In many organisations, the old vocabulary still trains the work. We “escalate.” We “get sign-off.” Decisions travel up, responsibility concentrates, and initiative is felt as dangerous. Even in mission-driven communities, this reflex can lead to fatigue, recurring tension around authority, and fragility when leadership changes.
In my reflections, I keep returning to Montessori’s cosmic vision because it offers a different starting point. It presents a world held together by interdependence: relationship, contribution, consequence. Independence matters, yet it is not the ultimate target. Independence gives capacity. Interdependence gives that capacity meaning, because it places action inside a whole.
What would leadership look like if interdependence was treated as a real philosophy of work?
Mission-centred circles
The first move is a change of imagery. The pyramid remains powerful in our minds, even when the mission reads collaborative. Under stress, teams return to “above and below.” Problems are read through position rather than purpose.
A mission-centred geometry invites another picture: concentric circles.
In this representation, mission and values sit at the centre. Around that centre are domains of responsibility. A domain is defined by the nature of decisions that belong there, the information needed to make those decisions, and the consequences of acting or delaying. Domains are positioned by relationship to mission, not by superiority.
This changes leadership. Because it becomes proximity to the centre, which is the mission itself and the common values. The work of leadership becomes stewardship of conditions: clarifying roles, protecting information flow, making consultation obligations explicit, and keeping the meaning of the mission alive in the team.
It also changes what happens to decisions. When decisions must travel to a single point of control, domains begin to queue behind one another. Energy shifts toward waiting, persuading, and protecting oneself against blame. In a circles logic, decisions stay closer to the work, and coordination becomes a visible obligation rather than a personal favour.
In practice: the person closest to the work makes the decision, and seeks advice from those affected and those with expertise. It holds decision-making close to reality while ensuring that consequences across domains are heard and integrated.
Language follows structure. Instead of “who approves,” questions sound more like:
- Which part of the mission is at stake?
- Who is impacted by this decision?
- Which domain holds this responsibility, and who needs to be consulted?
Developmental movement toward responsibility
To make this new image meaningful, I connect it to development. Montessori offers a thread that can hold ethics and structure together: responsibility.
Responsibility grows with independence and finds fuller expression in interdependence. It is more than accountability after the fact. It is the capacity to respond, to carry consequences, and to choose one’s contribution in relation to a larger purpose.
When I translate that developmental logic into organisational life, two Montessori “trios” become useful mirrors.
1. Three levels of engagement toward the mission
Montessori’s three levels of obedience describe how the capacity to choose develops. In organisations, we can observe a similar progression in relation to mission. It reads conditions more than character.
- Level 1: Compliance. I do what is requested because pressure, fear, or dependence makes it feel necessary.
- Level 2: Participation. I contribute when invited or supported. Initiative exists, but it often depends on permission or encouragement.
- Level 3: Responsible initiative. The mission becomes an inner reference point. I take initiative because the work requires it; I consult because consequences are real. And I repair, because integrity matters.
Pyramidal systems tend to stabilize Level 1. They can reward Level 2 while keeping real authority concentrated. Mission-centred circles aim to make Level 3 workable and expected, through clear domains, decision rights, and consultation.
2. The ascent of the adult’s work
Development of the adult’s role is described by Dr. Maria Montessori as an ascent: the work changes in quality. In organisations, I see a similar movement for leadership.
Early on, leadership often carries a lot of direct action. As the organisation grows, and as responsibility redistributes, leadership work needs to change. The shift is not mainly about having more authority; it is about carrying a different kind of responsibility.
I name this ascent in three movements.
1. Leadership as execution and direction.
The leader is close to the operational work. They solve problems, make decisions, push projects forward, and often provide the main coherence. In small or young organisations, this can be necessary at the beginning. The risk appears when this becomes the default shape of the system. At that stage, the mission may remain central in language, yet the organisation stays centred on the leader in practice.
2. Leadership as coordination and enabling.
The leader’s work begins to move from doing to coordinating. The focus shifts toward linking domains, supporting consultation, clarifying priorities, and reducing bottlenecks. Leadership starts to sound like: “Who needs to be in the loop?” “What do you need to decide well?” “Where do consequences cross domains?” The leader still decides at times, yet more of the work becomes about making the right decisions possible elsewhere. It usually corresponds to the second level of engagement described earlier.
3. Leadership as stewardship and guardianship.
At this stage, leadership is primarily the craft of preparing conditions so that responsibility can live throughout the organisation. This includes role clarity, decision rights, consultation expectations, information flow, and relational norms that protect dignity. It also includes guardianship of the mission itself by: holding its meaning, keeping it alive in the team, and returning decisions to it when pressure pulls the organisation toward fear, status, or personality. The leader becomes less an axis of action and more a protector of coherence.
This is where mission-centred circles become more than an image. They become a discipline. The circles model depends on leadership that can resist becoming the centre, and that can instead keep pointing to the centre.
The organisational prepared environment: Conditions that make this ascent possible
This ascent does not happen through good intentions alone. It depends on prepared conditions. Three are central.
- Role clarity. Domains need to be explicit enough that people can act without guessing where authority sits, and without turning disagreement into personal conflict.
- A climate that supports growth. If people fear blame, responsibility stays external and initiative stays cautious. If repair is possible, responsibility can become interior.
- Contributive independence. The organisation needs independence that remains oriented toward the whole. People act with competence, and consultation becomes a normal reflex when consequences cross domains.
When these conditions are present, leadership has room to move upward in quality, and the organisation has room to move upward in responsibility.
A brief example
I have lived the fragility of person-centred structures. In one organisation I served for years, activity became tightly tied to my initiative as a leader. The mission was real, yet coherence was carried by one person’s energy. After my departure, several activities slowed or ceased. The lesson was plain: sustainability is not only dedication. Sustainability is responsibility redistributed by design.
An invitation
Mission-centred circles and these developmental lenses offer a way to see, name, and prepare conditions with more coherence.
The longer paper develops the full framework in greater depth, including the interviews that informed it, concrete organisational examples, and the complete list of references that ground the reflection. It also adds visual models and illustrations. It is available here:
https://www.paideianova.org/education/organisational-leadership-through-interdependence/
If organisations are to become more resilient and more humane, responsibility has to become both personal and structural. Interdependence, understood as structure and as development, offers a direction for that work.
Allan Nguyen, AMI 6–12 Trainer
