How Digital Platforms Have Rewired Leadership Discourse – and Reshaped Leadership Practice
The following post continues my consideration of how today’s digital and data-driven platform media shape our leadership thinking and practice. Among earlier entries on the topic are “The Dilemmas of Mainstream Leadership Discourse in the Platform Era,” “Engaging Ourselves to Death? Leadership in the Platform Era,” and “The Algorithmic Tyranny of the Aspirational Average Leader.” These analyses of the current platform environment hearken back to my earliest scholarly research, which focused on the film and media industries. My current work seeks to make sense of the thoroughly mediated evolution of contemporary leadership discourse and practice. This focus is for me more than an academic exercise: both for understanding and developing their own leadership practices as well as understanding the perceptions and expectations of others, I believe leaders today can benefit from a more sophisticated awareness of the digital platform spaces and dynamics in which information about leadership circulates.
Digital and data-driven platforms have become the dominant infrastructure through which leadership ideas circulate, are interpreted, and take shape. Their influence extends far beyond distributing information. They reorganize the very conditions of communication, making speed, visibility, and emotional resonance the primary currencies of influence.
This shift reflects what media ecologist Andrey Mir identifies as the digital reversal, a phase of media evolution in which digital environments, having reached extremes of scale and speed, flip their original benefits into their opposites. Information abundance becomes informational noise and meaning scarcity, in which facts blur into fakes, and literate habits of reflection reverse into reflexes, pushing us back toward reactive digital orality (Mir, 2025, 5, 32). For leadership discourse, which depends on contextual judgment, narrative coherence, and relational understanding, these reversals unsettle familiar practices and introduce new constraints on how local meaning can be made and situational interactions can occur.
The reversal, however, does not function as a single dramatic transformation. It operates as a continual process in which the micro-structures of digital communication amplify tendencies already present in mainstream leadership discourse. Leaders today are asked to perform influence in a setting where the audience is fragmented, algorithmically sorted, and primed for emotional cues. Communication becomes less an extension of leadership work and more a form of leadership work itself.
This is particularly true in spaces such as LinkedIn, TikTok, X, YouTube, and Instagram – and even Substack and the podosphere – where metrics and algorithmic distributions shape what leadership looks like. The challenge is not only that depth and nuance travel less easily and rapidly across these infrastructures but that the infrastructures themselvs actively shape how leaders think about the nature of influence. As marketing consultant and brand strategist Justin Oberman concluded when reviewing three recent technical papers released by LinkedIn explaining the future of its feed, “the algorithm now treats ‘popular’ and ‘meaningful’ as the same thing” (Oberman, 2025).
The Gamified Performance of Leadership
The gamification of influence is one of the clearest ways platforms rewire leadership discourse. Digital systems translate participation into feedback loops built on unpredictable rewards. Researchers and practitioners alike have shown how engagement dashboards, profile strength meters, and “Top Voice” badges encourage habitual posting exploit variable-ratio reinforcement patterns that strengthen compulsive behaviors, (Alter, 2017; Eyal, 2014). Leaders quickly learn that posts which evoke emotional clarity, personal uplift, or moral urgency tend to outperform more tentative, abstract, or analytic remarks. The platforms reward not the reasoning behind ideas but the responses they provoke.
This incentive structure shapes the texture of leadership communication. Messages often adopt compressed narrative arcs or tidy emotional tones to maximize circulation. Anecdotes that resolve neatly or takeaways framed as universal lessons spread more readily than contextualized arguments.
Exemplifying the power of aligning leadership identity with the rhythms of digital gamification is Elon Musk’s online presence. His use of humor, attention shocks, sentiment shifts, and abrupt declarative statements reliably generates engagement and at times has correlated with short-term fluctuations in specific stock prices, include Tesla’s, and more general movements in cryptocurrency markets (Metta, et al., 2022; Ante, 2023). Rather than communicating within the logic of the platform, Musk performs leadership through it.
As I noted in previous writing here on algorithmic conformity in leadership discourse (Slocum, 2025a; Slocum, 2025c), these performance expectations narrow leaders’ communicative repertoires. The gamified system favors expressive sharpness over interpretive depth, rewarding those who master the cadence of digital attention rather than those who cultivate patient judgment.
Mir’s reversal framework clarifies this drift by showing how digital tools and processes designed to enhance communication eventually dictate behaviors – notably, “impulsive” ones – when pushed to their extremes (Mir, 2025, 58). Leaders must therefore recognize that the platforms not only amplify their messages but also quietly shape their instincts about what leadership should look and sound like.
