Coaching for Robustness

Santo Domingo, 2025

What if the priority were to strengthen short-term stability and long-term viability?

“A state of grace is that kind of balance with which you ride the chaos that you find around you. It’s not a matter of resolving the chaos, because there’s something arrogant and warlike about putting the world in order.” – Leonard Cohen, television interview, 1965

​We can easily observe that the dominant narrative within organizations remains largely structured around performance and optimization. Inherited from an imaginary of stability, competition, and energy abundance, this quest for permanent maximization shaped organizational priorities throughout the last century.

In a world now marked by complexity, instability, and the multiplication of environmental, social, and economic crises (Hamant, 2024a), this primacy of performance nevertheless appears to be reaching its limits.

Relentless techno-financial optimization, while promising short-term effectiveness, efficiency, and profitability, inevitably weakens systems by making them vulnerable to the unexpected (Hamant, 2025). It may now remain only a possible option (and even an economic opportunity) for the ultra-wealthy, still shielded from socio-economic disruptions by their extreme wealth (Hamant, 2025, p. 229).

At the same time, acceleration now leaves little room for duration, and thus for reflection, but also for mystery and waiting, the waiting that gives heart to human relationships. In this context that gives way to algorithmic sameness, an inner lack is becoming harder to ignore and is being expressed more openly in society, and consequently within organizations as well. Faced with anonymous “best practices” spread through all layers of management in the interest of order and alignment, leaders themselves now aspire to a form of leadership capable of creating connection and offering a space of presence, meaning, and inspiration.

Is it not presumptuous, and even illusory, to persist in trying to control everything? Would it not be more realistic to learn how to inhabit uncertainty rather than to deny it?

How, then, can contemporary organizations be lead successfully, while juggling desires for personal fulfillment and recognition, the thirst for social connection, and at the same time responding to the vital human need to make sense of things (Hamant, 2025, p. 118)?

“A few times a year, it is good to get rid of one’s usual baggage, partly to see whether it really deserves to be carried.” (Harrison, 2021, p. 228)

Learning from the living with Olivier Hamant

The observations Olivier Hamant draws from nature and biological systems nourish a fertile line of reflection, applicable to our society and our organizations. A French researcher in biology and biophysics, and also director of the Michel Serres Institute, he invites us to consider a narrative other than that of performance, the one that living systems appear to have chosen and adopted: robustness.

Living systems do not seek optimization or maximal efficiency. They are redundant, slow, inconsistent, and not very performant. The photosynthetic efficiency of plants, for example, is below 1% (Hamant, 2023). Yet it is precisely this apparent “underperformance” that allows them to survive, adapt, flourish, and endure.

Robustness, defined as the ability to remain stable in the short term and viable in the long term despite fluctuations, thus appears as a credible alternative to the cult of performance, particularly when the latter prioritizes yield at the expense of reliability and fuels a culture of competition leading to excessive forms of violence and their heavy consequences (division, hate, …).
Applied to organizations, this logic shifts our focus: it is no longer about aiming for permanent optimization, but for longevity. This implies preserving room for maneuver, accepting certain forms of “waste,” and investing in training, repair (after-sales service), and innovation, even when these choices come at the expense of immediate productivity (Hamant, 2025, p. 204).

Multigenerational family businesses seem to have internalized this logic. For them, “resisting time” is a central challenge: the long term implies a better consideration of fluctuations, and therefore of the robustness that necessarily accompanies them (Hamant, 2025, p. 108).

Robustness, innovation, and cooperation

Valuing robustness implies accepting and working with the key traits associated with it: redundancy, slowness, hesitation and inconsistency, as well as imprecision and imperfection. These characteristics make experimentation possible and give it momentum. By nature, experimentation has no predefined objective and lies at the heart of all genuine innovation. Innovation, necessarily uncertain and winding, requires detours, failures, and deviations; it therefore cannot emerge under an injunction to perform.

To prevent innovation from being reduced to the reproduction of barely modified versions of the existing, and for it to truly unfold while strengthening organizational robustness, it is necessary to rely on cooperation grounded in the confrontation of ideas. This requires accepting heterogeneity and contradiction within teams, the capacity to face conflict, and the refusal of premature consensus and superficial coherence.

The ability to welcome a certain degree of inconsistency, in turn, strengthens deeper cohesion and nurtures the diversity of solutions. This is how organizations can create a robust social dynamic over time, within the complex reality they now inhabit. What creates society is a movement toward cohesion, not coherence as a prerequisite, which, on the contrary, risks above all producing exclusion (Hamant, 2024a, pp. 196-197).

