Trust, Resilience, and the Audacity to Lead Through Uncertainty
Lisbon, Portugal (Photo by Ana-Paula Correia)
Leadership is tested not in moments of stability but in moments of disruption. In times of uncertainty, the trusted leader becomes more visible. In the third edition of the Leadership in Education and Training series, I reflect on how trusted leadership (Galford & Drapeau, 2002) sustains resilience amid profound uncertainty and transformation, and how empathy, adaptability, and clear communication enable organizations to navigate disruption without losing their sense of purpose, drawing on my experience as the director of a university research center.
In earlier reflections, I explored leadership as an inward journey of trust and self-awareness and as a form of orchestration that aligns vision, learning, and people. This edition builds on those foundations by examining what happens when certainty dissolves, routines collapse, and leaders are called to guide others through terrain no one fully understands.
Uncertainty as a Defining Condition of Leadership
Uncertainty is often framed as a problem to be solved or eliminated. In practice, it is a permanent condition of leadership, particularly in education, research, and innovation. The difference lies not in whether uncertainty exists, but in how leaders acknowledge, name, and work with it.
The COVID pandemic offered a stark illustration. It was a period marked by loss, grief, and fear. We honor the many lives lost and the families and communities that continue to live with the consequences of this disease. At the same time, the pandemic disrupted organizations so profoundly that it forced a reckoning. Institutions either fractured under pressure or found ways to renew themselves and emerge stronger.
At our research center, the crisis compelled us to pivot rapidly. Long-standing assumptions about what was possible were suspended. Projects that might have taken years to initiate were implemented in months. We invested not only financial resources, but also people’s talents, creativity, and willingness to experiment. Ironically, many of these initiatives would not have been possible without the rupture created by the health crisis.
This paradox is uncomfortable, but important. Disruption does not negate loss. It does, however, reveal latent capacity. Trusted leadership recognizes both truths at once.
Resilience Rooted in Trust, Not Control
Resilience is often misunderstood as endurance or toughness. In organizations, resilience is less about resisting change and more about adapting without losing identity. Trusted leadership plays a central role in this process.
During uncertain times, people do not expect leaders to have all the answers. They do expect honesty, presence, and coherence. Empathy becomes operational, not rhetorical. Leaders listen carefully, acknowledge anxiety, and create psychological safety so that uncertainty can be discussed rather than suppressed or ignored.
Clear communication is equally essential. In periods of disruption, silence breeds speculation, and speculation erodes trust. Increasing both the quantity and the quality of communication becomes a leadership responsibility. In my own practice, this has meant prioritizing internal communication before external visibility. High-touch, relationship-centered communication took the form of frequent check-ins with staff and fellow leaders, all-staff conversations designed to identify and address concerns, and consistent written updates that people could depend on as anchors of stability.
This work was not mine alone. Trusted leadership is collective. Our senior leadership team is composed of deeply experienced and talented individuals who help translate strategic vision into daily practice. Their role in sustaining trust and resilience cannot be overstated. Leadership, in this sense, is a distributed act of strategic sensemaking and coordination.
Naming Uncertainty as an Act of Leadership
In research and innovation contexts, uncertainty is not a flaw to conceal. It is a space where creativity emerges. When leaders openly name uncertainty, they legitimize curiosity and collaboration. They invite collective intelligence rather than individual performance.
Organizational research has long emphasized that uncertainty can catalyze learning, experimentation, and adaptation when it is acknowledged rather than denied (e.g., Weick et al., 2005). Naming uncertainty is therefore a form of leadership that shifts organizations from defensive postures to exploratory ones. It signals that not knowing is acceptable, and that progress will emerge through shared inquiry.
This perspective aligns closely with what I learned two decades ago while studying conflict in teamwork. Uncertainty and conflict are deeply intertwined.
Conflict, Clarity, and Collective Growth
Conflict has long been recognized as a fundamental aspect of teamwork (Forsyth, 2014; Levi, 2001). Teams must make decisions, and decision-making inevitably generates tension, discomfort, and disagreement. Conflict is not a sign of dysfunction. It is a signal of interdependence.
Smith and Berg (1987) argue that conflict is not a failure of teamwork but an expression of its inherent contradictions. When teams rush to resolve tensions without first understanding what is driving them, they can end up stalled rather than moving forward. The core work of a team, then, is not to eliminate contradictions but to manage them in ways that deepen connection and align individual growth with collective purpose, allowing members to fully invest their perspectives, energy, and differences in the shared mission.
