When a global research team delved into the complexities of leadership amidst a polycrisis – a period marked by interconnected, cascading crises – they unearthed a critical, yet often misunderstood, element: hope. While the term "hope" can sometimes be perceived as a passive or overly optimistic sentiment, unsuited for the harsh realities faced by leaders today, a deeper examination reveals its profound, action-oriented power. The research indicates that a specific, scientifically defined form of hope is not merely beneficial, but essential for navigating economic shocks, geopolitical instability, climate disruption, and the myriad of other challenges that define our current era.
The findings emerge from a comprehensive study surveying 1,080 employees across 36 countries and 35 diverse industries. The objective was to understand the pervasive impact of ten distinct types of crises on both personal lives and organizational functioning over the preceding year. The results paint a stark picture of widespread disruption. On average, individuals reported being affected by a staggering eight out of the ten crisis types. In a significant minority of cases, the impact was total, with employees experiencing all ten crisis types.
The Pervasive Reach of Interconnected Crises
Economic disruption, a consistent theme in recent years, proved to be the most universally felt crisis, touching a remarkable 93% of respondents, both in their personal capacities and within their professional environments. However, the true hallmark of the current landscape, as identified by researchers, is the interaction and amplification of these crises. A substantial 65% of surveyed employees confirmed that these crises do not operate in isolation; they interconnect and exacerbate one another. This interconnectedness is the defining characteristic of a polycrisis, a concept that distinguishes the current period from mere cumulative challenges.
Crucially, this experience of being overwhelmed by disruption is not confined to the executive suites. The research sample was deliberately balanced, comprising an equal split between individual contributors and those in management, director, and executive roles. This demographic parity underscores a critical insight: the weariness, ambiguity, and the pervasive sense of "change fatigue" are being experienced across all levels of an organization, globally. This widespread exhaustion poses a significant threat to organizational agility and the capacity for effective problem-solving.
The Paralysis of Overwhelm and the Emergence of Hope
The psychological toll of prolonged exposure to such multifaceted crises is significant. Dr. Dirk Lindebaum, a prominent scholar and editor of the Academy of Management Learning & Education, has meticulously traced a predictable pattern of response. When individuals are consistently forced to confront the enormity of multiple, overlapping crises, the initial focus can devolve into rumination. The sheer scale of these challenges leads to a perception of the situation as overwhelming, fostering a sense of hopelessness. The inevitable outcome of this psychological state is often decision paralysis – an inability to act, a freezing in the face of insurmountable odds.
This paralysis carries profound consequences for organizations. When individuals and teams cease to engage with the challenges before them, the crises themselves are left to deepen and fester, creating a vicious cycle of decline. It is precisely at this critical juncture, where paralysis threatens to take hold, that hope emerges as a vital antidote for leaders.
Defining Hope: A Research-Based Perspective
To understand hope’s role in leadership, it is imperative to move beyond colloquial understandings. The most widely adopted scientific definition of hope originates from the work of psychologist C. R. Snyder. Snyder conceptualized hope as a two-part cognitive process:
- Agency: This refers to an individual’s belief in their capacity to initiate and direct their own actions towards achieving a desired goal. It is the internal drive and self-efficacy to act.
- Pathways: This component encompasses the belief that there are viable routes or strategies to reach a particular goal. It is the conviction that solutions can be found, even if they are not immediately apparent.
Within this framework, hope is not a nebulous wish; it is a measurable cognitive state intrinsically linked to goal-setting and action. It is a concept that has been rigorously studied and validated over decades, providing a robust foundation for understanding its impact.
This research-defined hope stands in stark contrast to the types of passive hoping that individuals rightly distrust. As researcher Anne Dolan has articulated, the distinction lies between "active hope" and its more passive counterparts. Passive hope might involve waiting for a lottery win, assuming external circumstances will spontaneously improve, or expecting someone else to resolve complex problems. Active hope, conversely, is the dynamic belief in one’s ability to overcome obstacles, a belief that directly fuels problem-solving and sustained engagement.
Lindebaum succinctly captures this crucial tension: "Holding on to hope in hard times helps us survive if we act. It endangers us if we wait to be rescued." Skeptics are entirely justified in their wariness of the latter. The hope that research highlights, and that is essential for leadership in a polycrisis, is the active, agency-driven variety.
Hope Versus Optimism: A Critical Distinction
A similar nuance exists when differentiating hope from optimism. Optimism is primarily characterized by a general expectation that things will ultimately turn out well. It is a predisposition towards positive outcomes. Hope, however, is more deeply rooted in the belief that one’s actions remain relevant and that a path forward can be forged, even when the future is shrouded in uncertainty.