Driving meaningful change therefore requires leaders to dare to consider deviation and transgression (how far—that is the real question), whether at the level of products, services, processes, development, logistics and distribution, information and communication systems, administrative tasks and accounting, relationships with suppliers, work organization, decision-making processes, as well as human resources, marketing, after-sales service, and packaging…

Within this logic, fostering robustness within teams means, for example, explicitly recognizing and rewarding contributions, even when they consist in expressing and supporting dissenting viewpoints. Arguing disagreements can indeed improve collective thinking, open up new options, highlight overlooked risks, and allow the articulation of what no one else dared to say. In hindsight, such positions often contribute to higher-quality decisions.

Developing, through innovation, the robustness of an organization and the teams that bring it to life nevertheless requires admitting and embracing a non-negotiable principle: the cost of robustness translates into lower individual and short-term team performance (Hamant, 2025, pp. 119 and 224).

The Primacy of robustness over performance

This is not about denying the importance of performance, but about ceasing to make it an unquestionable absolute.

The issue of performance is constitutive of work organization, and a share of performance is necessarily at the heart of companies (Hamant, 2025, p. 107), whose purpose is to produce goods and services in the most rational way possible.

The real challenge lies in the hierarchy of decisions and in the ability to adjust priorities according to context: When a firefighter goes into a fire, the meaning of their action is to be as performant as possible. When they are not at the fire, the meaning of their action is to be prepared—which is much closer to robustness (Hamant, 2025, pp. 113 and 118).

In a delicate balance between performance, which by construction channels action, and robustness, which encourages exploration and experimentation, the task is indeed to build organizational projects based on an open vision, one capable of evolving and adapting in an interconnected and interdependent world, and therefore one that is more uncertain, unstable, and sensitive to contingencies (Hamant, 2025, pp. 116 and 231).

The world is no longer what it once was, and accepting this reality is key to finding our way. At the heart of contemporary societal reality, Geneva-based private bankers express this clearly in their communication campaign: ”We’ve grown stronger through 40 financial crises, not by standing still and waiting for them to pass, but by re-evaluating and rethinking the world around us. We’ve used imagination and innovation to create a different perspective on the world for our clients and ourselves. It’s this ability and desire to constantly rethink that brings stability. That is what makes us different.” (Lombard Odier, Swiss private bank founded in 1796, corporate website, retrieved December 21, 2025)

Coaching for Robustness

These considerations inspired by living systems impact and enrich our practice of organizational coaching. When integrated, they broaden the field of possibilities and enable us to better support actors within contemporary organizations as they find their place, set their direction, evolve successfully and sometimes grow.

It is no longer about denying, avoiding, or attempting at all costs to eliminate the inconsistencies or unforeseen events that leaders inevitably encounter within their organizations, but about facing them and capitalizing on this more or less controlled form of disorder in order to foster dynamic and adaptive stability.

In the fluctuating reality of the contemporary world, the task is to build and adapt a viable path on fluctuations (robustness), rather than around them, slaloming as best one can between risks and crises (agility). Rather than promoting resilience, which, in its common psychological sense, has too often become a form of consent to “fall” in order to “bounce back” responsibly (Hamant, 2025, pp. 72, 211, 230), our practice of organizational coaching seeks to explore and cultivate robustness by developing the capacity to maintain, adapt, and transform without collapsing (Hamant, 2023, p. 49).

Attentive to silent transformations (Jullien, 2009), those continuous changes unfolding before us without our immediately grasping their significance, our coaching practice encourages stepping aside, so that our clients can break free from harmful habits, “adjust the gesture,” and rediscover a taste for the world through attention to the discreet, as well as a sense of initiative in use (Jullien, 2025). For some, daring to consider the possibility of a path other than performance allows them to escape a spiral that was gradually carrying them into whirlwinds of ever more demanding objectives, with ever fewer resources, suffocated by incessant solicitations, when burnout has not already brutally halted their frantic race.

For some of our clients, the work carried out together sometimes leads as far as imagining a second life, not to remake one’s life, but to reclaim it from within, by requalifying the ordinary (Jullien, 2025), and thus better inhabiting the organizational reality they embody.

At times, depending on the situation, rather than imposing predefined objectives at the beginning of the coaching process, we choose to let the “true objective” reveal itself along the way, through our exchanges. Coaching then becomes a space of exploration, play, and transformation, where meaning gradually emerges through interaction.

The importance of play

Inspired by robustness, our coaching practice itself becomes more fluid and adaptable, capable of transforming rapidly according to the demands of the situation. Faced with the challenges our clients encounter in their organizational contexts, we must be able to embrace the diversity and inconstancy of meaning. We must be able, in turn, to focus attention on clarifying objectives, to recall action or the risk of acceleration, to reassure and then provoke, to offer a framework and sometimes also to introduce a measure of chaos, thus drawing closer to the rituals of childhood, which spontaneously knew how to play with imagination without concern for factual truth, daring to reconnect with lost innocence and its creative freedom.

