When conditions are genuinely unprecedented, the instinctive response is to look for a better strategy, framework, or set of tactics. This paper argues that the instinct is misdirected: a problem that is genuinely without precedent cannot, by definition, be met from precedent, and no playbook however good can contain it. What determines whether a leader acts well into novelty is not the tools they hold but the observer they are being — their capacity to let the situation show up as it actually is, to remain resourceful in the absence of a map, and to bring new possibility into being through language. It offers a model of three such capacities — disclosing, standing, generating — explains why the value of strategy falls relative to the value of the observer as volatility rises, and shows how the capacities can be developed and observed.
Search for advice on leading through uncertainty and you will find an enormous, broadly identical literature: ten strategies for leading in uncertain times, four tactics for guiding your team through change, the seven habits of leaders who thrive in volatility. The lists are not wrong, exactly. They are something more interesting than wrong. They are a category error. Almost every one of them answers a question about novelty with an inventory of precedent — here are the moves that worked before, deploy them now — and in doing so they quietly assume the very thing that uncertainty has taken away: that the situation in front of the leader is enough like situations that came before for prior moves to apply.
Sometimes it is. A great deal of what gets called uncertainty is merely difficulty — hard, high-stakes, but recognisable, the kind of thing a seasoned leader has a version of in their experience. For that, a good playbook is exactly right, and this paper has nothing to add to it. But there is another condition, increasingly common, that is different in kind rather than degree: the genuinely unprecedented, where the situation does not resemble what came before in the ways that matter, where the established categories misdescribe it, and where the moves that worked last time do not merely underperform but actively mislead. A new technology that dissolves an industry's basis of competition. A mandate no one in the institution has ever held. A crisis whose shape has no analogue. Here the playbook is not just insufficient. It is a liability, because it offers the comfort of a familiar response to a situation that does not warrant one.
The argument of this paper is that leading in genuinely unprecedented conditions is not a strategic problem but an ontological one. When there is no precedent to draw on, what carries a leader is not what they know to do but who they are able to be: the kind of observer who can see what is actually there rather than what they expected, stay resourceful in the vertigo of not-knowing, and bring into being, in language, possibilities that do not yet exist. The binding constraint at the edge of the map is the observer, not the strategy.
Make it concrete. A public institution is handed a mandate it has never held — a new responsibility created overnight by a change in law or technology, with no prior version of itself to copy and no peer that has done it before. Its leaders, capable and experienced, do the natural thing: they reach for the nearest precedent in their experience and run the new mandate as though it were a larger instance of something they already know. For a while it half-works, because the precedent is not wholly irrelevant, and then it fails in ways no one anticipated, because the features that made the mandate genuinely new — the ones the borrowed precedent could not see — were the decisive ones all along. The failure is read as an execution problem and met with more of the same precedent, applied harder. What was actually missing was upstream of execution: a leader able to let the new mandate show up as the new thing it was, rather than as the old thing it resembled. That capacity, not a better implementation of the wrong model, was the thing in short supply. This pattern — novelty met with precedent, the misread acted on with confidence, the failure answered with more of the cause — is the characteristic failure of leadership at the edge, and no addition to the stock of strategies prevents it, because the stock of strategies is what produced it.
The dominant response to uncertainty — find the right framework — rests on an assumption worth making explicit, because once it is visible it is plainly false in the case that matters. The assumption is that effective action under uncertainty is a matter of selecting and applying the correct pre-existing response. This is true whenever the situation is a member, however disguised, of a class the leader has met before. It is false whenever the situation is genuinely novel, for a reason that is almost tautological: a precedent is a record of what worked in a prior situation, and the defining feature of an unprecedented situation is that it is not that prior situation. To meet novelty with precedent is to answer a question the situation is not asking.
This is why the genre of uncertainty advice has the curious quality of being simultaneously sensible and useless at the moment of need. Its counsel — communicate often, stay calm, make space for your team, act decisively — is all reasonable, and none of it tells a leader what to actually do about the specific unprecedented thing in front of them, because nothing general can. The advice is pitched at the level of posture, which is a tell. At some level the field already knows that what is wanted in true novelty is not a move but a way of being — "stay calm," "be present," "lead yourself first" are all gestures at the observer — but it lacks a model of the observer, and so it can only gesture, offering ontological advice in the grammar of tactics and hoping the leader can translate.
