Strategic Hangover
The path to leadership actualisation in crisis.
Judging by his fiery personality and first term in office, some viewed Trump’s expected strategic ambiguity as an opportunity to unlock some of the world’s hardest deadlocks.
Indeed, the first month and a half of Trump 47 has witnessed a series of paradigm-shifting decisions, radically redefining the strategic environment in which international organisations, countries, businesses, and citizens operate.
Examples include USAID’s overnight shutdown, the USA-Russia joint vote on Ukraine against European countries at the United Nations Security Council, Trump’s vision for Gaza, and the set-up of “DOGE”, Musk’s efficiency task force, to name but a few. We have also witnessed or been the target of public scolding sessions, such as VP Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference, or the meeting between Presidents Trump and Zelensky in the Oval Office last week.
Still, it is foolish to dismiss President Trump’s strategy as erratic, as it makes sense from his perspective and the MAGA ambition. Indeed, it seems that Trump is seeking to improve his deal-making ability by:
Removing caveats and constraints imposed by multilateral or bilateral commitments.
Leveraging all kinds of flows (trade, financial transactions, migrations, etc.) to shape people’s behaviours and shift the balance of power in favour of the US.
Forging transactional and ad hoc alliances, even when they deviate sharply from traditional US practices.
Using disinformation to promote and ultimately impose his worldview, sometimes with the support of proxies such as Elon Musk.
The first three levers are pages from the realist playbook, reinstating power plays in which America is the strongest in 1-1 short-term contests.
The fourth lever has more profound cultural implications. When Trump announces his intention to take over Greenland or the Panama Canal, he divides audiences over intentions and not facts, amplifies the background noise, and delegitimises principled approaches, ultimately eroding trust in information and decision-makers.
Whether or not actions follow Trump’s announcements, they create some wiggle room in the system, leaving other decision-makers with what we could call a “strategic hangover,” evidenced by the following symptoms:
A blurred reality resulting from the overnight dismissal of commonly held worldviews in international affairs, compounded by the speed at which Trump operates.
A feeling of lawlessness stemming from President Trump’s persistent challenge to any form of checks and balances.
Acid reflux over the perception of betrayal by an American ally, once the centre of the Western world, and hence the centre of the world for Western nations.
A feeling of helplessness, as most European systems still depend on the US.
In a nutshell, we are all forced to reconsider the commonly held references we use to interpret the world and negotiate new standards for what’s acceptable to our stakeholders. All this while sensing that another update might be needed again shortly. To some, this is nothing less than paralysing.
Responding effectively requires updating our leadership compass in a way that accounts for the relational and, therefore, dynamic nature of the references shaping our worldview. To do so, we can leverage the “4 Cs” (Clarity, Consistency, Convergence, and Consciousness), our proprietary methodology, and explore examples of the new challenges faced by the European Union, which also apply to organisations.
Clarity: reality becomes blurry when you articulate strategic interests at the wrong scale.
The challenge: Crises are often seen as signs of a world that is more dynamic and uncertain. In reality, the world is always dynamic and uncertain, except when you perceive yourself as being at the centre of it. What a crisis does is not so much put you off-balance but off-centre.
A way forward: Leaders need to reframe their strategic interests at a scale where their decision-making ability is central and within their control. In a crisis, this usually means focusing on immediate, tangible problems and solutions at a smaller scale.
Example: Until now, Europe has operated according to an ethnocentric worldview promoting its political unity and moral superiority. This was made possible by NATO, which provided a consistent framework for articulating strategic interests across the North Atlantic Ocean.
With the US distancing itself from Europe to reclaim a central position vis-à-vis Pacific nations, NATO can no longer provide strategic consistency, forcing Europe to reframe its interests. This will be complicated because, despite overlaps, the Baltics, Central and Eastern Europe, Southern Europe, Western Europe, and the North Sea have different strategic priorities, primarily due to geographical reasons.
For Europe, retrieving clarity will require letting go of the perception that its political and moral unity is the foundation of its strength—an identity that has, until now, been reinforced by external factors, particularly the US.
