The organisation as a node within an ecosystem

This is not a new insight. For decades, sociologists and organisational scholars have demonstrated that economic activity is embedded within social structures. Trust, reputation and reciprocity determine whether collaboration endures. Organisations do not operate in isolation; they operate within an ecosystem in which relationships determine stability and continuity.

Open systems theory reinforces this perspective. Organisations are not separate from their environment; they are part of it. They continuously receive signals, expectations and pressures from their ecosystem and respond in turn. This process never stops. When we recognise organisations as relational systems, governance shifts in meaning. Trust is no longer a by-product of success but a precondition for it. Legitimacy is not a communications strategy but a condition of existence. Societal connectedness is not a moral add-on but a structural necessity.
Systemic risks spread through relationships

The World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2026 describes a world of interconnected risks. Economic instability, technological disruption, geopolitical tensions and social polarisation reinforce one another. What is often overlooked is how these risks travel. They spread through relationships. When trust declines, supply chains weaken. When societal support erodes, decisions are contested. When legitimacy is questioned, even well-considered strategies become fragile.

Research published in 2025 within the field of systemic risk governance confirms this dynamic. Systems characterised by higher levels of institutional trust and social cohesion are demonstrably better equipped to absorb interconnected risks. Transparency and procedural fairness function as stabilising forces. Where trust is low, risks escalate more rapidly. Relational quality is therefore not a soft factor. It is a systemic variable.

Governance that overlooks relational capital inevitably underestimates systemic vulnerability.

The paradox of openness and resilience

In many boardrooms, openness is perceived as vulnerability. Transparency about uncertainty appears to increase risk. Yet research on trust and organisational resilience suggests the opposite. Transparency about what we know and what we do not know increases stakeholders’ willingness to accept uncertainty. When people experience that information is not being withheld, their trust in leadership intent and integrity grows.

Opacity may create the illusion of control, but it undermines legitimacy. Openness can feel uncomfortable, yet it strengthens relational resilience. This is one of the central governance paradoxes of our time. Organisations that are honest about dilemmas and trade-offs build sustainable trust. Organisations that conceal uncertainty lose it when pressure intensifies.

Relational strength does not emerge from control. It emerges from credibility.

From stakeholder management to relational responsibility

In many organisations, we speak of stakeholder management. And rightly so. It is an established term in governance and strategy. It helps to map a complex ecosystem of actors and interests. However, when stakeholder management is treated primarily as part of ESG reporting or as a mandatory section of the annual report, its meaning narrows.

Relationships with stakeholders are indeed part of compliance and reporting, but they are not a separate function. They form the everyday reality of the organisation. Every day, at every level, interactions take place: conversations with customers, negotiations with suppliers, discussions with regulators, exchanges with employees, engagement within local communities. In each of these moments, the relationship with the ecosystem is either strengthened or weakened.

For that reason, stakeholder management should be understood as relational responsibility embedded throughout the organisation. Everyone is a co-owner of those relationships. Every interaction contributes to how the organisation is perceived. These relationships are not a static list of interests. Interests shift, context evolves and perspectives sometimes clash. Maintaining relationships is a living process of harmonisation, a continual effort to find a sustainable balance between perspectives. Not to keep everyone satisfied, but to ensure that decisions remain understandable and defensible.

When stakeholder management is understood in this way, it moves from obligation to core governance capability.

Governing in interdependence

A relational perspective confronts leaders with an uncomfortable truth. Organisations are interdependent with their ecosystem. Autonomy is relative. That interdependence may feel unsettling, yet it is both realistic and constructive. Interdependence implies connection. It means influence is mutual.

Governing within interdependence requires different qualities. Listening before directing. Acknowledging uncertainty without losing authority. Making trade-offs explicit rather than concealing them. It requires courage to admit that we do not know everything and to actively repair relationships when they are strained.

The governance of relationships is not about being agreeable. It is about being accountable within interdependence.

Diversity in leadership and relational capacity

In discussions about relational leadership, the question sometimes arises whether this orientation is more common among female leaders. Academic research offers nuance. Meta-analyses indicate that female leaders tend, on average, to display slightly higher levels of transformational and participative leadership behaviours, which are associated with higher perceptions of trust and inclusivity. At the same time, context and organisational culture appear to be at least as influential as gender.

Relational governance is therefore not a matter of gender. It is a matter of leadership development and institutional design. What is encouraging is that qualities such as connecting, listening and reflecting, once dismissed as soft, are increasingly recognised as strategic strengths in complex environments.

Relational capital as strategic capital

Research on organisational resilience shows that recovery capacity does not stem solely from flexibility or financial buffers but from the quality of relationships within and beyond the organisation. Organisations that are firmly embedded within their ecosystem are better able to absorb shocks and adapt.

Relational capital is strategic capital, even if it does not appear on the balance sheet. Relationships can be shaped deliberately. Trust can be built through consistent behaviour. Legitimacy can be earned through decisions that are transparent and explainable. This requires attention and discipline, but it is part of everyday governance.

The responsibility of the board

Relational responsibility cannot be delegated solely to operations. Boards must regularly ask themselves how visible and accessible they are within the ecosystem. Do they receive unfiltered signals or only curated summaries? Do they regard relationships as strategic capital and discuss them as systematically as financial performance?

If conversations about stakeholders occur only in the context of reporting or reputational risk, it is already too late. Relational dynamics belong explicitly on the agenda of strategy and risk management. This is not an additional topic. It is the essence of sound governance.

Questions that continue to matter

• Which relationships are truly critical to our continuity?
• Where might we have been substantively right, yet relationally lost ground?
• Which relationships within our ecosystem do we nurture consistently and deliberately, and which do we address only when pressure arises?

These questions open the door to a deeper conversation about how governance must evolve. In my next perspective, I will explore what this means when relational thinking is not merely acknowledged, but consciously designed into the organisation itself.

References

Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. Wiley. Teece, D. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350. Duchek, S. (2020). Organizational resilience: A capability-based conceptualization. Business Research, 13, 215–246. World Economic Forum. (2026). Global Risks Report 2026. WEF. Journal of Risk Research. (2025). Special issue on systemic risk governance and institutional trust. Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 569–591.