Leadership, culture, and AI intersect precisely at the point where the inner world meets the outer world. In this theme, we explore leadership as a psychodynamic as well as a digital issue: not only what a leader does, but also the unconscious dynamics at play in relationships, power, and loyalty—and in the ways we collaborate with AI systems.

From a psychodynamic perspective, we look at the undercurrents: fear of losing control, hunger for recognition, rivalry, and hidden loyalties. These dynamics surface in meetings, decision-making, and email exchanges—but also in the place AI is given. Technology quickly becomes a carrier of desire and anxiety: AI as savior (“it knows better”), as scapegoat (“the system decides”), or as weapon (“we have the best data”). In this way, AI becomes part of both the social and the psychic system.

This means that data and AI choices are never neutral. Which data we collect, which models we trust, and who gains access to which insights are choices about power, meaning, and value. This calls for leaders who go beyond simply wanting to be “data-driven,” and who can read what data and AI do at a relational-dynamic level: who is heard, who fades from view, which patterns we reinforce, and which voices fall silent.

Leadership (and culture) in a HUMAN–AI context is therefore not a question of implementation or skills, but of transformation from within. Leaders and teams learn to recognize patterns, tolerate tension, and make explicit how humanity, responsibility, and technology relate to one another. In this process, AI becomes both a mirror and a conversation starter: what does this system reveal about our assumptions, blind spots, and power structures? Leadership in the age of AI thus becomes, above all, the courage to face the undercurrents—in people as well as in systems—and from there to set a mature and humane course.

Intervention in Leadership

DBVP starts from the conviction that leadership development is not a training issue, but a matter of transformation from within. Not “how do leaders become more skilled?”, but “how do they develop the capacity to lead themselves, the system, and AI in a mature way?”

We work with three interlocking lenses. From a psychodynamic perspective, we look beyond behavior to underlying drives, fears, loyalties, and defense mechanisms. What makes someone tip into control, avoid conflict, or rescue instead of set boundaries? We take transference and countertransference seriously: how do old scripts repeat themselves in relationships with colleagues, employees, and stakeholders—and in the way people work with us. Tension is not noise, but information: it signals something that cannot yet be held or spoken.

From a systemic perspective, we connect personal development to the broader playing field. Position, mandate, role clarity, and formal and informal power determine what is actually possible. That is why we always work from the question: what does the task and the whole of your role require? We move simultaneously across multiple levels—individual, team, leadership group, and governance—so that development does not remain private, but becomes visible in decision-making, collaboration, and culture.

We explicitly include HUMAN–AI as a socio-technical reality. Leaders operate in a field in which dashboards, data, and algorithms partly determine what is visible and what appears “logical.” We examine which assumptions are embedded in the systems you rely on, when AI is support and when it becomes a shield, and how your moral compass remains leading when technology suggests otherwise. AI thus becomes both a work tool and a developmental mirror.

How we intervene is consistent: we start from the strategic task — what do you actually need to lead? We work with real cases where tension is tangible, not with abstract models. We design trajectories in which leadership, organisational development, and AI come together, and create a learning climate that is warm enough for honesty and solid enough for real shift. Ownership remains with the leader: we are mirror, guide, and challenger — not the hero of the story. In this way, leadership development becomes not a series of trainings, but a continuous movement of inner and systemic shift, visible in choices, culture, and engagement with technology.

Methodological considerations

At DBVP, we approach leadership development as working on yourself in the work: right in the midst of responsibility, tension, and technological change. Methodically, we start from the strategic task and connect it to transformation from the inside out: behaviour changes sustainably when inner world, role, context, and organisational logic move together. We treat leadership as a relational phenomenon — expectations, projections, and organisational history are always part of it — and therefore integrate the personal, interpersonal, and systemic levels. We do not treat AI as an “additional theme,” but as a factor that co-shapes visibility, decision-making, and moral considerations, and thus directly challenges leadership.

Typical methods and techniques

We begin with a deep exploration and clear contracting. In preliminary conversations, we explore role, biography, loyalties, and the current task, and formulate a personal development task that is directly linked to the strategic agenda. This creates focus: this is not about “becoming better,” but about mature leadership precisely where it is challenging.

We then work with living cases. Leaders bring in situations where there is friction — conflict, intervention, reorganisation decisions, AI-driven assessments — and we slow down around decisive moments: what happened internally, relationally, systemically, and in the data? From psychodynamic and systemic hypotheses, we open up alternative courses of action that are sound both humanly and governance-wise.

Where appropriate, we use group programmes as a practice field. In leadership labs, the group itself becomes the material: compliance, struggle, coalitions, and silences become visible and discussable. We practise tension-filled conversations, setting boundaries, speaking up, and moral decision-making — sometimes deliberately using AI outputs as a “third voice” to learn to distinguish: what is data, what is judgement, what is responsibility?

We explicitly attend to parallel processes and role reflection. Patterns from the organisation often reappear in the leadership collective and in the relationship with DBVP; it is precisely there that the learning material lies. Through role consultation, we shift from “who are you?” to “what does this role, in this system, ask of you — and what does that require in terms of presence, courage, and boundaries?”

In addition, we carry out HUMAN–AI–specific interventions, always linked to real choices. Leaders analyse their own use of AI: where it is support, where it becomes a shield, where it serves as an excuse. We examine cases in which AI co-determines a decision and make explicit the moral and political dimensions: who wins, who loses, what becomes invisible — and who ultimately carries the decision?

Finally, where possible, we work in the moment. Through shadowing, live observation of critical meetings, and short debriefs, we bring learning back to the place where it needs to land. We prefer short, powerful learning loops in real work over large “transformations” at a distance.

Throughout, the principle holds: DBVP brings sharpness, language, and a holding environment; leaders bring themselves, their questions, and their courage. Leadership development thus becomes an ongoing process of maturation — visible in choices, culture, and in the way you work with AI.