Leading in the social economy: solitude, decision-making, and clarity
Leading a public interest organization is often presented as a collective adventure, driven by values, alliances, and a shared vision. The reality, however, is more stark. As time goes on, leadership becomes a lonely place, not by choice, but by responsibility. As 2025 draws to a close, the time has come to name what many remain silent about.
The article in brief
- Leading in the social and solidarity economy often involves moving forward with a degree of solitude: values do not prevent power relations or unspoken issues—hence the importance of remaining clear-headed.
- When the group avoids making a decision, management must step in: making a decision, even if it is uncomfortable, protects teams and the project more effectively than indecision or vague consensus.
- Saying no and choosing your alliances means preserving integrity: refusing poorly aligned partnerships means sticking to ethical principles and ensuring sustainable action.
Lead without naivety
For a long time, I believed that commitment provided protection. That the validity of a project, its social utility, and its ethical consistency were enough to create a healthy environment. Experience has taught me the opposite: the public interest does not immunize against power relations or avoidance strategies.
Leading without naivety does not mean abandoning values. It means understanding that these values must be defended, framed, and sometimes even protected against those who claim to uphold them without ever embodying them. The social economy is not immune to institutional logic; sometimes it concentrates it.
Commitment, however sincere, does not immunize against certain forms of systemic tension. These tensions rarely manifest themselves openly. They settle into the cracks: prolonged silences, shifting decisions, judgments rendered without any real space for dialogue, adjustments presented as technical but fraught with consequences.
Over time, I have come to understand that investment and loyalty are not always enough to guarantee recognition or protection. This experience has nevertheless revealed a fundamental requirement: lucidity. Pretending that these mechanisms do not exist is to give them free rein. Identifying them, without overplaying or denying them, already makes it possible to limit their effects and regain some control.
Deciding when no one wants to take responsibility
Leading means making decisions. Even when the decision is uncomfortable, unpopular, or isolating. I have learned that some decisions are never made collectively, even in structures that claim to be horizontal. They are simply deferred, diluted, put off until later... until there is no other choice but to take responsibility alone.
Making a decision when no one else is willing to take responsibility is not an abuse of authority. It is an act of responsibility. Failure to make a decision is also a decision, and often the most costly one for teams, partners, and beneficiaries...
Ethical leadership or consensus leadership
The social economy values consensus. And rightly so. But consensus can become a refuge, an excuse, a way of avoiding reality. I have learned to distinguish between ethical leadership and consensual leadership.
The first aims for accuracy, even at the cost of disagreement. The second seeks consensus, sometimes at the expense of meaning. Over time, I have made my choice. It is better to have a clear, explained, and accepted decision than a vague agreement that weakens everyone.
Ethics is not comfortable. It is demanding.
Choosing alliances in the social and solidarity economy: cooperating without losing sight of your own interests
Choosing your alliances: a responsibility, not a sacrifice
In the social economy, there is strong pressure to cooperate. This can become an injunction: cooperate at all costs, even when values, methods, or intentions diverge. However, experience has shown me that poorly aligned partnerships and collaborations cost a lot in terms of energy, time, credibility, and sometimes mental health. The price is not always immediate, but it is always real.
Why I learned to say no
Saying no has been one of the most difficult and formative lessons I have learned. No to unbalanced partnerships. No to contradictory demands. No to measures that distort the project under the guise of opportunity.
Saying no does not mean closing doors. It means protecting. Protecting meaning, teams, and sometimes oneself. In the social economy, saying no is often perceived as a break. In reality, it is a condition for longevity.
Conclusion: striking a balance between solitude, decision-making, and fairness
Leading in the social economy does not mean being flawless. It means being responsible. It means accepting solitude as a space for discernment, decision-making as an act with impact, and lucidity as a form of loyalty to the project.
Like MAÂT, it is not a question of seeking perfect balance, but rather fairness. And continuing, despite everything, to stay the course.
To those who read, act, sometimes doubt but continue to move forward, I wish you a year guided by fairness, discernment, and courage.