In my own research, I adopted Hobman et al.’s (2002) broader definition of conflict as any statement of disagreement that creates discomfort and disaffection, defined as a feeling of being disconnected from others. This framing recognizes that conflict is not only about overt disagreement, but also about relational fractures that leaders must attend to.
Healthy Conflict and the Leader’s Balancing Role
This perspective has been very useful in my role as director since it helps me notice conflict earlier, before it hardens into entrenched divisions or quiet withdrawal. It reminds me to listen not only for what is said in meetings, but also for what goes unsaid: shifts in tone, avoidance, silence, or disengagement that signal dissatisfaction. Framing conflict as both disagreement and disconnection has sharpened my attention to the relational conditions that make collaboration possible, guiding me to respond in a timely way and prevent patterns of withdrawal and loss of commitment. I aim to stay present and follow through consistently, so that moments of discomfort become opportunities for repair, learning, and renewed trust rather than a slow drift apart.
It is essential to distinguish healthy conflict from toxic and destructive conflict. Trusted leadership does not avoid disagreement, but it actively shapes the conditions under which disagreement occurs. Leaders are responsible for maintaining balance, setting norms, and intervening when conflict shifts from productive tension to personal harm.
Healthy conflict sharpens thinking, clarifies values, and strengthens decisions. Suppressed conflict, by contrast, erodes trust silently. Leaders who can hold space for disagreement without defensiveness model resilience in action.
This capacity to stay present, curious, and steady in the face of disagreement reassures others that conflict will not fracture the group but can instead be used as a resource for adaptation, stronger relationships, and more thoughtful collective action.
This is where congruence becomes visible: when leaders manage conflict, people watch whether their values, words, and actions still align.
Congruence: The Bridge Between Values and Action
Trust is sustained not by declarations, but by congruence. Congruence is the alignment between what leaders believe, what they say, and what they do. Incongruence erodes trust faster than any policy failure.
Over time, I have learned that congruence requires continual self-reflection. It means asking questions regularly: Did my decisions reflect my stated values? Did I model the behavior I expect from others? Did stress or impulsiveness compromise fairness?
These questions rarely yield final answers. Their power lies in keeping the inner compass calibrated. Leadership, like trust, is never static. It must be renewed with every interaction.
In practice, congruence has meant maintaining the same tone of respect in private and public spaces, sharing success rather than claiming it, and being transparent about challenges as well as achievements. Authentic leadership is not about infallibility. It is about consistency.
Consistency is what makes trust possible, and trust is what determines where a group’s energy goes.
The Emotional Architecture of Trust
Trust creates an emotional economy of abundance. In environments of distrust, energy is consumed by self-protection and by managing appearances rather than doing meaningful work. In environments of trust, that energy is released toward creativity, learning, and innovation.
Trusted leaders cultivate emotional steadiness rather than constant positivity. They remain grounded and empathetic even in times of uncertainty. They convey confidence without arrogance and optimism without denial. This emotional architecture sustains resilience far more effectively than technical plans alone.
Leading With Trust into What Comes Next
The world reminds us that certainty is fragile, yet purpose can endure. Organizations that emerge stronger from uncertainty do so not because they avoided disruption but because they leaned into trust, communication, and collective intelligence.
Resilient leadership does not promise safety from uncertainty. It offers support through it.
As leaders in education and training, our responsibility is not to eliminate ambiguity, but to help others navigate it with clarity, dignity, and shared purpose. When uncertainty is named, conflict is managed constructively, and values are enacted consistently, organizations do more than survive. They grow.
In times of disruption, trusted leadership becomes the quiet force that holds groups together, allowing them not only to endure uncertainty but to learn from it and move forward with renewed strength.
References
Forsyth, D. (2014). Group Dynamics (6th ed). Wadsworth.
Galford, R., & Drapeau, A. S. (2002). The Trusted Leader. The Free Press.
Hobman, E., Bordia, P., Irmer, B. & Chang, A. (2002). The Expression of Conflict in Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Groups. Small Group Research, 33 (4), 439-465. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640203300403
Levi, D. (2001). Group Dynamics for Teams. Sage.
Smith, K. & Berg, D. (1987). Paradoxes of Group Life: Understanding Conflict, Paralysis, and Movement in Group Dynamics. Jossey-Bass.
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0133
Please cite the content of this blog:
Correia, A.-P. (2026, January 30). Trust, Resilience, and the Audacity to Lead Through Uncertainty. Ana-Paula Correia’s Blog. https://www.ana-paulacorreia.com/blog/trust-resilience-and-the-audacity-to-lead-through-uncertainty