“Dimitris Michopoulos is a person with knowledge and experience you rarely find in the public sphere.”

The title “thought igniter & fixer” is certainly not something we hear often. Beyond the curiosity around the title, it is worth focusing on the person. Dimitris Michopoulos has achieved a great deal. At the same time, he carries a track record that the word “enviable” hardly captures. With distinctive eloquence and liberating honesty, he answers questions without hiding anything and without hiding himself. He shares knowledge without arrogance, something rare in our time and most importantly, he speaks about leadership during crises through his singular experience.

What is the number one trait of the “old type” leader that worked in 2010, but today leads with mathematical certainty to failure?

Number one is dependence on certainty, the need to look like you know before you understand. In 2010, you could govern through control and buy time. Today, control steals time, because crises run in parallel and variables shift together.

What separates leaders who endure is the ability to distinguish quickly and clearly three things, what is signal and what is noise, what is urgent and what can wait, what changes the outcome and what simply drags you into endless meetings. This is discernment, a filter that keeps you calm, keeps you precise, and lets you decide without commotion. Certainty makes you fast, discernment makes you right.

We live in an era of permanent crisis, or many parallel crises, as you have said before. When everything is urgent, nothing is urgent. How can a leader today identify real danger through constant noise and market panic?

A world-scale leader does not chase the market’s intensity, he imposes his own level of precision. He does not ask “what is everyone shouting,” he asks “what can change the fate of the organization.” That is where real discernment enters, not as a process, but as a leadership stance. In practice, he separates three categories of risk and never confuses them.

First, the risk that can break continuity of operations, liquidity, safety, critical supply chains, institutional limits. Second, the risk that erodes credibility, the trust of markets, regulators, customers, people, because when trust is lost, time becomes the enemy. Third, the risk that cancels the future, misallocated capital, the wrong narrative, the wrong identity of power in a new geopolitical and technological environment. I have seen this repeat across different markets and cultures, with the same cost.

Then he does something most people cannot tolerate, he closes “open interpretations.” He defines one working truth, one priority and one decision frame that does not change every day. There is no distance between intuition and reality when intuition functions as early warning and reality as execution discipline. Here is the essence, when everything looks urgent, the leader does not increase speed, he raises the criterion. He holds a few critical decisions, “hard” rules and zero tolerance for confusion. Noise is cheap, precision is expensive, panic is contagious, discernment is a choice.

Many talk about motivational leadership. Where is the line between inspiration and “toxic positivity”? When should a leader tell the team “this is genuinely hard,” instead of polishing reality?

The line sits in two words, truth and structure. Inspiration does not mean beautification, it means holding reality and hope at the same time, without betraying either. A leader must say “this is hard” when “hard” requires behavior change, priority change, or a sacrifice that needs to be stated clearly. Then comes what matters, “this is how we make it executable.” People do not lack courage, they lack clarity. Truth without hope hardens, hope without truth deceives.

You have spoken about the value of emotional intelligence and empathy. In an era where burnout often becomes the norm, what makes a leadership style, or a person with leadership capability, stand out? Why do more people not speak about empathy as much as they should?

The leader who stands out reads the human being with precision, without blurring judgement. He sees early when someone has reached exhaustion, when they lose meaning, when they fear speaking, when they carry anger or cynicism and he does not wait to see it after performance drops or the team breaks.

This is not “sensitivity,” it is responsibility, because when the human system breaks, you pay in mistakes, conflict, talent leakage, and low effectiveness. Many do not speak about empathy enough because they confuse it with concession or lowering standards. I work with it as a mechanism of precision, because it gives you early signals about the health of the organization before they become a result problem.

Empathy does not make you soft, it makes you timely. It forces you to fix ambiguity, injustice, the wrong pace, before they turn into burnout. And there is something else, many leaders avoid it because it asks them to stand in front of the mirror. At the end of the day there is a simple question, do you like who you are when you are with you? Empathy is high-precision data for the human system.

Tell us about a professional crisis moment of your own, or a wrong decision, that taught you more about leadership than your successes did.