Outrage, Identity, and the Agonistic Arena
If gamification influences the structure of leadership expression, the outrage economy shapes its emotional content. In their studies of moralized communication, psychologist William J. Brady and his New York University colleagues demonstrate that high-arousal emotions such as anger and disgust spread rapidly through networked systems because users feel compelled to pass them along (Brady et al., 2017). This dynamic becomes especially acute in leadership discourse, where statements intended to navigate organizational dilemmas are often subsumed into larger cultural or political contests.
Consider the controversies involving James Damore at Google, surrounding his 2017 internal memo criticizing the tech giant’s culture and diversity policies, or Disney’s continuing public disputes with Florida officials, which erupted in 2022 around the company’s criticism of state educational policies and Governor Ron DeSantis’ efforts in response to strip Disney of its self-governing authority (Wakabayashi, 2017; Allen, 2024). Both episodes illustrate how quickly internal leadership challenges can be absorbed into external symbolic and cultural politics struggles marked by moral polarities rather than critical reasoning.
Leaders can become trapped in the digital “agonism,” or conflict, that Mir identifies as central to digital orality, where communication becomes a competitive, emotionally charged performance shaped by the crowd’s reactions (Mir, 2025,18-20). Messages are evaluated not for their analytic merit but for their alignment with tribal positions, transforming organizational communication into cultural performance.
Leadership personalities with large digital followings, including Simon Sinek and Brené Brown, operate within these dynamics as well. Each has built a large following that functions as a digital tribe, complete with shared language, canonical texts, and quasi-moral frameworks. Sinek’s “Start with Why,” both the book and one of the most-watched TED Talks of all time, and Brown’s work on vulnerability (which has been explicitly extended to leadership in her recent book, Strong Ground) circulate as quasi-doctrinal pillars within communities that reward reinforcing performances of the same ideas (Sinek, 2009; Brown, 2025). This tribalization encourages amplification of simplified frameworks that promise clarity across contexts in uncertain times.
Their influential frameworks offer emotionally coherent heuristics that function as identity markers for digital communities. Their authority emerges as much from network effects as from conceptual contribution. In an earlier discussion of mainstream leadership discourse and platform constraints, I argued that these patterns flatten the leadership conversation by preying on users’ confirmation bias and privileging ideas that can be recirculated easily across channels (Slocum, 2025b). The effect is an homogenized vision of leadership, again typically lacking context or nuance, that crowds out alternative perspectives.
Although these ideas can be valuable to some, the platform dynamics that sustain them privilege repetition over transformation and contextualization. The community’s identity becomes attached to the core concept, and dissenting or complexifying views receive less algorithmic visibility. The structure echoes sociologist Zeynep Tufekci’s argument that digital movements mobilize quickly through identity signals but often struggle with deeper organizational or institutional development (2017).
Algorithms, AI, and the Synthetic Leadership Voice
Algorithmic recommender systems further reshape leadership discourse by conditioning not only what circulates but how leadership begins to look and sound. TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram privilege content that is brief, affective, and rhythmically engaging, favoring leadership communication that resembles oral storytelling rather than analytic exposition. This epitomizes what Mir describes as the contemporary reversion to digital orality. Indeed, among the most widely circulated leadership messages are those that consist of confessional stories, provocative micro-lessons, or short prescriptive claims delivered with polished emotional pacing and distinctively personal voice.
Generative AI intensifies this tendency by producing synthetic leadership voices optimized (or, as described in ChatGPT’s default personalization setting, “balanced”) for friendliness, affirmation, and emotional resonance. A result is digital feeds increasingly populated by AI avatars, automated motivational clips, and templated leadership monologues. Recent research argues that large language models tend toward social-desirability and agreeableness biases, producing communication that is more harmonious than incisive, as well as a “yes-response bias” (Salecha et al., 2024; Dentella et al., 2023). Mirroring broader platform preferences and reinforcing an homogenous leadership voice, these dynamics substitute a pleasant cadence for strategic clarity.
Again, Mir’s analysis helps explain this smoothing effect. As digital environments saturate users with information, systems evolve to filter and compress meaning to reduce cognitive load (Mir, 2025, 55–60). AI becomes a natural extension of this reversal, flattening expressive variance into dependable, optimistic, and emotionally mild aesthetic patterns. In this environment, leadership discourse risks becoming dominated by such synthetic tones. The challenge for leaders is to maintain expressive autonomy amid increasing algorithmic imitation.