To meet novelty with precedent is to answer a question the situation is not asking. At the edge of the map, the playbook is not insufficient — it is a liability.
There is a further, subtler failure. Under the anxiety of genuine not-knowing, a playbook is not just unhelpful; it is seductive in a way that makes things worse. Faced with a situation that offers no familiar handhold, a leader reaches with relief for any move that feels like competence — and applying a known framework feels like competence even when it is the wrong framework. The playbook thus becomes a way of not seeing the novelty: it converts an unprecedented situation into a familiar one in the leader's perception, so they can act with confidence on a misdescription. Decisiveness, the most praised virtue in the uncertainty literature, is in this case the failure mode — the leader acts crisply on the wrong reading because the wrong reading is the only one their existing categories allow.
If the answer is not a better stock of responses, what is it? It is a different relationship to the situation altogether — one that the ontological tradition is unusually well equipped to describe, because that tradition has always been about how a world shows up to an observer rather than about which technique to apply within an already-given world.
Start with perception, because everything follows from it. Maturana's claim that what an observer can distinguish depends on the kind of observer they are has its sharpest application here. In familiar conditions, pattern-matching serves a leader well: the situation resembles known situations, and seeing it through known categories is efficient and largely correct. In genuinely novel conditions, the same pattern-matching is the enemy, because it forces the new into the shape of the old and renders the genuinely novel features — the ones that matter precisely because they are new — literally invisible. The leader does not see the unprecedented thing; they see the nearest familiar thing, and act on that. To lead into novelty a leader must be the kind of observer who can let a situation disclose itself on its own terms, resisting the strong pull to resolve it prematurely into something already known. This is a capacity of being, not a method, and it is the first thing novelty demands.
It demands a second thing, because seeing clearly into novelty is intolerable without it. To stay in the place where the situation has not yet been resolved into a familiar category — to remain, deliberately, in not-knowing — is acutely uncomfortable, and the discomfort is what drives the premature collapse into precedent. Most leaders, under that discomfort, do not fail to think of the right move; they flee the not-knowing too quickly to find it, grabbing the first available certainty to escape the vertigo. The capacity to stand in not-knowing without collapsing — to tolerate the anxiety of the open question long enough for the situation to show what it actually is — is therefore the precondition for the clear seeing the first capacity describes. It too is a way of being, and it is the rarest of the three.
And it demands a third thing, because seeing clearly and standing steadily still produce nothing if they do not become action that moves other people. In a situation with no precedent, there is also no pre-existing path to follow, which means the leader's job is not to choose among existing options but to bring a new one into being. Following Fernando Flores, this is what a declaration does in language: it creates a new context that did not exist before it was spoken, opening a possibility and inviting others to act into it. Leading without precedent is, in its decisive moment, an act of declaration — the leader generates, in words and the commitments that follow them, a possibility that was not on offer, and coordinates real action toward it. This generative capacity is how a clear-eyed, steady observer actually leads rather than merely perceives.
The model below distinguishes the two conditions a leader faces — the charted territory where precedent works, and the edge beyond it where it does not — and names the three capacities that carry a leader across the edge. They are capacities of the observer, not items in a toolkit, which is why they work where tools run out.
Disclosing is the capacity to let a situation present itself on its own terms, rather than forcing it into the nearest familiar category. It runs directly against a deep and usually useful habit: the mind's drive to recognise, to match the new against the known and act on the match. In novelty that habit is precisely what blinds. The leader who walks into an unprecedented situation and immediately knows what it is — "this is just like the last downturn," "this is a classic change-management problem" — has not seen the situation; they have replaced it with a memory. Disclosing is the disciplined refusal to do that: a way of being with a situation that holds the familiar interpretation loosely enough that the genuinely new features can come into view. It is not naivety; the leader's experience is still in the room. It is the capacity to keep experience as a resource for seeing rather than letting it become a filter that sees for them. Without it, the other two capacities operate on a misperceived situation and lead confidently in the wrong direction.
