The third assumption comes with two pathways. The first pathway contains a shared belief that the wise leader is currently present in the group. This person is to be honored and followed, given their wise competency. The alternative pathway is based on the shared belief that the wise leader is not currently present in the group. The group can only be Hopeful. The primary task of the group is to find (or invent) this wise leader. Until such time as this leader is discovered or created, members of the group are likely to be anxious and stripped of the knowledge that they do have.
The group will keep making the same mistakes and learn very little from the mistakes they make. The group is anxiously dumb and dysfunctional until such time as it finds or constructs its leader. There is a third pathway. Members of the group can recognize that they already collectively hold the necessary knowledge to meet the challenges of their environment (be it saturated with VUCA-Plus or be it stable, simple, quiet and consistent) (Bergquist, 2026a).
Courage: While the presence of VUCA-Plus conditions in many groups often leads members of these groups to the assumption of required knowledge and a wise leader, our world, unfortunately, is also highly polarized, with the presence in many groups of identified enemies. Under these polarized conditions, it is not unusual for a group to embrace the assumption that a courageous leader is required for the group to be successful. Once again, I would re-construct Bion’s model by suggesting that three assumptions are actually present in this group.
First, there is the assumption that an eminent threat is challenging the group—and even its survival. This threat is often manifest in the presence of a competing entity – be it an organization offers the same product or service or a political party embracing a different set of priorities and policies. The threat might also come from a potential invasion of one’s homeland, the presence of an “evil” force in the world (common in many fundamental churches), or the potential intrusion of another “body” (e.g a merger). While this threat might be “real,” it is also often created whole-cloth by the group. As Robert Sapolsky (2004) has noted, we human beings are masterful at creating attacking lions that don’t actually exist.
Second, as in the case of a group seeking a wise leader, the fearful group facing a threat (real or imagined) will seek out a leader who is courageous and ready to lead the group “into battle”. The battle might consist of a new marketing plan or strategy for taking an “end-run” around the opposition. In many instances, it is up to the newly-appointed courageous leader to devise the battle plan—either alone or in collaboration with a “war counsel.”
Third, we are once again identifying two pathways. First, the courageous fight-leader might already be present in the group. This person might have already led the group in battle. It is also not unusual for the courageous leader to have played a major role in signaling the presence of the threat. Unfortunately, this threat is often manufactured by courageous leaders as a means to bring them into power in the group.