Consistency: maintaining strategic purpose requires trade-offs.
The challenge: Leaders tend to focus on what they consider acceptable instead of incorporating a broader range of potentially unsettling possibilities into their strategic options. Focusing on what should be, instead of what could be, helps them cope with the harsh realities of a crisis, even if it limits their adaptability.
A way forward: Leaders need to reassess their competitive advantage and decide the trade-offs they will inevitably face, oftentimes challenging what has worked in the past.
Example: By questioning its value proposition rooted in peace and stability, the European Union will have to face the possibility of war, involving economic and well-being costs, if not more. While unity and joint governance may have worked in the past, they will probably slow Europe down and make it less resilient in a crisis. In contrast, more flexible, interest-based governance schemes could deter hostile entities by making it tougher or more expensive to destabilise Europe.
Convergence: your ally is not your friend.
The challenge: To provide an impression of stability and navigate a diverse environment, leaders tend to build consensus on their strategic priorities based on who they agree with rather than on what they should agree upon. Rallying support by identifying perceived friends detracts from the responsibility of framing strategic interests, which must be conceptual in order to become permanent.
A way forward: Your audience is defined by those who are stakeholders in your strategic interests, not by who you seek to please. For leaders, this requires confronting alternative worldviews and remaining open to change and contradiction.
Example: The European Union will need to reassess who its allies are, i.e., who will improve its ability to respond to the crisis or make it more expensive to challenge it. Chances are, these are not the allies Europe is inclined to cosy up to, therefore putting its self-proclaimed moral leadership to the test.
Consciousness: not actively promoting a culture is giving away your agency.
The challenge: Crisis response requires tough decisions that impact others negatively. How leaders make such decisions and who they affect constitute a cultural statement, as it either enables or blocks others’ leadership actualisation process. At the organisational level, the decision to lay off staff is a good example.
A way forward: Promoting a culture doesn’t necessarily mean being inclusive, but it requires acknowledging diversity. This can be achieved through communication and dialogue, outlining the rationale for decisions, and acknowledging mistakes.
Example: To some extent, the US decision to distance itself from Europe is hindering Europe’s actualisation process. To reboot it, Europeans need to accept that there is some relevance in US feedback despite the abruptness of it all. Focusing on Trump, Putin or others as illegitimate figures may help us maintain our moral ground, but it does not serve to update our leadership style and recover some agency in the short term.
However, the actualisation process is further complicated by classic challenges heightened in a crisis, including:
Dynamic environments: Not everything started with Trump, nor will it end with him, requiring leaders to constantly adjust to a new reality. What can help is to distinguish what constitutes, from our perspective, a constant or a variable. Again, this implies looking at reality for what it is, not what we want it to be.
Productivism: The pressures to achieve results challenge our ability to update the assumptions on which we operate. Allocating resources (our own time or a small team) to think freely about longer-term scenarios can help.
Dissension: Internal division or resistance to change from stakeholders who are involved or resisting a similar actualisation process at their own level can complicate crisis response. The speed of the crisis makes it difficult to engage with stakeholders thoroughly. For leaders, it is a matter of understanding who they are likely to upset and why.
Ethical Challenges: Internal debates over the legitimacy or efficiency of their decisions (knowing when to persist and when to stop) are crucial. Leaders can still strive to maintain an internal dialogue that reflects their experiences. Debating the values they uphold in the face of criticism is an ethical practice that transcends the notion of right or wrong.
At the same time, the leadership actualisation process may be influenced by external circumstances. The decisions beyond our control often challenge the social contract within which the leaders who make them operate. Trump serves again as a case in point, as he tried to undermine counterpowers like the judicial system and the press while weakening levers of social peace, such as the welfare state. Relying on the failures of other societies, or competitors for that matter, would be schadenfreude, not a responsible decision. In reality, the disintegration of a party would affect all of us in return.
A hangover doesn’t mean it’s game over.
Baptiste Raymond - 03/2025.