilizing tessellations in public institutions.

The scientific study of leadership (including followership) reframes leadership success not as the consistent use of “popular” behaviors, but as the accurate analysis of context and the intentional assembly of leader–follower behaviors that fit the specific type of organizational context. When leadership fails, it is often not because leaders or followers apply the wrong behaviors, but because those behaviors tessellated poorly within the system and structure in which they were applied.

Contrasting Organizational Context

Nowhere is this more evident than in the contrast between leading in private business and leading in a government organization. While both require human influence, judgment, and trust, the conditions surrounding each create very different leadership realities. Although there are many similarities, there are some very stark structural and results differences.

Differences in Structure and Results

In private (bottom-line driven) business, leadership is preferred for speed, optimization, and measurable outcomes (profit, ROI, shareholder return). Authority is typically centralized, decision-making cycles are shorter, and leaders are empowered to align people and resources quickly toward performance goals. This structure produces results that are visible and quantifiable, profit, growth, efficiency, and market position. Leaders receive fast feedback on their decisions, allowing organizations to adapt rapidly, correct missteps, or capitalize on opportunities. The result is an environment where leadership effectiveness is often judged by how efficiently value (profit, loss, ROI, etc.) is created and sustained.

Government leadership operates under a different mandate: legitimacy, stewardship, and maintaining public trust. Authority is distributed departmentally across laws, regulations, labor agreements, oversight bodies, and elected officials, meaning leaders often carry responsibility without full authority or control. Decisions move more slowly, not because of inefficiency, but because fairness, transparency, and due process must be preserved. The results of leadership in government are therefore less visible and harder to quantify. Success is often defined by public harm avoided, rights protected, services delivered equitably not necessarily quickly, and confidence maintained among stakeholders who did not choose the organization and cannot opt out of its impact.  Elected positions have an even deeper need to lead while aware of reputation management.  

Leadership Requirements Become Different

These structural differences shape not only how leaders act, but how the leadership process works. In bottom-line driven business, leaders are rewarded for calculated risks and rapid execution, producing innovation, larger profit margins, sustainable products and competitive advantage. In government, leaders are rewarded for restraint, consistency, and legal defensibility, producing stability and institutional credibility. Where business leadership emphasizes control and acceleration, government leadership relies more heavily on influence, relationships, and the ability to navigate complexity without eroding public trust.

Understanding these differences is critical, especially when leaders move between sectors or apply private-sector leadership assumptions to public institutions. Behaviors that produce speed, innovation, and competitive advantage in business, such as rapid decision-making, unilateral authority, or rule-bending in pursuit of results, can generate resistance, legitimacy concerns, or even legal risk when transplanted into government settings. When leaders fail to recognize this shift in context, they may interpret pushback, delays, or procedural requirements as a lack of commitment or competence, rather than as signals of a fundamentally different leadership environment. This misalignment often leads to frustration on both sides of the leader–follower relationship and undermines trust that is essential to effective public service.

Need for Different Behaviors in Different Contexts

Effective leadership, therefore, is not about imposing one-size-fits-all models or just popular behaviors everywhere; it is about intentionally aligning behavior with context. Leaders who understand the unique constraints, accountabilities, and success criteria of their environment can assemble leadership behaviors that fit the system they are operating within, rather than fighting against it. In doing so, they produce results that extend beyond short-term outcomes to include credibility, stability, and sustained organizational confidence. Over time, this context-aware approach allows leadership to be not only effective in achieving goals, but legitimate in the eyes of followers, stakeholders, and the broader community the organization exists to serve.

Customize Your Leadership To Fit Your Organization

How to Create The Appropriate Leadership Behaviors for the Organizational Context

Using the frameworks from Liminal Space: Reshaping Leadership and Followership, organizations can intentionally design leader–follower behavior tessellations that fit their unique mission, structure, and operating environment rather than relying on “one-size-fits-all” generic leadership models. The Organizational Function Perspective Chart clarifies that people at different levels of an organization are often leading and following simultaneously and not simply “doing more leadership” or “less leadership,” but are operating from different functional perspectives, operational, tactical, and strategic.

Each perspective carries distinct time horizons, decision scopes, political realities, and success criteria. Tessellations of behavior ensure that leadership and followership behaviors align vertically and horizontally so that daily actions reinforce, not undermine, organizational purpose.

The 86 identified behaviors in “Liminal Space: Reshaping Leadership and Followership” do not operate in isolation; they combine and recombine differently depending on structure, authority, risk tolerance, accountability, and culture. Where leadership occurs; private, public, non-profit, etc., fundamentally shapes which behavioral tessellations are functional, which are constrained, and which may be dysfunctional despite good intent.

