The question about how individuals bridge between opposing forces within a system to help groups coalesce around shared goals is as old as mankind. Throughout history, humanity is a story of how both individuals and groups have organized themselves to solve problems, achieve common goals, and survive in a complex world (Sachs, 2012; Laloux, 2014). Thereby leadership has evolved alongside human societies reflecting the distribution of power, which itself has always evolved by technological, economic, and subsequent cultural changes and needs (Sachs, 2012; Laloux, 2014). The first concepts of leadership emerged naturally from small, task-oriented hunter-groups where leaders were often the most skilled, physically strongest or most knowledgeable individuals (Laloux, 2014). With the rise of agriculture and permanent settlements, leadership became formalized and societies developed hierarchies, with leadership roles often passed down through families (hereditary monarchies) or more democratic (ancient Greece), whereby the latter was reinforced in the renaissance (Russell, 2004). With the following industrial revolution, managing factories, workers, and growing urban populations was achieved by bureaucracy and rational-legal authority (Russell, 2004).

In the 2^nd half of the past century, the concentration camp survivor and psychiatrist Viktor Frankl developed the psychotherapeutic theory of “logotherapy,” i.e., an individual’s (mindful) search for personal meaning (Frankl, 1985). At the end of the last century, Daniel Goleman’s milestone article on emotional intelligence (Michel and Neuman, 2010) paved the way for systematically integrating mindfulness into leadership practice and to thereby embodying the experience of interdependent relationships and relational growth beyond the “ego” in professional environments, demonstrated in practice by leaders such as Mandela (2008). This understanding of leadership allowed for an ever increasing focus on purpose, vision and empowering others rather than controlling them (Smith, 2009). While contemporary leadership studies build on this historical trajectory with theories such as authentic, adaptive, transformational, and servant leadership, philosophical traditions highlight humanity’s enduring search for meaning and connection.

We present a conceptual synthesis that integrates insights from psychology, philosophy, and leadership practice toward a theoretically grounded and actionable framework for leadership practitioners. The originality of our argument will not lie in surveying them all, but in integrating three core strands: developmental psychology (Maslow, 2013; Jung, 2014), integral theory (Wilber, 1997) and secure base leadership (Kohlrieser et al., 2012). Together, they provide a coherent framework for linking personal growth with leadership behaviors across stages of personal development. While our synthesis’ validity rests on the coherence of arguments and the bridging of existing theories with practitioner-oriented frameworks, it develops the integrative model “secure base leadership” across different stages of personal development. Therefore, rather than to provide primary data, our intention is to offer a coherent synthesis that stimulates further empirical inquiry.

Studying expert organizations, Laura Empson coined the term “insecure overachievers” to describe typical leaders, especially in expert organizations (Empson, 2017). Empson’s concept highlights how individuals who excel in managing knowledge and executing tasks, or simply “doing” and “knowing” are sustaining productivity and their careers with socially accepted behavior. From a psychotherapeutic perspective (Freud, 1989), these individual experts disconnect from the authentic self to fight the, socially allegedly unacceptable, personal insecurity by individually chasing measurable achievements and external validation based on the organization’s need with relentless dedication. While the easily quantifiable values “doing” and “knowing” are widespread in organizations globally, such focus on tangible behavior (“doing”) and intellectual mastery (“knowing”) can drive burnout and can hinder personal growth and resilience and building genuine, trust-based relationships, or simply put, “being” and “connecting.” This transformation is crucial for fostering more sustainable leadership and requires continuous personal development of one’s identity. Interestingly, different contemporary leadership theories offer verb-based concepts: Theory U for example takes individuals (and organizations) through a U-shaped journey of letting go, presencing, and bringing forth new realities (Scharmer, 2016). Scharmer frames this with verbs to emphasize lived processes rather than fixed states: “Knowing” as embodied awareness beyond habitual thinking, “connecting” as empathetic relationship with others and the larger whole, “being” as presencing and alignment with deeper purpose, and “creating” as crystallizing and prototyping emerging futures (Scharmer, 2016). Similarly, Peter Senge’s model of a learning organization highlights the interplay of verbs: “being/knowing” through personal mastery, and “connecting/doing” through a shared vision and team learning (Senge, 1996). In the same spirit, the United Nation’s (UN) Inner Development Goals initiative frames leadership as cultivating inner capacities, balancing “knowing,” “connecting,” “being,” and “creating” to support achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (Ankrah et al., 2023). Together, these frameworks underscore a shift in leadership thinking from static traits toward dynamic, verb-based capacities that enable transformation in complex environments.

