Leadership is not always apparent during stable operations, but in moments of uncertainty, pressure, and ambiguity, where there are no clear answers and outcomes are difficult to predict. But most organizations are designed around the center where systems work as intended. At the center, leadership often appears clean and controlled as processes guide action, and stability reinforces the belief that the organization is aligned. But this leaves the leadership untested. For Alex Molinaroli, former CEO of Johnson Controls, the real test of leadership is not at the centre but at the edges, where information is incomplete, and outcomes are uncertain. Molinaroli argues that the center rewards management, whereas the edges reveal leadership. This distinction was shaped through his years of leading one of America’s most recognized industrial companies through transformation, uncertainty, and structural change. Molinaroli’s reflections offer an important perspective on leadership today, particularly in an era where organizations are increasingly operating in conditions that are volatile, decentralized, and difficult to predict. One of the most difficult realities inside large organizations is that experience changes depending on where you stand. “The further from the center,” Molinaroli explains, “the less often employees are exposed to the messaging and strategy conversation.” This creates a natural tension within organizations. At headquarters, leadership discussions revolve around long-term direction, capital allocation, competitive positioning, and strategic execution. At the edge where the frontline teams, regional operators and local managers operate, the focus is immediate, operational and practical. “Coupled with the fact that the day-to-day reality is front and center at the edge of the organization. This is a dichotomy in every way; pace, cadence, reward systems, and strategic execution pressure vs a day-to-day pressure,” he says. This divide matters because organizations often assume alignment exists simply because communication exists. But alignment is not created through messaging alone. It is built through actions, trust, and repeated clarity under pressure, Molinaroli believes. At the center, strategy may feel coherent, but at the edges the same strategy feels disruptive, distant, or disconnected from reality. And a good leader sees this gap and acts accordingly. Organizations are generally optimized for predictability. A company can perform extremely well in stable conditions while remaining deeply unprepared for uncertainty. Sharing a moment during his time at Johnson Controls where leadership was defined by how he handled uncertainty, Molinaroli remembers the time when it was decided it was necessary to break the company up. To change strategy, the capital structure, and ultimately merge with a similarly sized company was difficult, but even more difficult was the communication challenge, he remembers. “From an employee perspective, this entire plan was jarring and was perceived as an abrupt 180-degree strategic direction change. Due to the fact that we were a publicly traded company, much of the pre-planning was done quietly and confidentially with only the company’s senior executives and the board of directors. This was not ideal from an organizational alignment, but it was necessary. The information that would have been helpful would have been from our frontline employees on the ground, before our announcement, so we could better plan for the execution. Regardless, we went ahead and worked extremely hard to bring the organization along with us after the decision became public,” he says. Molinaroli’s acknowledgement is honest, which many leaders avoid. It recognizes that leadership under uncertainty is imperfect by nature. Decisions are made with incomplete visibility. Alignment is built after momentum has already begun. That final phrase captures something essential about leadership at the edge: when certainty disappears, leadership becomes less about control and more about navigation. Molinaroli approaches this challenge through simplification. “My approach is that any new opportunity or challenging decision can be set within a framework that could help simplify the problem into something more familiar or a pattern that has been experienced before,” he says. This reflects the mindset of an engineer, but also the mindset of a seasoned leader. Truly unprecedented situations are rare. Most “new” problems contain recognizable elements like human dynamics, structural weaknesses, communication gaps, resource constraints, and incentive conflicts. “At its essence,” he explains, “most attributes of any ‘new’ problem have been seen and likely solved before.” This does not eliminate uncertainty. But it prevents leaders from becoming emotionally overwhelmed. The best leaders at the edges are not necessarily those who possess all the answers. They are those who can remain composed long enough to recognize patterns while others are reacting emotionally to ambiguity, he says. Molinaroli believes there are clear signals when an organization lacks edge resilience. “An organization that is internally focused, not growing, and positively changing the likelihood that they can constructively handle something new and have the needed capacity is unlikely. Focusing on building a strong culture and a winner’s ethos should be a prerequisite,” he says. One of the most revealing insights Molinaroli offers concerns how CEOs should prepare themselves and their teams to lead effectively under pressure. Many organizations attempt to train leaders for pressure through simulations, workshops, or theoretical frameworks. While useful, he suggests that true capacity under pressure develops differently. “Getting prepared to perform under pressure cannot be simulated,” he says. Instead, he compares leadership development to the gradual process of increasing heat. “It’s much like the story of boiling a frog,” he explains. “For the frog not to jump out of the boiling water, you must increase the heat slowly.” The metaphor is striking because it reframes resilience not as a trait people either possess or lack, but as a capacity developed progressively through exposure to increasingly difficult challenges. “For individuals to be ready, you must continue to provide increasingly challenging opportunities for them to build their capacity and confidence,” he says. Confidence under pressure is not learned conceptually but earned experientially, he concludes.