Consider two leaders confronting the same market shock. The first leader might offer reassurance: "We’ve weathered tough times before. Things will improve." While this may offer temporary comfort, it provides no actionable direction. The second leader, embodying active hope, might articulate: "This is going to be challenging. Here’s what we are committed to protecting, and we have multiple strategies to achieve our objectives. If our primary approach encounters insurmountable obstacles, we will pivot to our next plan. We begin this week, and we will continuously adapt as circumstances evolve."
This distinction is not merely semantic. Research comparing hope and optimism consistently reveals that while both involve positive, future-oriented expectations, hope is more directly and powerfully correlated with goal pursuit and sustained performance. This connection becomes particularly vital in environments characterized by constant disruption, where adaptability and persistent effort are paramount.
The Indispensable Role of Hope for Leaders
Embracing hope in leadership does not equate to downplaying the severity of the challenges at hand. Indeed, research into "climate anxiety," for example, has demonstrated that hope and anxiety can coexist, and even mutually reinforce each other in motivating proactive engagement. True hope requires an unflinching acknowledgment of reality: the situation is difficult, the future is uncertain, but individuals are not inherently powerless.
The practical implications of hope for leaders are far-reaching. It empowers individuals to perceive a tangible link between their choices and the unfolding of events in the world around them. It actively counteracts the pervasive risk aversion that can take root under conditions of persistent threat. Furthermore, hope possesses an inherent momentum. The achievement of one intermediate goal, however small, naturally generates the conditions for pursuing the next. Lindebaum aptly describes this phenomenon as "the escalator of hoping."
In times of profound uncertainty, it is this generated momentum – this sustained forward motion fueled by hope – that prevents leaders and their teams from succumbing to inertia and instead propels them through the challenges.
Hope is a Learnable Skill, Built Collectively
Perhaps the most empowering takeaway from this research for leaders is that hope is not an innate trait but a learnable competency. Individuals can be guided to break down seemingly insurmountable global crises into manageable, local actions. The incremental successes derived from these local actions then radiate outwards. As people witness and experience the positive energy generated by these efforts, it spreads contagiously to their teams, across their organizations, and beyond.
This diffusion of hope is fundamentally a social phenomenon. Individuals who exhibit high levels of hope tend to invest more in their relationships and report higher levels of social support. Increasingly, researchers are contending that hope is most effectively cultivated through robust connections and concerted collective effort. This understanding is driving a growing examination of hope not only at the individual level but also at the organizational level.
At an organizational level, hope can be understood as a disciplined refusal to allow the weight of external realities to extinguish the pursuit of purpose. Emerging research is exploring additional factors that sustain hope in the workplace beyond agency and pathways, including the significant role of an organization’s intended impact on the world.
How Leaders Can Cultivate Hope in the Workplace
The responsibility for fostering and sustaining hope largely rests with leaders. They are in a position to significantly influence whether individuals hold onto their sense of agency and optimism or succumb to despair. Hope tends to erode when organizations become mired in bureaucratic processes that stifle initiative, trap individuals in silos that prevent collaboration, or fixate on short-term survival at the expense of long-term purpose. Conversely, hope is revitalized when leaders actively restore a sense of agency, provide clarity regarding actionable next steps, and help individuals reconnect with the meaningful impact of their work.
The Strategic Decision to Champion "Hope"
While some may express reservations about the term "hope," acknowledging its potential for misinterpretation, the research team has made a deliberate decision to retain and champion it. The strategy is to consistently define hope within its scientific, action-oriented framework whenever it is used. This approach is not an isolated stance. The growing recognition of hope’s importance is evident across academia, with recent contributions including an influential editorial in AMLE, a dedicated issue of Policy and Practice, a theoretical paper in Frontiers in Developmental Psychology (2026), and a call for special issue submissions by Organization Studies.
To abandon the term "hope" at this juncture would be to disconnect vital research from a field that is increasingly turning towards its validated theoretical underpinnings.
The ongoing research into hope in the workplace promises further insights into the mechanisms that sustain it. By embracing a scientifically grounded understanding of hope, leaders can equip themselves and their organizations with a critical tool for navigating the complexities of the polycrisis, transforming challenges into opportunities for resilience, innovation, and sustained progress.
This research on hope at work is an ongoing initiative. Stay informed about the latest findings by signing up for our newsletters.