Standing is the capacity to remain a resourceful observer under the specific anxiety that novelty produces: the vertigo of having no map. This anxiety is the hidden driver of most poor leadership in unprecedented conditions, because the human response to it is to escape it as fast as possible, and the fastest escape is false certainty — seizing a definite answer, any definite answer, to end the unbearable openness. A leader who cannot stand in not-knowing will, under pressure, collapse the open question prematurely, usually into control: more reporting, more decisions funnelled upward, more performance of confidence they do not have. Standing is the capacity to feel that anxiety and not be governed by it — to keep the question open long enough for disclosing to do its work and for a genuinely fitting response to form. It is the least visible of the three and the most decisive, because it is the precondition for the other two. Clear seeing requires the nerve to keep looking; generative action requires the patience not to act prematurely. Both depend on the capacity to stand.
Generating is the capacity to create, in language, a possibility that did not previously exist, and to coordinate real action toward it. In charted territory a leader selects among options that are already there; at the edge there are no adequate options, and the leader's task becomes one of authorship. This is what a declaration is in the ontological account of language: not a description of how things are but a speech act that brings a new context into being — "we are going to become this," "this is now possible" — which others can then act into, making it real through their commitments. Generating is how the clear-eyed, steady observer actually leads rather than merely perceives well. It is also where leadership without precedent becomes irreducibly a matter of being rather than analysis, because a declaration is backed by nothing but the leader's stand behind it; there is no precedent to point to, only a possibility the leader is willing to author and be accountable for. The generative capacity is what turns a good reading of novelty into a new path others can travel.
In charted territory a leader selects among options that already exist. At the edge there are none — and the task becomes authorship.
Run one situation through the three capacities to see how they work together. A technology arrives that dissolves the basis on which an organisation has competed for twenty years — not a threat to manage but a change in the rules of the game. Disclosing is the first demand and the first failure point: the leaders who survive are the ones who can let the situation reveal that the old basis of competition is simply gone, rather than seeing the new technology as one more entrant to be out-executed within the old frame. Most cannot, and pour effort into competing harder on a dimension that no longer matters. Standing is the second: to see the old basis as gone is to stand in genuine not-knowing about what the new basis will be, and the anxiety of that is what drives leaders to grab a false certainty — a confident pivot to a plan that merely feels like action — rather than holding the question open long enough to read what is actually emerging. Generating is the third: having seen clearly and stood steadily, the leader must now author a direction that does not yet exist, declaring a possibility — "this is what we are becoming" — that others can commit to and make real, with nothing to back the declaration but their own stand behind it. A leader who can disclose, stand and generate steers the organisation into the new game. A leader rich in strategy and poor in these capacities optimises brilliantly for a game that has already ended.
Everything here depends on a distinction that is itself a leadership capacity: telling the merely difficult from the genuinely unprecedented. Get it wrong in one direction and a leader brings the heavy machinery of original thought to a problem their experience could have solved in an afternoon. Get it wrong in the other — the more common and more dangerous error — and they meet a genuinely new situation with a confident precedent that misleads. The distinction cannot be reduced to a checklist, because the whole point of novelty is that it does not announce itself in familiar terms, but a few questions sharpen the judgement.
Does the situation resist the categories you are using to describe it — do your explanations keep needing exceptions and patches to fit? Do the moves that reliably worked before produce strange or perverse results rather than merely weaker ones? When you forecast how it will unfold based on precedent, do you keep being surprised in the same direction? Are the experts confidently disagreeing, which is often a sign that everyone is extrapolating from a different and equally inapplicable past? None of these is decisive alone, and all of them point the same way: the more the situation strains the familiar frame, the more likely it is genuinely novel, and the more dangerous it becomes to act on the frame. The discipline is to treat that strain as signal rather than as noise to be smoothed away — which is itself an exercise of the first capacity, disclosing, applied to the question of what kind of situation one is even in. A leader who cannot tell difficulty from novelty will systematically under-detect the unprecedented, because the unprecedented is precisely what the existing categories are built to hide.
The model implies a shift in where leadership value lives as conditions become more volatile, and the shift is the opposite of where most investment goes. In stable conditions, the marginal value of strategy — of a richer stock of precedent and a better-tuned set of frameworks — is high, because most situations are members of known classes and the right move is the well-chosen precedent. As volatility rises and the proportion of genuinely novel situations grows, the marginal value of precedent falls, because precedent is the wrong kind of resource for novelty, and the marginal value of the observer rises, because the observer is what works where precedent does not. Past a certain level of volatility, an organisation's leadership advantage is determined less by the quality of its playbooks than by the quality of the observers its leaders are able to be — and an organisation that keeps investing in better playbooks while its environment fills with the unprecedented is fortifying the wrong wall. This is not an argument against strategy. It is an argument that strategy is a charted-territory resource, and that the share of leadership that happens at the edge is growing.