Authentic leadership (George, 2003), with roots in positive psychology (Avolio and Gardner, 2005) emphasizes self-awareness, values, and integrity, aligning closely with the “being” dimension of leadership (George, 2003; Avolio and Gardner, 2005). Adaptive leadership stresses mobilizing people to address complex challenges by shifting perspectives and learning, resonating with “knowing” and “connecting.” (Heifetz, 1994; Linsky and Heifetz, 2002) Transformational leadership inspires followers to transcend self-interest through vision and purpose, reflecting the “connecting” and “being” dimensions (MacGregor, 1978; Bass and Riggio, 2006). Servant leadership highlights prioritizing the growth and well-being of others, echoing the “caring” side of secure base leadership (Greenleaf, 1998). Goleman’s six emotional-intelligence based styles - coercive, authoritative, affiliative, democratic, pacesetting, and coaching - provide practical manifestations of how leaders can flexibly balance “caring” and “daring” in context (Goleman, 2017).

Situated in relation to established leadership theories, secure base leadership (Kohlrieser et al., 2012) can be captured with the words “caring” and “daring.” By embedding secure base leadership within this landscape of leadership theories, we can see it as both complementary to, and distinct from, existing models: it uniquely integrates the care-dare balance with psychology and links leadership behaviors to personal growth. Addressing this embodiment of leadership-related “being” to resolve the paradoxical tension between individual and organizational needs, the concept of secure base leadership is a powerful exploration of how leaders can inspire exceptional performance by being both caring and challenging (Kohlrieser et al., 2012). The concept blends the intertwined combination of emotional support (“caring”) with the courage to push individuals and teams beyond their comfort zones (“daring”) to enable expansion of human potential. The term secure base originates from attachment theory, first developed by British psychologist John Bowlby in the mid-20th century. Bowlby used the term to describe the role of a caregiver - typically a parent - who provides a reliable foundation of safety and support from which a child can explore the world. The idea was later expanded by developmental psychologist Mary Ainsworth, whose research demonstrated that children with a secure attachment were more confident in exploring their environment, knowing they could return to a trusted figure for comfort and reassurance (Ainsworth, 1979). A secure base provides a sense of safety and trust, enabling individuals to take risks and grow. By creating such a secure environment and additionally daring others to excel, leaders can cultivate high-performing, resilient individuals, teams and organizations (Figure 1A) (Kohlrieser et al., 2012).

Secure base leadership requires a dynamic and proactive management of “caring” and “daring” over time: when organizational values or goals are at risk, a secure-base leader reinforces means of daring. Contrary, when individuals or teams struggle for any given reason, reinforcement of caring must become a leader’s integral duty. If, however, these forces are inappropriately balanced over a longer period, leadership may become, in Bowlby caregiver logic, unfruitful patriarchic domination or mothering pleasing (Figure 1B).

Personal development is the key subject of Western 20th century psychological theories. In brief: Freud’s theory focuses on resolving unconscious conflicts at the dualistic Ego stage through practices such as dream analysis (Freud, 1989). Maslow emphasizes the importance of social connection and purpose, aiding growth from the dualistic Ego to transpersonal awareness stages for personal development (Maslow, 2013; Maslow, 1987). Jung’s individuation process supports integration of the shadow and archetypes for authentic self-development (Jung, 2014; Jung and Beebe, 2016).

Personal development is also the key subject of Eastern wisdoms. To put it simply, Hindu wisdom advocates self-inquiry (Atma Vichara) and realizing the unity of the individual and universal self (nonduality) (Easwaran, 2007). Buddhist teachings emphasize mindfulness, impermanence, and non-self to dismantle egoic attachments and achieve enlightenment (Hanh, 2013; Kornfield, 2008; Qing, 2017).

Together, these Western and Eastern perspectives provide complementary frameworks for psychological and spiritual growth across different stages of consciousness.

The developmental trajectory of leadership understanding can be intriguingly mirrored through a biological lens. In 1860, biologist Ernst Haeckel proposed the “recapitulation theory,” famously summarized as ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny—the idea that an individual organism’s development reflects the evolutionary stages of its species (Gould et al., 1977). While modern biology has moved beyond the strict literal interpretation of this theory, the metaphor remains powerful: just as embryos pass through stages resembling ancestral forms, leaders often develop through stages that mirror the historical evolution of leadership itself. From primal, survival-based dominance hierarchies to relational, visionary, and purpose-driven leadership, each stage encapsulates the shifting paradigms of human organization. This analogy underscores the value of understanding leadership not as a fixed set of traits, but as an evolving process shaped by both individual growth and cultural context.

In his influential “Integral theory,” the American philosopher and writer Ken Wilber created a comprehensive framework that tries to integrate science, psychology, spirituality, and philosophy into a unified understanding of human experience and development (Wilber, 1997). Wilber tries to map all dimensions into one big picture. In his book “No Boundary” he synthesized an integral framework of the various psychological theories, spiritual traditions, and philosophical perspectives into a unified model of human development and consciousness (Wilber, 2001). According to Wilber, human consciousness exists on a spectrum, ranging from fragmented ego-based awareness to nondual unity consciousness and human suffering and conflict arise from artificial boundaries we create between dualities such as self and others, mind and body, and numerous others (Wilber, 2001). By dissolving these boundaries, individuals can progress toward a unified, holistic sense of being Table 1 provides examples to integrate the contributions of Western psychology (e.g., Freud, 1989; Maslow, 1987; Jung, 2014) and Eastern traditions [Hinduism (Easwaran, 2007), Buddhism (Hanh, 2013; Kornfield, 2008; Qing, 2017; Soeng, 2010)] for personal growth and self-realization.