I will say this in a way that respects the confidentiality that comes with such moments, without names and without details. In a high-stakes crisis, I chose to “buy time” instead of imposing clarity from day one. I let a critical ambiguity remain, because it looked manageable. It was not. Ambiguity became space for interpretations, egos, internal politics and ultimately it burdened people who needed protection.

At that level of stakes, ambiguity costs multiples. Since then, I keep a hard personal protocol, I cut ambiguity early, even if it irritates, even if it disrupts balances. Ambiguity is not neutral, it always works against you.

In a future where AI will make data-based decisions faster than humans, what remains for the leader? What will the role be when management is handled by algorithms?

AI will do faster what it already knows how to do, analysis, prediction, optimization. The leader who will stand out will not compete with AI on speed. He will use it as a multiplier, because he carries four rare elements, mindfulness, intuition, instinct, wisdom.

Mindfulness is power discipline. You know what happens inside you at the moment of decision, fear, ego, need for validation, haste and you stop them before they contaminate the outcome. That is how you see when AI gives you something “correct” technically, but wrong humanly, institutionally, ethically, or strategically.

Intuition functions as radar. It detects weak signals that still do not fit into data, a shift in a regulator’s stance, a shift in market psychology, a shift in a partner’s dynamics. Instinct is the decision when information remains incomplete, but responsibility cannot wait. The average manager asks for “more data,” the leader asks for the right question.

And above all, wisdom. It defines frame, values, limits, understands human cost, keeps the soul of the organization alive while demanding peak performance. I have seen these truly separate leaders across different institutional environments and across continents, where decisions do not forgive mistakes. He sees no distance between arts and sciences, between vision and execution, between serenity and prosperity. The algorithm proposes, the leader chooses, rejects, innovates and remains accountable.

Younger employees, Gen Z, openly challenge hierarchy and demand meaning beyond profit. Is this a romantic trend that will pass, or should companies tear down and rebuild their management model to include them?

It is not romanticism, it is a renegotiation of value. Gen Z does not say “abolish hierarchy,” they say “give me a reason to believe it is worth investing my life here.” They want a clear mission, fair rules, transparency in how leadership decides and space to grow without burning out. They want ownership of their work, a clear field of responsibility and influence. They want recognition that is specific and reward linked to real contribution. They want a share of success when they build it and respect for personal life, because without that there is no endurance, no clear thinking, no creativity.

The critical task for the company is to integrate them without lowering standards and without blurring accountability. Otherwise, it loses reputation, future and competitiveness. The right answer is a performance contract, high demands, clear boundaries, fair reward, a visible growth path, zero tolerance for toxic behaviors that destroy culture.

Hierarchy must change its reason for existence, not disappear. Hierarchy as power produces silence or exit. Hierarchy as responsibility produces trust, maturity and performance. Purpose is not a poster at the wall, it is the decisions you make when you lose something to protect something bigger. The young do not ask for privileges, they ask not to waste their lives.

If you could give only one piece of advice to a young person taking their first position of responsibility tomorrow, what would it be?

Create a personal operating and ethics code, then live inside it, so others know what to expect from you, especially under pressure. Include your truth, what you consider non-negotiable in character and behavior. Include how you learn from mistakes, how you recognize them early, how you correct them without defense and how you protect the team when something goes wrong. Include the risks you accept and the risks you do not accept, not from fear, but from judgement and principles.

Include the responsibility you accept and pursue, because responsibility is a choice before it becomes a title. Inside that code, define your autonomy clearly, when you decide alone, when you ask for guidance and when you escalate an issue to protect the outcome and the team’s reputation.

Define how you give recognition, how you ask for recognition and how you connect reward to real contribution. And keep a demanding benchmark, do not compare yourself to those around you, learn to measure yourself against people who are far better, regardless of industry or profession. Leadership at its early stages is being able to say “this is my standard,” then prove it in practice, every day, without exceptions. Consistency is the first form of authority.

Published on Reader