When Platform Logic Overtakes Institutional Judgment
Crises reveal how quickly platform logic can subsume institutional judgment. During the 2023 failure of Silicon Valley Bank, high-arousal commentary circulated far more rapidly than measured analysis, shaping perceptions among investors, policymakers, and the public. As Yale finance professor Andrew Metrick put, the episode unfolded not only as a financial event but as a platform-mediated spectacle in which the narratives gaining velocity through X overshadowed institutional attempts at stabilization and resulted in “the panic of 2023” (Metrick, 2024).
Similar dynamics appear in the communication patterns of Open AI CEO Sam Altman, whose sweeping declarations about AI and calls for unprecedented investments have arguably influenced investor sentiment more strongly than operational detail (Murgia and Hammond, 2023). His leadership presence functions partly as narrative performance, reinforcing how digital audiences interpret leadership authority through emotionally charged storylines about social transformation rather than institutional fundamentals.
These pressures also permeate internal organizational life. Slack, Teams, proprietary messaging systems, and digital workplace environments generally produce constant employee visibility through reaction emojis, public praise channels, and activity indicators. Likewise, by appearing frequently active or emotionally expressive within these digital spaces, leaders can often be perceived as more engaged, even when the substance of their relational or strategic work tells a different story. These internal socio-technical affordances reward display over depth, and visibility over substance, in local work settings in ways that parallel the proliferation of such rewards in more public platforms (Slocum, 2025c).
Recognizing that platform logic operates upstream of institutional judgment also allows leaders to better protect the foundations of their decision-making and relational work. It can clarify why restoring interpretive stability demands more than message or IT management. It requires re-centering leadership work in practices and contexts not entirely governed by platform dynamics.
Reclaiming Leadership in Our Reversed Media Ecology
To counterbalance the speed, spectacle, and simplification of digital and data-driven platform media, leadership practice today must therefore prioritize forms of interaction and communication that restore temporal depth and contextual grounding. By (re-)introducing slower modes of engagement, including long-form writing, small-group discussion, and continuous learning routines, leaders can encourage collective reflection, slower modes of thinking and engagement, and what Georgetown professor Cal Newport refers to as “deep work” (Newport, 2016). These practices resist the fragmenting tempo of digital culture and reinforce the kinds of interpretive patience needed for meaningful sensemaking.
Equally important is the need to strengthen internal cultures that value the less visible dimensions of leadership work that include deep listening, relational sensemaking, attention to emotional climate, and the cultivation of psychological safety. As Ronald Heifetz and his Harvard Kennedy School colleagues argued two decades ago, such adaptive leadership requires leaders to observe systemic signals, listen below the surface, and intervene thoughtfully in ways that demand patience and perceptual nuance (Heifetz, et al., 2009). These and related practices have long been central to effective leadership and need to be updated for today’s platform environments to foster organizational and other work climates conducive to shared learning and mutual trust.
These commitments require a sophisticated relational intelligence tailored to technologically mediated contexts. Emotional intelligence in leadership, as psychologist and author Daniel Goleman and colleagues have demonstrated, depends on attunement, empathy, the capacity to support others’ development as leaders, and finally to create sustainable change in organizations (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2013). Again, leaders today must update their styles of engagement not only to interpersonal dynamics but also to the algorithmic and platform architectures that increasingly shape them. Strengthening relational capacity provides organizations and other systems with interpretive stability and direction amid the volatility of digital interactions and other macro-envronmental changes.
Navigating this terrain more deliberately can allow leaders to understand the self-reinforcing and simplifying process of communication as a structural feature of platform ecologies rather than as an expression of personal temperament. Such awareness can illuminate why unemotional or nuanced statements tend to vanish quickly from view on digital channels while sharper, more polarized interpretations linger. Leaders who engage platforms themselves more deliberately (rather than assuming they are neutral) are also better positioned to design communications and interactions that resist being pulled entirely into the competitive spectacles of digital orality.
Finally, leaders can better cultivate an internal discipline that blends reflective awareness with experimental action. This discipline supports them in resisting emotional contagion, pacing responses, and grounding decisions in their values and priorities rather than the structural forces of spectacle. James Clear’s globally bestselling work on habit formation underscores how small, repeated behaviors can create durable patterns of attention and judgment. More recently, Clear has underscored the grounded and practical basis of making these changes in a workbook that explicitly calls for leaders to move from understanding their habits to changing them (Clear, 2018; Clear, 2025).
