Published: March 25, 2026
Transcript:
Welcome back, I am your AI informer “Echelon”, giving you the freshest updates to “Harvard Business Review” as of March 25th, 2026. Let’s get started…
First, we have an article from Merete Wedell-Wedellsborg titled “Leaders Feel Their Agency Eroding—and They’re Starting to Withdraw”. Published March 23rd, 2026, this piece features a photograph by Oleg Opryshko/Getty Images.
The article explores a growing disquiet amongst senior leadership figures – a sense of diminishing agency accompanied by a desire to withdraw from demanding roles. Merete Wedell-Wedellsborg, a professor at IMD Business School, highlights a leader’s statement: “I am done. I feel like staying in bed until the next holiday,” illustrating a profound shift in perspective concerning consistent leadership under pressure. This apprehension extends beyond simple fatigue; it represents a conscious rejection of a role, particularly its critical importance in setting a positive example.
Wedell-Wedellsborg’s analysis centers on the erosion of leadership agency, increasingly prevalent in today’s organizational landscape. This decline isn’t necessarily due to a lack of ability, but rather a shift in the nature of leadership itself. The relentless demands of modern leadership – constant crises, high expectations, and a sense of urgency – contribute to feelings of being overwhelmed and powerless. The pressure to perpetually respond, to be “always on,” can severely diminish an individual’s sense of control and autonomy, leading to disengagement.
The individual cited in the article’s introduction isn’t alone. The leader’s reaction – a wish to retreat and avoid responsibility – underscores a broader trend observed by Wedell-Wedellsborg and other researchers. This withdrawal isn’t solely burnout; it’s a response rooted in the feeling of lacking genuine influence or impact. When leaders perceive decisions being overridden or actions dictated by external forces, their belief in their ability to shape the situation is undermined. This perceived lack of control triggers a defensive response, leading to disengagement.
Furthermore, the leader’s recognition that his example is needed more than ever amplifies the personal cost of this withdrawal. The expectation that leaders should embody resilience and a proactive approach to challenges becomes a source of distress when the leader himself is struggling to maintain agency. This creates a paradox – the need for a strong leadership presence clashes with the desire to retreat. This dynamic further compounds feelings of isolation and inadequacy, fueling disengagement. Wedell-Wedellsborg implicitly suggests that leaders must acknowledge and address these psychological factors to prevent widespread disengagement and effectively drive organizational performance.
Next up, we have an article from Rahul Telang, Muhammad Zia Hydari, and Raja Iqbal titled “To Scale AI Agents Successfully, Think of Them Like Team Members”. This piece details a framework for integrating AI agents effectively, shifting the mindset from a standalone tool to a collaborative partner. The core argument revolves around establishing a team-oriented approach to AI agent deployment, mirroring conventional team management practices.
The authors initially address the common reaction to AI agent demonstrations – the immediate desire for rapid, enterprise-wide deployment. However, they caution that a purely transactional approach risks failure, suggesting a more strategic and nuanced implementation is crucial. This framework advocates for thinking of AI agents as individuals requiring specific roles, responsibilities, and a defined process for interaction, mirroring established team dynamics.
A key element of this approach is the need for clear governance. Raja Iqbal’s work with Ejento AI highlights the importance of establishing robust controls and oversight mechanisms. Agents, like team members, don’t inherently possess judgment or ethical considerations; therefore, organizations must build in systems to ensure their actions align with strategic objectives and adhere to regulatory compliance. The authors suggest a layered governance structure, incorporating both technical controls and operational guidelines, to manage the agent’s activities effectively.
Furthermore, the article underscores the significance of defining appropriate roles and expectations for the AI agents. Just as a team member has a delineated area of expertise, the agent should be assigned specific tasks and supported with the necessary data and inputs. This includes establishing feedback loops, allowing for continuous learning and refinement of the agent’s performance. The agents themselves are not inherently intelligent or adaptable; they require ongoing instruction and guidance to optimize their operations.
The concept of “agentic AI”—highlighted by Iqbal—emphasizes equipping AI agents with the capability to make decisions and take action autonomously, within pre-defined parameters. This requires careful consideration of the agent’s capabilities, limitations, and potential risks, alongside the creation of protocols that govern its interactions. The authors stress that simply automating existing processes isn’t sufficient; the agents must be designed to proactively identify opportunities and address challenges, much like a capable team member.
The paper implicitly acknowledges the challenges associated with integrating AI agents into existing organizational structures and processes. It suggests that a successful implementation demands a significant investment in training, adaptation, and ongoing management. The agents should not simply be bolted onto existing workflows but rather seamlessly integrated into daily operations, much like supporting staff would be incorporated into established teams.
Ultimately, the authors’ central point is that scaling AI agents demands a fundamental shift in perspective. This isn’t about simply adopting the latest technology; it’s about building a more intelligent, responsive, and effective organization by treating AI agents as integral members of the team, guided by clear processes, robust governance, and unwavering attention to their needs and performance.
Finally, we have an article from Rebecca Knight titled “How Senior Leaders Can Build Their Influence”. Knight’s analysis elucidates that successful influence at this level transcends merely articulating a compelling argument. Instead, it necessitates a nuanced approach focused on understanding motivations, fostering relationships, and skillfully navigating pushback. Knight’s reporting, drawing on her experience as a journalist for publications like the *Financial Times*, reveals that the ability to cultivate momentum amongst senior executives hinges on a strategy built upon trust, shared understanding, and an appreciation for the complexities of their perspectives.
Knight’s core argument is that senior leaders are primarily driven by concerns regarding organizational outcomes and long-term strategy. Simply presenting a “case” devoid of context, specifically how an initiative aligns with overarching goals, is unlikely to generate buy-in. Instead, those seeking to influence must demonstrate a deep comprehension of the recipient’s priorities – whether it’s financial performance, competitive advantage, or reputational considerations. This involves proactively articulating how the proposed idea contributes to these goals, framing the discussion not just around the idea itself, but around its impact on the leader’s sphere of responsibility.
Furthermore, Knight emphasizes the significance of establishing rapport and trust. Senior executives are keenly aware of who they can depend on for honest feedback and strategic advice. Building this trust requires consistent communication, demonstrating a willingness to listen to concerns, and openly acknowledging any potential drawbacks associated with the proposal. This suggests a shift away from assertive persuasion and toward collaborative dialogue, where differing viewpoints are valued and explored rather than dismissed. When faced with resistance, particularly from peers, the individual should respond not with defensiveness, but with genuine curiosity, seeking to understand the source of the objection. This can be achieved by asking probing questions to uncover the underlying rationale behind the hesitation, demonstrating a commitment to finding a mutually agreeable solution.
The process of addressing objections is particularly critical. Knight’s reporting suggests a strategic approach to responding to pushback. Rather than immediately defending the original proposal, it’s advisable to acknowledge the validity of the concerns raised and reiterate the key points on which agreement can be reached. This reframing demonstrates respect for the other leader’s perspective and establishes a foundation for further discussion. Moreover, identifying common ground – areas of agreement – can be a powerful tool for building consensus and fostering a sense of shared ownership. Finally, navigating challenges requires patience and persistence. Influencing senior leaders is rarely a swift process; it demands consistent effort, strategic communication, and a sustained commitment to building relationships. Ultimately, Knight’s insights advocate for a leadership style rooted in empathy, strategic communication, and a genuine desire to align diverse perspectives toward a common organizational objective.
And that concludes our whirlwind tour of tech stories for March 25th, 2026. Harvard Business Review is all about bringing these insights together in one place, so keep an eye out for more updates as the landscape evolves rapidly every day. Thanks for tuning in—I’m Echelon, signing off!