Wilber identifies key stages of psychological and spiritual development, each representing a greater integration of self and a dissolution of perceived separations (Wilber, 2001). Key practices across all stages include self-reflection in the form of journaling, introspection, and questioning one’s beliefs, mindfulness in action to bringing awareness to everyday activities, meditation as a foundation for transcending boundaries at every stage, and compassion to develop empathy for oneself and others.

These practices connect directly with secure base leadership: self-reflection and mindfulness underpin conscious choice, enabling leaders to act intentionally rather than reactively; meditation and the dissolution of ego-derived boundaries provide the inner stability necessary for constructive challenge, allowing leaders to stretch others beyond their comfort zones without inducing fear; and compassion aligns with courageous communication, fostering openness, empathy, and dialogue even in high-stakes contexts. This integration echoes Sri Aurobindo’s Integral Yoga (Aurobindo and Ghose, 1993) and its emphasis on uniting the physical, vital, mental, and spiritual dimensions of human development, which later inspired Wilber’s levels of consciousness (Wilber, 1997). In this way, secure base leadership resonates with both Western developmental psychology and Eastern wisdom traditions, offering a unifying pathway for leaders to embody care and challenge across stages of human growth (Easwaran, 2007; Hanh, 2013; Kornfield, 2008; Qing, 2017; Soeng, 2010; Maharshi, 2015; Easwaran, 2011).

This integration of Wilber’s developmental stages with leadership approaches underscores the originality of secure base leadership. While authentic, adaptive, transformational, and servant leadership each highlight vital facets of effective leadership, they can be reframed as applied expressions of developmental stages: authentic leadership emerges as leaders move beyond persona-level masks, adaptive leadership reflects ego-level flexibility and learning, transformational leadership resonates with the all-organism stage of shared purpose, and servant leadership embodies the all-unity stage through self-transcendence and service. By explicitly positioning secure base leadership within this developmental spectrum, the actionable framework provides conceptual coherence: it shows how leaders can move between caring and daring behaviors in alignment with their own developmental trajectory and the needs of those they lead. Figure 2 illustrates this synthesis by mapping secure base leadership across Wilber’s stages through the verbs “doing, knowing, being and connecting.” Here our originality lies in linking Wilber’s integrative stages with the care–dare dynamic of secure base leadership. Whereas Wilber maps consciousness, secure base leadership provides the actionable bridge into organizational practice. Developmental psychology grounds this synthesis empirically.

To illustrate how secure base leadership works in practice, consider the case of ALPIQ, a leading Swiss energy services provider, which is applying secure base leadership principles to its ongoing cultural transformation. Following an intense leadership experience for the Top 40 in December 2022, the company has embarked on a series of activities, processes and trainings all designed to co-create the conditions where the potential of both people and the organization can be unleashed. More than 30 executives from across all levels of the organization have been trained as “Coaching Ambassadors” in secure base leadership whilst still retaining their ‘daily’ roles. This approach has been taken to embed the theory into daily practice, adapted for the culture, context and readiness stage of specific groups.

This organizational vignette as an illustrative example concretizes our conceptual synthesis by showing how the abstract framework of secure base leadership may translate into leadership action. Like many other organizations working with secure base leadership, the challenge lies in the ‘and’ of both caring and daring. Like many other organizations working with secure base leadership, the challenge lies in the ‘and’ of both caring and daring (ALPIQ, 2025). In the words of ALPIQ CEO, Antje Kanngiesser, “We firmly believe that our company culture is our competitive advantage. To this matter, we align all our actions with our company’s purpose and values. In our complex environment, we consider value-based leadership essential. By both ‘caring’ and ‘daring’, we nurture an environment ripe for perpetual learning and growing and forge secure bases for constructive dialogue and daring decisions” (ALPIQ, 2025).

While cultures shaped mankind’s understanding of psychology and psychological development of individuals the debate about right leadership (Sachs, 2012; Laloux, 2014), both personal and cultural development do not imply that deeper rooted behavior is obsolete in modern leadership. Likely in any context, there are circumstances when acting from a leadership approach tied to earlier stages of individual or organizational development may be appropriate or more effective than relying mainly, e.g., on embodied being, especially when cultural maturity is lacking: In times of crisis or high-stakes scenarios, swift and authoritative decision-making is often essential. Ego-based instincts, which prioritize clear hierarchy and strong leadership, can bring order and direction during chaos. For example, a leader may need to take decisive action to ensure the safety of a team during a sudden organizational or external emergency (Laloux, 2014). New or unstable teams often require a foundational level of trust and cohesion before transitioning to a higher level of development. In such cases, fostering a sense of belonging, loyalty, and shared purpose hallmarks of tribal instincts, can help establish a stable base. For instance, a leader might initially rely on clear authority (knowing and doing) to align a team before moving toward distributed decision-making (Laloux, 2014).