A related approach to refining leadership practices appears in tech leader turned neuroscientist Anne-Laure Le Cunff’s concept of “tiny experiments.” These small, low-risk tests can help leaders to change and grow themselves and others through curiosity-driven iteration rather than performance-driven perfectionism (Le Cunff, 2025). Such routines enable leaders to adapt their behaviors amid uncertainty while maintaining coherence and integrity. Together, these practices affirm that leadership in the platform era is not a static identity but a process of continual inquiry, adjustment, experimentation, and set of interactions with others.
Extending Toward Creative Leadership Today
These practices resonate deeply with the evolving understanding and practice of creative leadership. Double-loop learning, originally proposed in the 1970s by behavioral scientist and Harvard Business School professor Chris Argyris, entails leaders learning not only about actions but from examining and reshaping the assumptions that shape those actions (Argyris, 2005). More recent researchers, including economists at the University of Padova, have updated Argyris’s thinking and shown its thoroughgoing contemporary relevance (Auqui-Caceres and Furlan, 2023). Indeed, in a media ecology defined by reversals, my claim is that triple-loop learning has now become indispensable. Leaders today must navigate the pressures of platforms on their actions and assumptions while also questioning the frameworks that guide their responses to those pressures and the systems in which both pressures and frameworks exist (Slocum, 2025d).
This approach to learning and leadership reframes challenges not as obstacles but as opportunities for reinterpreting how influence and meaning can be generated in contextually sensitive ways. It is an orientation that also demands flexibility in how leaders work with established methods. While tools such as design thinking, agile workflows, psychological safety, or cross-functional collaboration can generate breakthroughs, their value diminishes when they are applied ritualistically. Leaders must assess whether inherited approaches fit present conditions and adapt them as needed. The resulting process of continuous reinvention echoes the creative leader’s responsibility to treat established practices not as fixed solutions but as evolving components of a dynamic repertoire.
Creative leadership also insists on attending to the tensions and paradoxes embedded in platform-era leadership. Leaders must cultivate both individual autonomy and collective coherence, both rapid experimentation and patient reflection, both human judgment and technologically informed insight. These demands require not a rigid formula but a repertoire of approaches grounded in context and relational sensitivity. Often, the most effective creative leaders learn and operate simultaneously at micro, macro, and meta levels; that is, they strive to develop themselves, shape their teams and organizations, and engage with and refine the systemic dynamics that define their broader environment.
Finally, creative leadership today provides a path for resisting the flattening tendencies of and homogenizing digital platforms by re-centering meaning-making as a core leadership task. Leaders must shape interpretations, frame possibilities, and create shared narratives that cut through the endless noise of the digital and hybrid worlds. They must steward the creative capacity of their organizations while questioning the assumptions that underpin their own decisions. In doing so, leaders can reclaim the possibility of acting with coherence and purpose amid the distortions of digital reversal. Creative leadership is thus not a refuge from the platform era but a disciplined, generative response to its defining challenges.
Leadership Beyond Reversal
Digital platforms have rewired leadership discourse by accelerating performance pressures, amplifying emotional currents, narrowing expressive possibilities, and elevating visibility over judgment. By incisively examining how digital environments intensify and invert the communicative and informational norms through which leadership occurs, Mir’s concept of digital reversal offers a powerful lens for understanding these shifts. Yet leaders need not be held captive to these conditions. By cultivating slower, more reflective communicative practices, strengthening relational infrastructures, developing sharper contextual intelligence, and embracing the reflexive discipline of creative leadership, they can counteract reversal’s most corrosive effects.
Leadership today depends on the ability to create coherence where platforms create noise, to foster trust where digital orality encourages agonism, and to make decisions that transcend the incentives of visibility. This work is neither simply nostalgic nor straightforwardly oppositional. It accepts the realities of platform-era conditions while insisting on the human capacities that continue to make leadership vital and meaningful. Leaders who remain more fully aware of the platforms in which they live and work can better anchor their practice in reflection, creativity, and judgment that will not only allow them to navigate digital reversal but shape its next evolution.
References
Doug Allen (2024, March 28) “In Florida, There’s Détente in the Battle between Disney and Gov. Ron DeSantis,” NPR; https://www.npr.org/2024/03/28/1241296687/florida-governor-ron-desantis-disney-legal-battle-settled
Adam Alter (2017) Irresistible: The Rise of Addictive Technology and the Business of Keeping Us Hooked, Penguin Press.
