Leadership Drift: How Leadership Archetypes Narrow Under Pressure
Leadership does not become clearer under pressure.
It becomes narrower.
As pressure increases, time compresses, attention tightens, and leaders rely more heavily on familiar ways of interpreting situations and acting within them. Certain traits are amplified. Others recede. The range of behavioural expression contracts.
This narrowing and amplification is leadership drift.
Every leader operates from a leadership archetype—a stable pattern that shapes how they interpret complexity, exercise authority, and make decisions.
Under pressure, leaders do not change archetypes. They drift within them.
Leadership drift is the predictable way a leader’s archetype narrows and amplifies under pressure.
Leadership behaviour narrows under pressure
Research on sensemaking and decision-making consistently shows that as cognitive and emotional load increases, individuals rely more heavily on established interpretive frameworks and habitual responses (Weick, 1995; Kahneman, 2011).
In leadership contexts, this results in:
- a narrowing of attention
- faster categorisation of information
- increased reliance on familiar strategies
For leaders, this means their archetypal pattern becomes more pronounced. The behaviours most closely associated with their archetype are expressed more frequently and with greater intensity. This is not improvisation—it is patterned narrowing.
Leadership archetypes and predictable drift
A leadership archetype describes a stable way of making sense of situations and acting within them. It is not a style, role, or personality type. Leaders do not move between archetypes in response to context.
What changes under pressure is the range of expression.
Each leadership archetype carries a natural breadth—a range of ways it can be expressed. Under pressure, that range narrows. Certain traits are amplified because they feel efficient, familiar, and immediately useful.
Leadership research has long shown that effectiveness depends on how leaders apply their strengths across contexts, particularly under constraint (Yukl, 2013). Archetypal drift reflects this same principle: strengths become dominant features as pressure increases.
Understanding drift is about recognising which traits are being amplified—and which are being crowded out.
How archetypal drift is experienced
Leadership drift is experienced individually and collectively.
Leaders experience it as a tightening of focus, pace, or decision-making. Teams experience it as a shift in how leadership shows up day to day. Teams adapt to the amplified traits they encounter, organising their behaviour around what is most consistently expressed.
Leaders, in turn, interpret team responses through their own archetypal lens. These patterns reinforce one another over time. This is not misalignment—it is systemic adaptation to narrowed leadership expression.
Without shared language, this narrowing is difficult to see. With shared language, it becomes observable and workable.
Why archetypal language matters
Language expands perception.
When leaders understand their own leadership archetype and how it predictably narrows under pressure, they gain awareness of which traits are being amplified and which are being constrained. When teams share this understanding, coordination improves because behaviour is interpreted in context rather than inferred.
Research on collective efficacy highlights the role of shared understanding and accurate interpretation in enabling coordinated action under demanding conditions (Bandura, 1997; Donohoo, 2017).
This is the purpose of the Leadership Archetypes work: to make archetypal narrowing visible so leaders can work intentionally with their patterns, amplify strengths wisely, and guide teams with clarity and alignment.
More detail about the Leadership Archetypes work, including the upcoming workshop, is available here.
References
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Donohoo, J. (2017). Collective efficacy: How educators’ beliefs impact student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Pearson.