We’re at a pivotal moment in European history. The leadership approach that served Europe so well after World War II – focused on stability, consensus, and careful progress – has created remarkable prosperity and peace across our continent. We should be proud of what we’ve accomplished.
For me, as an Indian who grew up reading about and seeing constant wars between India and its neighbours, seeing a borderless continent where the biggest wars of human existence we fought just 70 years ago, is nothing more than a miracle. If you have forgotten it, you have no idea what a privilege crossing country borders without ever being stopped or frisked or killed is.
Yet the world is rapidly transforming, and despite our tremendous achievements, we risk falling behind in the global world for the coming decades.
Our Post-War Leadership Legacy
After the devastation of World War II, our continent needed leaders who could build consensus, create stability, and restore faith in institutions. Leaders like Konrad Adenauer in Germany and Jean Monnet in the European project excelled at methodical rebuilding and careful integration. They were exactly what Europe needed then.
Together, Europeans have rebuilt shattered economies, created unprecedented prosperity, and constructed a peaceful continent from the ashes of conflict. This remains one of humanity’s greatest accomplishments.
But the world has changed dramatically. The leadership qualities that rebuilt our continent aren’t the same ones needed to keep us competitive in an era of technological transformation and global competition.
Warming Up to Change and Discomfort – Or Risk Oblivion
Let’s be candid about what we face: the coming decades will bring unprecedented technological and economic transformation. Artificial intelligence, synthetic biology, quantum computing, and technologies we can’t yet imagine will reshape every industry and institution. This transformation will be uncomfortable, disruptive, and at times alarming – but it’s inevitable.
We in Europe have developed a leadership culture that prioritizes comfort and stability. This was understandable after the chaos of the mid-20th century. But our aversion to discomfort now threatens our future relevance.
Consider Nokia’s fall from dominance. In 2007, the Finnish company controlled nearly 50% of the global smartphone market. When Apple introduced the iPhone, Nokia’s engineers reportedly created a touchscreen prototype that matched or exceeded Apple’s capabilities. But Nokia’s leadership rejected this innovation, considering it too disruptive to their existing business model. By 2013, their market share had collapsed to just 3%, and the company sold its phone business to Microsoft.
This isn’t just a story about one company – it’s a warning about European institutional resistance to uncomfortable change. While our American and Asian competitors embrace creative destruction as necessary for progress, we often try to protect existing structures even when they’ve become obsolete.
The consequences of continued reluctance to embrace discomfort will be profound. We’re already seeing the early signs:
- Our declining share of global patents in frontier technologies like artificial intelligence and quantum computing
- The migration of our most ambitious entrepreneurs to more dynamic ecosystems abroad
- Our growing dependence on foreign platforms for digital infrastructure
- The declining global influence of European universities and research institutions
If these trends continue for another two decades, we won’t just be economically disadvantaged – we risk becoming irrelevant in shaping humanity’s future. Our social models, democratic values, and cultural heritage will have diminishing influence in a world increasingly shaped by those willing to embrace disruptive change.
But there’s good news: discomfort is a skill we can develop. Just as athletes train their bodies to perform under physical stress, leaders can train themselves to function effectively amid uncertainty and change. When we repeatedly expose ourselves to controlled discomfort – taking calculated risks, experimenting with new approaches, facing potential failure – we build the capacity to thrive in changing conditions.
Examples from our own continent show this is possible. When Sweden faced a banking crisis in the early 1990s, its leaders made the uncomfortable decision to nationalize failing banks, force shareholders to take losses, and fundamentally restructure the financial system. The short-term pain was significant, but this willingness to embrace discomfort enabled Sweden to emerge stronger, with a more resilient financial system that weathered the 2008 global crisis better than most European counterparts.
We need to cultivate this capacity for productive discomfort throughout our institutions:
- In government, by rewarding officials who challenge comfortable but outdated processes
- In education, by teaching students to value problems as opportunities rather than threats
- In business, by celebrating leaders who cannibalize their own successful products to create better ones
- In finance, by developing better mechanisms to fund disruptive innovation
The choice before us is clear: we can continue prioritizing comfort and gradually fade into global irrelevance, or we can embrace the productive discomfort that drives renewal and reinvention. The former path leads to a comfortable decline; the latter offers the possibility of European renaissance.
What We Can Learn from American Entrepreneurs
When I look at American entrepreneurial success, it’s not about abandoning European values – it’s about adapting our approach while maintaining our core principles. America is not perfect by any chance – especially when it comes to quality of life and European values. At the same time, that doesn’t mean we can’t learn from American businesses, where it excels.
Consider how differently leadership operates in American innovation ecosystems. In 2008, when European leaders were managing the financial crisis through careful coordination, Airbnb launched despite the economic downturn. While our financial institutions were understandably tightening lending in response to systemic risks, American venture capitalists were still funding bold ideas that have since transformed industries.
Being transparent about risk while pursuing ambitious visions is something our European leadership culture often discourages.
