The collapsed pyramid: When authority leads without legitimacy – Part 1

A title gives a leader authority. It does not, by itself, give that leader legitimacy

Authority can require people to attend a meeting, complete a report or follow an instruction. Legitimacy is what persuades them that the meeting matters, the report is worth producing and the instruction deserves their commitment. The difference between the two is becoming one of the defining organisational challenges of our time.

Two important ideas now collide. The first is Elagamy’s “collapsed pyramid”: an organisation in which authority and reward accumulate at the top while responsibility, sacrifice and blame are displaced downwards (Elagamy, 2026).

The second is the emerging “obelisk” model described in 21st Century’s strategic structure review: artificial intelligence removes much of the broad junior base of professional work, leaving smaller teams of client leaders, engagement architects and AI facilitators (21st Century, 2026).

Read: Humane leadership and the bottom line: Myth or measurable impact?

One pyramid is collapsing because its moral and governance foundations have weakened. The other is being dismantled because its traditional economics no longer hold.

Unless leaders understand the distinction, they may use AI to solve the economic problem while making the legitimacy problem considerably worse.

The legitimacy deficit

Organisational legitimacy is the collective judgement that an institution’s actions are appropriate, credible and consistent with accepted norms (Suchman, 1995). Leadership legitimacy is the related belief that those exercising power have earned the right to do so.

ADVERTISEMENT

CONTINUE READING BELOW

Employees do not require every outcome to favour them. They do, however, examine whether decisions are made fairly, whether explanations are truthful and whether powerful people are subject to the same rules.

Decades of organisational justice research show that distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational fairness influence trust, commitment, performance and withdrawal behaviour (Colquitt et al., 2001).

Fair processes also strengthen identification and voluntary cooperation because they communicate that people are respected members of the organisation (Tyler and Blader, 2003).

This is why leadership legitimacy is not a ‘soft’ issue. It is an operating asset.

Read:
CEO succession in Southern Africa: Evidence, practice and implications
Reflections of a CEO: The chair is not the person

A legitimate leader can ask people to navigate a difficult restructuring because employees believe the burden is necessary, fairly allocated and honestly explained. An illegitimate leader may announce the same restructuring, using the same slides and numbers, yet trigger cynicism, resistance and talent loss.

Charisma may attract attention, but procedural fairness is a more durable basis for cooperation (De Cremer and Van Knippenberg, 2002).

The collapsed pyramid destroys this legitimacy. When executives retain bonuses while junior roles disappear, demand office attendance while exempting themselves, or claim accountability while blaming the level below, the organisation’s stated values become corporate wallpaper.

The message is not what appears in the values statement. The message is who carries the consequences.

Gen Z is a stress test, not the cause

ADVERTISEMENT:

CONTINUE READING BELOW

It is tempting to blame the legitimacy problem on Generation Z. They are sometimes described as impatient, disloyal, entitled and unwilling to “pay their dues”. That explanation is convenient because it locates the problem in the employee rather than the institution.

It is also academically questionable. Research warns that popular generational categories frequently confuse age, career stage, historical period and genuine cohort effects (Rudolph et al., 2021).

Some time-lag evidence does suggest that younger cohorts have placed greater emphasis on leisure and work-life balance and less emphasis on work centrality than earlier cohorts (Twenge et al., 2010). However, Gen Z is not a single global personality type.

Read:
Unlocking the Potential of Generation Z in the Workplace
Top 15 global trends reshaping work and society in 2026

What is distinctive is the environment in which this cohort enters work. Many have grown up with immediate access to information, visible salary comparisons, public reviews of employers, fragile economic security and technology that can challenge an expert’s answer in seconds.

They may not reject authority; they are more likely to question authority that cannot explain or justify itself.

This matters because the traditional employment bargain is weakening. The old proposition was straightforward: accept hierarchy, perform the junior work, earn promotion and eventually receive greater autonomy and reward.

The emerging obelisk removes much of the work through which that bargain traditionally began. If AI performs the research, drafting, modelling and administration previously allocated to young employees, what exactly are they joining the organisation to learn?

If the junior layer is reduced, where will the next engagement architect, technical specialist or trusted advisor come from?

Gen Z will notice this contradiction quickly. Organisations cannot credibly promise development while automating every developmental task.

ADVERTISEMENT:

CONTINUE READING BELOW

Nor can they demand loyalty while treating early-career employees as the most disposable part of the cost structure. Perceived breaches of the employment relationship create feelings of betrayal and withdrawal even where no formal contract has been broken (Morrison and Robinson, 1997).

Read: Top 15 global trends reshaping work and society in 2026 – Part 2

The structural shift is already under way

The economic case for a leaner, AI-enabled professional firm is compelling. Productivity gains are real. Judgement is becoming more valuable than headcount. Competence matters more than proximity to power.

Yet the legitimacy foundations of the old pyramid are already cracking. If leaders treat the move to the obelisk purely as a cost and efficiency exercise, they risk replacing one broken structure with a taller, narrower and more brittle one.

The real question is not whether organisations will become leaner. They will. The question is whether the leaders who remain will still possess the right to lead.

Part 2 examines how AI can be designed either as a democratiser of expertise or as a digital foreman that deepens the legitimacy deficit – and what a new employment bargain must look like if the obelisk is to stand on solid ground.

Dr Chris Blair is group director of 21st Century.

#collapsed #pyramid #authority #leads #legitimacy #Part