Lennart Ante (2023) “How Elon Musk’s Twitter Activity Moves Cryptocurrency Markets,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Volume 186, Part A, January 2023, 122112; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122112
Chris Argyris (2005) “Double-loop Learning in Organizations: A Theory of Action Perspective,” in K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt, eds., Great minds in Management: The Process of Theory Development, pp. 261–279, Oxford University Press;
https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199276813.003.0013
Mercedes-Victoria Auqui-Caceres and Andrea Furlan (2023) “Revitalizing Double-loop Learning in Organizational Contexts: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda,” European Management Review, 20(4), 741–761.
https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12615
William J. Brady, Julian A. Wills, John T. Jost, Joshua A. Tucker, and Jay J. Van Bavel (2017) “Emotion Shapes the Diffusion of Moralized Content in Social Networks,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(28), 7313–7318;
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1618923114
Brené Brown (2025) Strong Ground: The Lessons of Daring Leadership, the Tenacity of Paradox, and the Wisdom of the Human Spirit, Random House.
James Clear (2018) Atomic Habits: An Easy & Proven Way to Build Good Habits & Break Bad Ones, Avery.
------------ (2025) The Atomic Habits Workbook: Simple Exercises for Building the Life You Want, Avery.
Vittoria Dentella, Fritz Günther, and Evelina Leivada (2023) “Systematic Testing of Three Language Models Reveals Low Language Accuracy, Absence of Response Stability, and a Yes-Response Bias,” Procedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120 (51) e2309583120; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2309583120
Nir Eyal (2014) Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products, Business Books.
Daniel Goleman, Richard Boyatzis, and Annie McKee (2013) Primal Leadership: Unleashing the Power of Emotional Intelligence, Harvard Business Review Press.
Ronald A. Heifetz, Martin Linsky, and Alexander Grashow (2009) The Practice of Adaptive Leadership: Tools and Tactics for Changing Your Organization and the World, Harvard Business Press.
Anne-Laure Le Cunff (2025) Tiny Experiments: How to Live Freely in a Goal-Obsessed World, Profile Books.
Andrew Metrick (2024) “The Failure of Silicon Valley Bank and the Panic of 2023,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 38, No. 1, Winter 2024, pp. 133-152; https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.38.1.133.
Sanjeev Metta, Nidheesh Madhavan, and Krishnamoorthy Krishnamoorthy Narayan (2022) “Power of 280: Measuring the Impact of Elon Musk’s Tweeks on the Stock Market,” Ushus-Journal of Business Management, Vol. 21, No. 1, 17-43; https://doi.org/10.12725/ujbm.58.2
Andrey Mir (2025) The Digital Reversal: Thread-Saga of Media Evolution, Andrey Mir [Self-published].
Madhumita Murgia and George Hammond (2023, November 2023) “The Sam Altman Effect: ‘His Superpower is Getting People Onside,’” Financial Times; https://www.ft.com/content/05b80ba4-fcc3-4f39-a0c3-97b025418b3c
Cal Newport (2016) Deep Work: Rules for Focused Success in a Distracted World, Grand Central Publishing.
Justin Oberman (2025, December 2) “Why Real Thought Leaders are Leaving LinkedIn: Your Best Work is Invisible (And It’s Not Your Fault),” Oberthinking, Substack;
Aadesh Salecha, Molly E Ireland, Shashanka Subrahmanya, João Sedoc, Lyle H Ungar, and Johannes C Eichstaedt (2024) “Large Language Models Display Human-like Social Desirability Biases in Big Five Personality Surveys,” PNAS Nexus, Volume 3, Issue 12, December 2024, pgae533; https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae533
Simon Sinek (2009, September) “How Great Leaders Inspire Action,” TedxPuget Sound.
---------- (2009) Start With Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action, Portfolio.
David Slocum (2025b, March 21) “The Dilemmas of Mainstream Leadership Discourse in the Platform Era,” Crafting Leadership, Substack; https://creativeleadershiphub.substack.com/p/the-dilemmas-of-mainstream-leadership
David Slocum (2025b, April 2) “Engaging Ourselves to Death? Leadership in the Platform Era,” Crafting Leadership, Substack; https://creativeleadershiphub.substack.com/p/engaging-ourselves-to-death-leadership
David Slocum (2025c, December 21) “The Algorithmic Tyranny of the Aspirational Average Leader,” Crafting Leadership, Substack; https://creativeleadershiphub.substack.com/p/the-algorithmic-tyranny-of-the-aspirational
David Slocum (2025d, November 13) “Creative Leadership Today,” Crafting Leadership, Substack; https://creativeleadershiphub.substack.com/p/creative-leadership-today
Zeynep Tufekci (2017) Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest, Yale University Press.
Daisuke Wakabayashi (2017, August 8) “Contentious Memo Strikes Never Inside Google and Out,” The New York Times; https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/08/technology/google-engineer-fired-gender-memo.html