During the COVID pandemic, we saw how Moderna’s leadership made bold decisions quickly, commenced production at risk, and moved with urgency that many European companies struggled to match. The result wasn’t just business success – it helped save lives.
We don’t need to abandon our thoughtful approach, but we do need to be more decisive with taking action than currently – even if it means going outside our comfort zone or taking bigger risks. American entrepreneurs don’t succeed because they’re reckless – they succeed because they make calculated bets and execute with urgency while still managing risk.
What We Can Learn from Indian Entrepreneurs
India offers us equally valuable lessons in entrepreneurial leadership. Nandan Nilekani’s work with India’s Aadhaar digital identity system shows what’s possible with entrepreneurial leadership in governance. In just a few years, he helped create the world’s largest biometric ID system used by over 1.3 billion people. Meanwhile, our digital identity initiatives, while well-designed, have produced less real-world impact despite greater resources.
Byju Raveendran built BYJU’S from a small tutoring service into a global education technology company by focusing on solving real problems with available resources rather than waiting for perfect conditions – an approach we could benefit from in our European context.
Indian entrepreneurs typically face greater constraints than we do – less capital, weaker infrastructure, more bureaucracy. Yet they’ve built world-class companies by adapting to these limitations rather than being paralyzed by them.
When Falguni Nayar left her investment banking career at age 50 to found beauty retailer Nykaa, she faced skepticism from all sides. But she saw an opportunity and executed her vision decisively. Eight years later, her company went public at a valuation of nearly $13 billion. Her story reminds us that entrepreneurial leadership can emerge at any age and from any background – something we need to encourage more actively in Europe.
A New European Leadership Approach
We don’t need to abandon our European values or social models. We need to apply them differently for a changing world. Here’s what our new leadership approach might embrace:
Balancing Consensus with Action
We excel at building consensus, but sometimes this comes at the cost of timely action. When France’s Xavier Niel disrupted the telecommunications market with Free Mobile, he didn’t wait for industry-wide agreement. He moved decisively with consumer-friendly pricing that ultimately benefited millions. We need more of this willingness to act decisively, even before achieving perfect consensus.
We might ask ourselves: How many opportunities have we missed while seeking unanimous agreement? How might we preserve our collaborative spirit while moving more quickly on critical priorities?
Embracing Thoughtful Risk-Taking
Daniel Ek’s founding of Spotify in Sweden shows both our potential and our challenges. The conventional wisdom said digital music services couldn’t work legally or profitably. While European financial institutions understandably hesitated given the risks, American investors backed his vision. The result? A European-founded company that ultimately went public in New York.
We need to reconsider how we evaluate and approach risk. Not all risks are reckless – some are necessary for progress. How might we better distinguish between reckless gambles and calculated risks worth taking?
Focusing on Outcomes Alongside Process
Estonia’s example shows what’s possible when European governance adopts more entrepreneurial approaches. Their e-Residency program allowing anyone worldwide to establish an EU-based business digitally has created new economic opportunities while strengthening Estonia’s global position. Leaders like Taavi Kotka didn’t get caught in endless feasibility studies – they launched, learned, and improved based on real-world feedback.
For our policy initiatives, we should continue valuing thorough processes while placing greater emphasis on measurable outcomes and real-world impact.
Steps We Can Take Together
- Create Entrepreneur-in-Residence Programs in Government: Let’s bring successful entrepreneurs into our ministries and EU institutions for meaningful exchanges. Their approach to problem-solving could greatly enrich our policymaking while helping entrepreneurs better understand governance challenges.
- Establish Ambitious Moonshot Challenges: We could set bold, specific goals with clear deadlines – like making Europe the world leader in green hydrogen production by 2030 – and empower leaders to pursue these goals with appropriate urgency and flexibility.
- Reconsider How We Handle Failure: We might review how our political and administrative systems respond to failure. When an ambitious public initiative fails for understandable reasons, do we recognize the courage it took to try, or do we penalize the attempt itself?
- Create Fast-Track Decision Pathways: For strategic priorities, we could develop mechanisms that preserve necessary oversight while enabling faster action when needed.
- Develop Leadership Development Programs: Establish leadership development programs specifically designed to help executives and officials build their capacity to function effectively amid uncertainty and change.
Our European Promise
Europe has everything needed to lead in the 21st century – world-class education, strong infrastructure, and tremendous talent. What we need is an evolution of our leadership approach to meet the demands of rapid change and technological transformation.
The leaders who rebuilt Europe after World War II were exactly right for their time. They created stability and prosperity from chaos, and we honor their legacy. Now we face different challenges that require us to adapt while maintaining our core values.
We don’t need to become America or India – or anybody else. We need to learn from their leadership and entrepreneurial approach while preserving what makes Europe special.
Together, we can create a new European leadership model that combines thoughtful analysis with decisive action, careful planning with appropriate risk-taking, and consensus-building with the courage to move when the moment demands it. We need to become the best version of Europe.
Our future depends not on abandoning our European identity, but on evolving it to meet the needs of our time.
Let’s begin that transformation today.