Coaching work then begins with the exploration of what is present, of what emerges in the conversation, sometimes with “no baggage other than” the intention to foster curiosity and to explore and welcome the inspirations and images that spontaneously arise in the relationship.

Reconnecting with curiosity, openness, and complex sensing may be most needed in changing times, but they may too often be shunted aside by either overconfidence (when we feel we know most of what there is to know) or overcautiousness (when we fear curiosity will only deepen our uncertainties) (Weick, 1993).

Play is permitted and even encouraged: “We can think of play as the way we embrace fantasy, which we may think of not simply as a passing day-dream but as a deliberate mediation between our inner and outer worlds, belonging to neither and both.” (Barrett, 2026, p. 76). To play is to restore movement, loosening old constraints and chains of automatisms, allowing oneself to inhabit a living space where a transition can be imagined and catalyzed, in this border zone “between what we are and what we are not yet, moving fluidly between the two while remaining simultaneously in both.” (Barrett, 2026, p. 87).

The psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott suggested that play is above all a practical activity, oriented toward a concrete outcome, even if that outcome initially remains unknown. Whatever form this outcome takes, it will strengthen our capacity to act and make conscious choices in the world, as well as our confidence in the resources we possess to face life’s challenges (Barrett, 2026, pp. 76–77).
 
As organizational coaches, this is where we feel at home: in the in-between space where we accompany our clients, where reverie that supports play is valued, and where we remain alert at the boundary of dreaming. It is in play that clients explore, imagine, and create, in short, experience reality without getting lost in it. We show the way and, in a state of mental availability and concentration, combine ideas drawn from external reality with images arising from inner reality, investing them with meaning and affect, thereby making the connection between the self and the world without being overwhelmed by either or cut off from one or the other.
 
In our practice, we cannot simply tell our clients to be curious; we must dare to be curious ourselves, so that they can feel it is also possible for them to foster curiosity and lead innovation within their organization. For this reason, we cannot confine ourselves to a single process, a single method, or a fixed repertoire of techniques, because then we would no longer truly be able to play (Barrett, 2026, p. 87).

We welcome and follow the sometime non-linear narratives of our clients, face ambiguity, and confront with them the darkness hidden beneath the banality of everyday life. It is by daring to explore, sometimes even to cross certain boundaries, to assume certain roles, to dare to change them or abandon others, that we affirm to our clients that life unfolds beyond the borders of the rationally known, and that change, whatever it may be, involves confronting the unknown. And that it is possible to do it.

We must therefore be able to embody both a rational and a symbolic presence, enabling clients to reconnect with the symbolic within themselves when they turn too quickly toward objectives, and accompanying them back to reality when they become trapped in excessive reflection. In this way, they can find their own balance in the face of the inner transformations they undergo and those that redefine their role within the organization (Barrett, 2026, p. 87).

Gradually, and sometimes surreptitiously, it becomes genuinely possible for our clients to learn from their experiences, doubts, and desires, and they are often surprised to find themselves formulating better questions in the face of the concrete challenges of their organizational daily lives.

A stable framework for disruptive thinking

Organizational coaching thus offers a “space for thinking,” and more precisely a relationship in which lived experience, hopes, fears, desires, fantasies, and projects can be welcomed, where these elements can be connected to one another, regardless of the “work” objectives and results to be achieved.

In this space protected from external influence, a true relational and emotional experimental laboratory, a deeper understanding develops of the subtle factors, less visible, less conscious, that influence professional growth and development.

When it finds its place in executives’ agendas, organizational coaching functions as a structuring routine that, by providing a stable base founded on the predictability of sessions, allows the mind to wander beyond preconceived ideas and explore new perspectives, thus fostering the emergence of new options. The assurance of continuity between sessions makes silence possible; there is no need to rush what is not yet ready to be addressed, and it allows what had remained unresolved to prepare itself between sessions.

Within the coaching relationship, transformation sometimes begins by revisiting one’s history and reinterpreting one’s path. Our clients, drawn into the process and animated by curiosity, gradually bring forth a new narrative by linking past choices to present aspirations, revealing recurring patterns, unsuspected strengths, and acknowledged vulnerabilities (Legrand, 2002).

The regular framework of coaching becomes a space-time container, ideally held on the same day and at the same time, in which one can explore the inner and outer dimensions shaping a professional situation and period. Within this container, it becomes possible to examine and safely train how one embodies one’s professional role not only more effectively, but also more serenely and, perhaps above all, more robustly, in order to navigate uncertainty with greater emotional clarity.

Power or potency

In the world of performance, the leader acts in the service of power. They command, control, forecast, and optimize. Constantly seeking coherence and maximal efficiency, power imposes a will, centralizes decisions, and tends to rigidify structures and processes, which facilitates the prediction of outcomes but has the consequence of weakening the system in the face of the unexpected and of crises. Power therefore functions well in stable, predictable environments that are little inclined toward change.

