e talk about “institutional failure” as if institutions act on their own. Brussels failed. The UN failed. The WMF failed. But after a year like 2025, there is a truth we must begin to look at: institutions don’t make decisions, people do. Institutions are simply human systems, and human systems break in the same places humans break.
Institutions weren’t inherently underperforming or unprepared in the face of extreme volatility this year. The leaders inside them were unprepared to lead in a world moving faster than the systems they inherited. If we want stronger institutions, we need stronger leaders. We need to invest in developing the right leaders who can re-define the institutions and make them fit for purpose.
A few leadership lessons:
Expertise is not the same as leadership. Many of the most consequential institutions are led by highly capable experts, like economists, scientists, engineers, lawyers, and diplomats. While their technical knowledge is extraordinary, their leadership and “soft skills” training is often minimal.
A clear example came from the farmer protests that swept across Europe last year. Governments introduced environmental measures such as tightened nitrogen limits, reduced fertilizer allowances, and new emissions rules. The policy logic was based on solid scientific consensus but leadership execution collapsed.
The leaders announced major changes without explaining what they meant for farmers’ livelihoods. These are real people whose survival is affected. They’re scared! But the leaders spoke in technical terms, without much empathy or transition support. The protests weren’t a rejection of climate policy, but they were a rejection of leaders who couldn’t explain how the farmers should survive in the new reality.
Leaders must lead even when they’re no longer the expert. Leaders last year were increasingly asked to make decisions in domains where the world was moving faster than they could realistically keep up. Their hesitation, not the institution’s, became the bottleneck. Leaders today must navigate high–stakes issues far outside their formal expertise… and many have struggled to stay credible. For example, the U.S. Secretary of Education repeatedly referred to “AI” as “A1” during a public event (like the steak sauce, and yes, many memes did follow). Leaders are being forced into domains that evolve faster than any average person can master, and yet we expect competence from them on a wide range of subjects from domestic policy to foreign affairs.
Being out of their depth isn’t a failure of intelligence, but it is a failure of preparation. Leaders need to be trained for more cognitive and emotional agility, as well as how to learn faster and make decisions with partial information.
When we look back on the year, we must remember that institutions fail at the human level before the policy level. If we want institutions that can keep pace with a volatile world, we must invest in leaders who can learn quickly, decide without perfect clarity, communicate with confidence, and regulate their own stress under pressure.
Strengthen the leaders and the institutions will follow.
a global affairs media network
Institutions don’t fail, people do
Image via Unsplash+
January 7, 2026
The way we think and talk about institutional failure places blame on the institutions, as if they act on their own. It was leadership of institutions that fell short in 2025, and recognizing the difference is key to fixing the problems, writes Lisa Christen.
W
e talk about “institutional failure” as if institutions act on their own. Brussels failed. The UN failed. The WMF failed. But after a year like 2025, there is a truth we must begin to look at: institutions don’t make decisions, people do. Institutions are simply human systems, and human systems break in the same places humans break.
Institutions weren’t inherently underperforming or unprepared in the face of extreme volatility this year. The leaders inside them were unprepared to lead in a world moving faster than the systems they inherited. If we want stronger institutions, we need stronger leaders. We need to invest in developing the right leaders who can re-define the institutions and make them fit for purpose.
A few leadership lessons:
Expertise is not the same as leadership. Many of the most consequential institutions are led by highly capable experts, like economists, scientists, engineers, lawyers, and diplomats. While their technical knowledge is extraordinary, their leadership and “soft skills” training is often minimal.
A clear example came from the farmer protests that swept across Europe last year. Governments introduced environmental measures such as tightened nitrogen limits, reduced fertilizer allowances, and new emissions rules. The policy logic was based on solid scientific consensus but leadership execution collapsed.
The leaders announced major changes without explaining what they meant for farmers’ livelihoods. These are real people whose survival is affected. They’re scared! But the leaders spoke in technical terms, without much empathy or transition support. The protests weren’t a rejection of climate policy, but they were a rejection of leaders who couldn’t explain how the farmers should survive in the new reality.
Leaders must lead even when they’re no longer the expert. Leaders last year were increasingly asked to make decisions in domains where the world was moving faster than they could realistically keep up. Their hesitation, not the institution’s, became the bottleneck. Leaders today must navigate high–stakes issues far outside their formal expertise… and many have struggled to stay credible. For example, the U.S. Secretary of Education repeatedly referred to “AI” as “A1” during a public event (like the steak sauce, and yes, many memes did follow). Leaders are being forced into domains that evolve faster than any average person can master, and yet we expect competence from them on a wide range of subjects from domestic policy to foreign affairs.
Being out of their depth isn’t a failure of intelligence, but it is a failure of preparation. Leaders need to be trained for more cognitive and emotional agility, as well as how to learn faster and make decisions with partial information.
When we look back on the year, we must remember that institutions fail at the human level before the policy level. If we want institutions that can keep pace with a volatile world, we must invest in leaders who can learn quickly, decide without perfect clarity, communicate with confidence, and regulate their own stress under pressure.
Strengthen the leaders and the institutions will follow.
