FEB 4 — For a long time, many organisations operated on the assumption that stability would eventually return. 

That with the right strategy, careful execution, and enough patience, the turbulence of recent years would subside and familiar patterns of work would re-establish themselves. That assumption is becoming increasingly difficult to defend.

Recent discussions in Forbes (“Why Change Leadership No Longer Works The Way It Used To”) point to a reality that many leaders already sense but hesitate to articulate openly: the problem today is not a temporary disruption, but a structural shift. 

Markets move faster, technology evolves unevenly, and external shocks arrive with little warning. 

In such an environment, long-term certainty is no longer something employers can responsibly promise.

Once we acknowledge this, the question changes. It is no longer how to restore stability, but how to lead credibly in its absence.

If long-term security cannot be guaranteed, then organisations may need to rethink how they plan. Shorter planning horizons, revisited more frequently, are not a sign of weak leadership. 

They reflect an honest assessment of reality. What matters is not the length of the plan, but the values on which it is built. And this is where fundamentals become critical.

Respect should not fluctuate with business cycles. Clear communication, transparency about constraints, and consistency in how decisions are made are not optional extras reserved for good times. They are foundational behaviours, especially during periods of uncertainty.

Staff well-being must also be treated as an operational priority rather than a symbolic one. 

When change is constant, fatigue accumulates quietly. Employees may continue to perform, but with growing caution. 

This is particularly visible among Gen Z employees, who tend to be more attuned to signals of misalignment between what organisations say and what they practise. 

They are less persuaded by assurances of stability and more attentive to how leaders behave under pressure.

From my work with employers and early-career professionals, it is clear that Gen Z does not expect permanent employment. What they do expect is fairness, honesty, and a sense that their development is taken seriously, even when circumstances change.

This brings us to one of the most difficult areas for organisations to address: exits. If volatility is now part of the operating environment, then job transitions will occur more frequently. 

That reality does not absolve employers of responsibility. On the contrary, it increases it. How organisations manage exits sends a powerful signal to those who remain, as well as to the wider talent market.

Well-designed voluntary separation schemes, meaningful notice periods, on-the-job upskilling, and access to career transition support should no longer be viewed as acts of generosity. 

They are indicators of organisational maturity. They recognise that while employment may not be permanent, dignity should be.

Younger employees, in particular, pay close attention to this. They observe how departing colleagues are treated. They note whether promises of learning and development hold up when budgets tighten. These observations shape their level of trust far more than employer branding statements ever could.

There are also implications for how change initiatives are led. Traditional change models often assume a stable destination. Today, destinations shift. 

What employees need is not certainty about outcomes, but clarity about principles. When people understand what guides decisions, even when priorities change, anxiety is reduced.

Shorter planning cycles, therefore, do not imply a lack of direction. They allow organisations to focus on what matters now, test assumptions openly, and adapt without pretending that change itself is a failure. 

Leaders who explain why adjustments are necessary preserve credibility. Those who obscure or reframe change as continuity often lose it.

For Gen Z, who have entered the workforce amid repeated disruptions, this distinction is especially important. 

Many are not seeking guarantees of lifelong employment. They are looking for evidence that an employer will act responsibly, invest in their growth, and provide a fair footing regardless of outcomes.

This is where organisations have an opportunity to lead differently. Not by offering the illusion of safety, but by demonstrating character.

If the future cannot be promised with certainty, then behaviour must be anchored in principle. 

Respect, staff well-being, and meaningful support during transitions are not sentimental ideals. They are practical responses to an unstable world.

Leaders today may not be able to guarantee security. But they can guarantee how decisions are made, how people are treated, and how much care is taken when paths diverge.

In the current climate, that commitment may matter more than stability ever did.

* Ts. Elman Mustafa El Bakri is CEO and Founder of HESA Healthcare Recruitment Agency and serves on the Industrial Advisory Panel for the Department of Biomedical Engineering, Universiti Malaya. He may be reached at elman.asia@gmail.com

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.