Operational Level – 6 Core Behaviors

At the operational level, organizations rely on 6-core behavior tessellations (hexagon) that support execution, reliability, and task performance. These behaviors dominate in environments where precision, safety, consistency, and immediate outcomes matter, such as manufacturing floors, healthcare delivery, emergency services, military units, and frontline service organizations. From the larger pool of 86 leader–follower behaviors, organizations select behaviors that support technical competence, discipline, communication, resilience, teamwork, and proactive execution. When these six behaviors repeat consistently across shifts, teams, and individuals, they form a stable behavioral pattern that allows work to be done effectively regardless of who is formally “leading” or “following” in the moment. This creates predictability and trust at the point of execution

Tactical Level – 4 Core Behaviors

At the tactical level, organizations shift to 4-core behavior tessellations (square) focused on coordination, problem-solving, and alignment between units. Tactical roles, supervisors, managers, project leads, must translate strategic intent into workable plans while balancing people, processes, and resources. Here, behaviors drawn from the 86-behavior set often include accountability, collaboration, empowerment, communication, and decision-making. These behaviors tessellate across departments and teams, allowing organizations such as businesses, government agencies, and military commands to synchronize efforts without

micromanagement. The square tessellation reflects stability and balance, reinforcing consistent execution while allowing adaptability as conditions change.

Strategic Level – 3 Core Behaviors

At the strategic level, organizations rely on 3-core behavior tessellations (triangle) that shape identity, legitimacy, and long-term direction. Executives, senior leaders, and governing bodies operate in environments defined by uncertainty, external stakeholders, politics, and future-oriented decision-making. From the 86 behaviors, organizations select three that represent their overarching beliefs, such as integrity, vision, adaptability, stewardship, or trust-building. These behaviors do not guide daily tasks directly; instead, they tessellate across the organization as shared assumptions that influence policy, priorities, and culture. The triangle reflects stability through simplicity: three clearly articulated behaviors that anchor all other leadership and followership actions across the system.

Applying Core Behaviors in Different Types of Organizations

Different types of organizations can assemble these tessellations differently. A private business may emphasize innovation and speed at the tactical level while reinforcing efficiency and discipline operationally. A government organization may prioritize legitimacy, procedural fairness, and trust at the strategic level while reinforcing consistency and accountability operationally. Military units often emphasize discipline and cohesion operationally, adaptability and coordination tactically, and duty and mission clarity strategically. The model does not prescribe which behaviors to choose; it provides a structure for intentional selection. This explains why organizations performing similar functions can look and feel very different while still achieving success.

The power of the tessellation model lies in its ability to integrate leadership and followership as a single behavioral system. By drawing from the 86 leader–follower behaviors and intentionally assigning them to strategic, tactical, and operational tessellations, organizations eliminate behavioral gaps, reduce role confusion, and create coherence across levels. Leadership becomes less about individual charisma or position and more about repeating patterns of behavior that fit the organization’s context. Over time, these tessellations create cultures that are not only effective, but resilient, legitimate, and sustainable in the context of the organization.

Sample Application of Tessellations of Behaviors

Sample Behaviors in the 3-core, 4-core, and 6-core areas.

Conclusion

Leadership is not a static trait or a universal formula, it is a process, and like any effective process, it must be designed around the outcome it is intended to produce. Just as manufacturing, healthcare, or emergency response processes differ based on purpose and constraints, leadership processes must also adapt to what the organization is trying to achieve, under what conditions, and with whom. The behaviors that produce alignment, trust, and performance in one setting may be ineffective, or even harmful, in another if the desired outcomes, risks, or timelines differ.

At different organizational levels and across different structures, leadership requires intentional customization. Executive leadership focuses on sense-making, legitimacy, and long-term alignment; mid-level leadership emphasizes translation, integration, and coordination; front-line leadership centers on immediacy, credibility, and task execution. A start-up, a public agency, a military unit, and a nonprofit each demand different leadership behaviors because their goals, constraints, accountability mechanisms, and consequences of failure are fundamentally different. Effective leadership, therefore, is not about applying a preferred style everywhere, but about selecting and sequencing behaviors that fit the context and support the required outcomes. Leadership is context-dependent, outcome-driven, and behaviorally adaptive, is not one-size-fits-all, so let's stop talking like it is.

To learn more, please check out Liminal Space: Reshaping Leadership and Followership