The Radical Moderate as Leader

The best leaders are not those who avoid conflict or stay neutral to keep the peace. The Radical Moderate leader engages deeply with complexity and refers to their values to carefully resist the pull of ideological extremes. They refuse to accept simplistic solutions.

They see leadership as the hard work of holding tensions – between tradition and progress, security and change, individual needs and collective responsibilities. A Radical Moderate is committed to principled action and leads by ensuring diverse voices are heard.

Autocratic leadership from the left and the right centres on the individual leader. More democratic-style leadership, by contrast, requires collaboration, compromise, and balancing the needs of the minority and the majority. A culture that recognises only the majority risks accusations – sometimes justified, sometimes not – of racism, misogyny or ablism, among other excluding behaviours.

If we fixate on the individual leader, we risk a culture of fragility, where compromise is betrayal and collaboration is impossible. How can we work together if disagreement itself is seen as harmful? Collaborating requires some tussling, so for effective collaboration you need to be sitting at the same metaphorical table and focused on the same goal.

Being a Radical Moderate does not mean being passive or indecisive. It takes courage to hold competing priorities of majority and minority in tension, to reject extremism without retreating into complacency.

A healthy culture embraces contradictions – security and freedom, stability and change, individuality and community – without defaulting to easy answers. Empathy sustains the trust and collaboration democracy depends on. And democracy, in turn, requires enough people to prioritise it above other concerns. It demands a delicate balance: the majority making space for the minority, and the minority engaging with the broader collective.

Trust is the foundation of all leadership, especially in democratic contexts. Democracy depends on a social contract based on the belief that other people will hear and represent our needs. This trust must be evident at every level, from community organisations to local, state and federal politics.

It extends to our media, our healthcare system, our schools. Leadership in any organisation relies on trust, built through predictability, accountability, transparency, and a willingness to listen. Trust is eroded when leaders dismiss dissent or engage only with their inner circle.

Many community organisations are governed by an elected board, and to that end they use democratic means, but their most important role in a country’s democracy is contributing to building a socially cohesive, trusting society from the bottom up. They are democracy incubators.

One aspect of that role is their commitment to good governance. Governance entails ethical responsibility, which entails a commitment to real-world impact and long-term integrity.

Good governance relies on transparency and accountability and requires thinking of the future, not only the present. A Radical Moderate approach to governance asks good questions, seeks nuance and evidence, and resists easy answers.

I once belonged to two separate cultural community organisations that sat on opposite sides of a long-standing ideological divide. A mentor asked why I stayed involved in both. I told her neither gave my young family everything we needed – one offered authenticity, the other gave us music, close friends and intellectual stimulation – but together, they gave us the full spectrum. She reminded me that no community is flawless.

Through active participation, we can address flaws, fill gaps, and extend grace to others, just as we hope to receive it ourselves. This mirrors the Radical Moderate approach – staying present in imperfect spaces and working toward change without demanding ideological perfection.

Eventually, I committed fully to one community and joined its board, tacitly agreeing to share the responsibility for the community’s imperfections. My mentor had passed by then. I wish I could have told her that I had followed her advice and learned to aspire to her generosity of spirit – the true essence of community mindedness.

Democracy is imperfect and so is every community and society. When ideological purity becomes the standard, even well-intentioned movements, schools, communities and countries can become exclusionary. Leadership today requires engaging with imperfection rather than demanding total adherence to one set of narrow beliefs.

Many political movements thrive on polarisation because it energises their base. Leaders who benefit from binary narratives – who frame the world as "us versus them" – may see Radical Moderation as a threat to their ability to mobilise support.

Radical Moderation is a counterforce to polarisation, offering an alternative model of leadership that builds bridges rather than deepens divides. When a Radical Moderate leads, it is clear to see that people who are different from them stand beside them. This kind of leadership is uncomfortable for the leader. It is risky. It requires sitting with disagreement instead of shutting it down. When the Radical Moderate leader asks questions, they are seeking to understand, not just to affirm.

Certainty is easy. But it rarely solves problems or accomplishes progress. A psychologist once told me their role was to make people uncomfortable, but only after building trust: “My job is to build rapport so I can bring discomfort into the room.” Radical Moderation does the same. It resists the urge to simplify or cling to control. It leads with questions rather than rigid answers.

The digital age has a lot to answer for in fuelling disharmony, but it also offers some free materials to help build social cohesion. Social media, free podcasts and free traditional media online provide quality information that challenges us, that we disagree with, freely, at any time we like. There is nothing standing in the way between us and consumption of discomfort.

Radical Moderation sounds noble until it asks something of us. What if you are the one being asked to compromise on a deeply held belief, or to keep talking with someone whose views you find offensive or even harmful? What if you are being asked to negotiate with somebody who holds far more power than you? Or less power? What if you are told that to build bridges, you must sometimes pause your own campaign for justice?

On the other hand, what is at stake if we do not aspire towards Radical Moderation? Democracy? Trust? Reform? Social cohesion? Progress does not come from purity. It comes from people willing to stay present, even when the conversation is awkward or challenging. What would it take for you to embrace the discomfort of Radical Moderation in your own leadership life?

Questions the Radical Moderate leader can ask themselves and others to help navigate messy spaces include these:

• “That’s an interesting perspective – what data or examples support that and where did it come from?”
• “How do we know this is true? What evidence would change your mind?”

• “I see the principle behind what you are saying – how does it hold up in practice?”
• “Can we find a way to balance these competing priorities rather than choosing one over the other?”

• “If we followed that logic, where might it lead? Would there be unintended consequences?”
• “Let’s explore whether this is driven by ideology or by outcomes – what is the real-world impact?”

• “I’m hearing a strong conviction here – what would it take to shift your perspective even slightly?”
• “How do we make space for both principled beliefs and practical realities?”

Adele Stowe-Lindner is the Executive Director of the Institute of Community Directors Australia.