None of the three capacities can be transmitted as content, for the same reason the deeper layers of leadership never can: they are ways of being, and a way of being cannot be installed by instruction. You cannot teach a leader to disclose by giving them a framework for disclosing — a framework is one more category to force the situation into, the opposite of what disclosing requires. You cannot teach standing by explaining the value of not-knowing; the leader who understands the value of standing and still cannot tolerate the anxiety has gained nothing where it counts. You cannot teach generating by describing declarations; the leader who can define a declaration and cannot author one under the exposure of having no precedent to hide behind has only added vocabulary.
What develops these capacities is work on the observer themselves, conducted experientially and usually under conditions that actually evoke the not-knowing rather than describe it. Standing, in particular, is built only by being in the anxiety of the open question and discovering, first-hand, that one can remain resourceful inside it — that the vertigo is survivable and that something better forms on the far side of not fleeing it. Disclosing is built by repeatedly catching oneself in the act of premature recognition and learning to loosen the grip of the familiar interpretation. Generating is built by being put in situations where there is no right answer to find and one must instead be authored, until declaration becomes an available act rather than a terrifying one. In each case the work is on who the leader is able to be, and it is demanding precisely because it cannot be done from the safe distance of the classroom. The capacity to stand in not-knowing is not learned by anyone who is permitted to stay where they already know.
Of the three capacities, standing deserves a closer look, because it is the one most foreign to how leaders are trained and the one on which the other two depend. Leaders are rewarded, throughout their careers, for resolving uncertainty quickly — for having the answer, making the call, projecting the confidence that calms a room. Those rewards build a deep reflex to close open questions fast, and in charted territory the reflex serves well. At the edge it is precisely wrong, because the value is in keeping the question open long enough for the situation to disclose what it actually is, and the trained reflex slams it shut before that can happen. Standing is, in part, the discipline of overriding a reflex that has been reinforced for decades.
What makes it hard is that the open question is not neutral; it is anxious. Not-knowing, when the stakes are high and others are looking to you, produces a real and specific discomfort, and the mind reaches for any certainty that will end it. This is why standing cannot be taught as a concept — understanding that one should stay in the question does nothing to reduce the anxiety that makes staying unbearable. It is built only by being in the discomfort and discovering, repeatedly and first-hand, that one can remain functional inside it, that the vertigo does not have to be obeyed, and that something more accurate forms on the far side of not fleeing. A leader who has built this capacity has a visibly different relationship to ambiguity: they can let a hard question stay open in a meeting without the room collapsing, hold a decision until it is actually ripe rather than merely overdue, and resist the false relief of premature certainty — which, at the edge, is the most expensive relief there is.
The capacities are inner, but their signatures are visible, especially over a sequence of genuinely novel situations. Disclosing shows up in whether a leader's reading of a new situation turns out to have caught its actually-novel features or merely assimilated it to a familiar template — visible in hindsight in the quality of their early calls on things no one had seen before. Standing shows up in behaviour under the specific pressure of ambiguity: whether a leader collapses to premature certainty and control when the map runs out, or holds the open question productively; whether their instinct under not-knowing is to narrow or to inquire. Generating shows up in whether new possibilities actually originate with a leader and successfully coordinate others, or whether they only ever select among options the situation already presented. None of these is captured by a competency assessment, because all three concern how a leader meets the genuinely new — but all three are observable in the track record, and an organisation that wants to know whether it is developing leaders for the edge can look there rather than at what those leaders can recite about uncertainty.
The practical conclusion is uncomfortable for the way leadership development is organised: if the edge is where the value and the danger increasingly concentrate, then the priority is to develop the observer a leader can be, not to enlarge their stock of strategy — and almost everything in the development apparatus is built to do the latter. Frameworks, case studies, best-practice playbooks, the whole curriculum of strategic leadership: these are charted-territory resources, and they are valuable for charted territory. What they cannot do is build the capacity to disclose, stand, and generate, because those are ways of being and the apparatus deals in content. An organisation that responds to rising volatility by buying more and better strategy training is, on this account, fortifying the wrong wall with admirable diligence.