In the world of robustness, leadership becomes above all linked to facilitation, in the service of potency, understood as a relational and collective capacity to act in the face of constraints, unforeseen events, and inevitable crises, by relying on the long term and on the room for maneuver offered by diversity and redundancy (Hamant, 2025, p. 234). This approach, which prioritizes adaptation in an unstable world, comes at the cost of lower performance, some “waste,” and apparent slowness.

Our coaching practice brings this dilemma to light and supports leaders in this structuring choice: to master the world through the pursuit of power and performance optimization, or to cultivate potency in order to inhabit, as well as possible and over time, an uncertain world?

While intensity and focus allow for the maximization of short-term performance, sustainable excellence seems instead to arise from exploration and experimentation, at the cost of slower progress, but with more solid learning. It’s interesting to note that a recent study published in Science shows that while early specialization provides an initial advantage among elite “performers,” this advantage seems to fade over time, whereas multidisciplinary trajectories foster a fuller expression of potential over the long term. The analysis covers diverse paths, ranging from Olympic gold medalists to elite chess players and Nobel Prize laureates (Güllich et al., 2025).

Conclusion

According to a recent article published in the leadership section of the IMD website, Stéphane Girod, Professor of Strategy and Organizational Innovation, shares the perspectives of luxury industry leaders he interviewed. The main conclusion is reflected in the title of his article: “In 2026, what matters to luxury brands is not what will happen, it’s how they adapt” (Girod, 2025). Girod also underlines that, in his view, firms that embrace new leadership styles favoring excellence over perfection will prevail.

Through this text, we have sought to show that robustness, as defined by Olivier Hamant, can provide a meaningful compass and beneficial leverage to succeed in this endeavor, not only in the luxury industry but across industries, and not only in 2026 but well beyond.

Except in certain situations where short-term results are essential, true performance may in fact lie in long-term excellence, made possible and sustained in practice by robustness.
By now, you may no longer solely aspire for your organization to survive and thrive in the long term, but to consciously act to become a multigenerational business, making robustness increasingly important.

Be that as it may, organizational coaching for robustness offers a renewed perspective on governance and leadership. For executive leaders as well as non-executive directors, it provides a structured space for reflection, learning, and adjustment.

For executive leaders, it offers genuine “executive training,” fostering the continuous improvement of the quality of their interventions and strengthening their organizational impact. By restoring the importance of relationship and exploration, coaching for robustness helps create organizations capable of flourishing over time, not through illusory control (which too often leads to exhaustion), but through the quality of their interactions.
​
For non-executive directors, guardians of independence, oversight, and decision quality, coaching for robustness offers a privileged space to refine attention and broaden frameworks for reflection and analysis. It supports independent supervision and impartial critique of executive action, while encouraging creative and meaningful contributions to the development of strategy.


References

Barrett, L. (2026). Coaching the Unconscious: A Jungian Approach to Working with Symbol. London: Routledge.

Benameur, J. (2011). Les insurrections singulières. Arles : Actes Sud.

Girod, S. (2025, December 23). In 2026, what matters to luxury brands is not what will happen, it’s how they adapt. IMD. Retrieved from Luxury Trends 2026 - Creating Relevance - I by IMD

Güllich, A., Barth, M., Hambrick, D. Z., & Macnamara, B. N. (2025). Recent discoveries on the acquisition of the highest levels of human performance. Science, 390(6779), eadt7790. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adt7790

Hamant, O., Charbonnier, O. & Enlart, S. (2025). L’Entreprise robuste : Pour une alternative à la performance. Paris : Odile Jacob.

Hamant, O. (2024a). De l’incohérence : Philosophie politique de la robustesse. Paris : Odile Jacob.

Hamant, O. (2024b). Is incoherence required for sustainability? The Anthropocene Review, 12(1), 129-139.

Hamant, O. (2024c). Grandir sans s’agrandir. Médor, (34), printemps 2024. Disponible sur : https://medor.coop/magazines/medor-n34-printemps-2024/grandir-sans-sagrandir-hamant-robustesse-biologie-vivant-fluctuations-lenteur-incoherence-redondance/

Harrison, J. (2021). La recherche de l’authentique. Paris : Flammarion.

Jullien, F. (2025). L'efficacité des transformations silencieuses (Entretien avec Jean-Philippe Denis, 16 décembre 2025). Retrieved from : https://shs.cairn.info/l-efficacite-des-transformations-silencieuses?lang=fr

Jullien, F. (2009). Les transformations silencieuses. Paris : Grasset.
​
Legrand, M. (2002). Entre récit de vie et thérapie. In G. de Villers & C. Niewiadomski (Eds.), Souci et soin de soi. Liens et frontières entre histoires de vie, psychothérapie et psychanalyse (pp. 105-132). Paris : L’Harmattan.

Weick, K. E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(4), 628–652.