January is the month when everyone talks about change. New strategies, new org charts, new narratives. But there is something that is rarely examined with honesty: the way we understand power.
Because, even if it’s hard to admit, many organizations are still trapped in a logic as old as it is inefficient: believing that leadership means commanding many people.
For far too long, leadership has been measured in headcount. How many people report to you? is still, in too many organizations, the question that defines status, influence, and professional success. We built companies like bloated pyramids, where growth meant adding layers, middle management, and structures designed more to justify power than to create value. That model is not obsolete—it is being actively dismantled.
Technology did not arrive to optimize that system; on the contrary, it came to make it unnecessary. Automation, artificial intelligence, and digitalization have broken the historical link between size and leadership. Today, having a massive team is no longer a competitive advantage; in many cases, it is a sign of inefficiency. Power no longer lies in control, but in influence. And, of course, that is uncomfortable.
Artificial intelligence exposes the real value of each role by identifying those who think, interpret, and connect dots.
Artificial intelligence accelerates this discomfort. By taking over repetitive, operational, and even analytical tasks, it reveals an uncomfortable truth: not all human work was truly indispensable. Some large corporations have already understood this—not because there are “too many” people, but because there are too many roles designed for a world that no longer exists. Growth no longer needs more people; it needs more judgment.
This is where the real shift lies. AI does not indiscriminately replace employees; it exposes the real value of each role by identifying those who think, interpret, and connect dots. In the process, it also exposes those who were merely managing artificial complexity. In this context, leading large teams is no longer a merit; it is often a symptom of having failed to simplify.
We are entering a profound mutation of leadership that many still resist accepting. During the 20th century, leading meant controlling, organizing, supervising, correcting. In the 21st century, leading means orchestrating: combining human talent, intelligent systems, and purpose. The relevant leader is no longer the one who commands many, but the one who enables a few to generate disproportionate impact. Not the one who accumulates power, but the one who distributes it. Not the one who watches, but the one who activates.
And here emerges an uncomfortable paradox for old hierarchies: the flatter the organization, the more leadership it requires. Fewer layers do not mean less leadership; they mean fewer places to hide within the organization. Leading without rigid hierarchies, constant control, or automatic obedience requires a far higher level of emotional and cognitive sophistication than traditional command-and-control leadership. Giving orders was easy. Influencing is not.
That is why the authority of the future will not be based on position, but on the ability to generate real impact. It will no longer matter how many people report to you, but how many relevant decisions you provoke, how many ideas you unlock, or how much collective value you unleash. Leadership stops being a matter of volume and becomes a matter of meaning.
Perhaps the leadership of the future will look less like running a factory and more like conducting an orchestra. What matters is not how many musicians you have, but whether you can make them sound better together.
January is a good moment to say it plainly: in a world where technology amplifies people, leadership is not measured by the size of the team, but by the impact you are able to generate with it.
By Gabriel Weinstein, Managing Partner, Olivia Spain.