There are reasons this is under-invested, and they are worth naming because they are the obstacles to changing it. Observer development is harder to specify in a procurement document than a strategy curriculum; it is experiential and personal rather than modular and scalable; its progress is slower and less surveyable; and it asks leaders to be changed rather than informed, which is uncomfortable in a way a case study is not. Faced with that, the path of least resistance is to keep buying the legible thing — another framework for navigating uncertainty — and to accept, as the cost, leaders who are well-equipped for situations that no longer occur. The unprecedented does not yield to the legible purchase. That is part of why so few leaders are genuinely good at it.
The question to ask of any programme that claims to develop leaders for uncertainty is therefore not what frameworks it teaches but what it changes in how a leader meets the genuinely new — whether participants leave more able to let a novel situation disclose itself, to stand in not-knowing without collapsing, and to author a direction where none existed. A programme that can only answer with a list of strategies for uncertain times is selling charted-territory goods for edge conditions, and it will reliably disappoint at exactly the moment it is needed.
And the way to know whether it has worked is not a test but the track record. Over a sequence of genuinely novel situations, the leaders who have built the capacities read the new accurately while others assimilate it to the familiar, hold the open question while others grab false certainty, and originate directions that others can only have selected. That is observable, over time, in the calls leaders actually make when no one had seen the situation before — which is the only place the capacity was ever going to show. Developing more such leaders, deliberately rather than by waiting for hard experience to forge the occasional one, is the work this desk exists to advance.
The first: isn't most uncertainty actually just difficulty, where experience and good frameworks really do work — so isn't this overblown? Largely yes, and the paper concedes it at the outset: for the recognisable-but-hard, a good playbook and a seasoned leader are exactly right, and nothing here displaces them. The argument is bounded to the genuinely unprecedented — and the claim is not that this is the whole of leadership but that its share is rising, that it is the part where the most value and the most danger now concentrate, and that it is precisely the part the dominant advice handles worst by treating it as though it were merely difficulty. The skill is partly in telling the two apart, which is itself a function of disclosing: the leader who assimilates everything to the familiar will mistake the genuinely novel for the merely difficult and reach for a playbook that misleads.
The second: doesn't this leave leaders with nothing to hold — isn't "be a better observer" even less actionable than "here are ten strategies"? It would, if the capacities were left as exhortations. The point of naming them as specific, developable ways of being — disclosing, standing, generating — is to make them work, which is more actionable than a strategy list, not less, because a strategy list is inert in exactly the situations this addresses while a developed observer functions in them. What it is not is quick. The capacities take real, experiential development to build, and there is no shortcut that delivers them as content. That is not a weakness of the account; it is the reason the leaders who can genuinely lead without precedent are rare, and the reason developing more of them is worth doing deliberately.
The environments leaders now operate in produce, with rising frequency, situations that no one has led through before — and for those situations the entire apparatus of precedent, however refined, is the wrong resource. What carries a leader at the edge of the map is not a better store of answers but the kind of observer they are able to be: one who can let the unprecedented show up as it actually is, stand steady in the not-knowing long enough to see it, and author, in language, a possibility that did not exist before. Disclosing, standing, generating — three capacities of being, not items in a toolkit, which is exactly why they work where toolkits run out. The leaders an organisation will most need in the years ahead are not the ones with the best playbooks. They are the ones who can act well when the playbook ends. This is not a counsel of despair about strategy, and it is not a licence to stop preparing — it is a reallocation of where the preparation goes. The hours an organisation would spend accumulating one more framework for an uncertainty that will not match it are better spent building leaders who can meet whatever actually arrives, because the one thing that can be said with confidence about the unprecedented is that it will not be what anyone planned for. Preparing for specific futures has limited value when the future is genuinely open. Preparing the observer who will meet any future has compounding value, because the capacity transfers across every situation the frameworks could not anticipate. Developing them — and being able to see, in the track record, that the capacity is real — is the work this desk exists to advance.
IMPACT THINKING RESEARCH · BY BEN BOTES · © 2026
If your organisation is meeting problems no one has led through before, this is the work. Tell us what you're facing.
Start a conversation →