4 questions to Luc de Rancourt (EDHEC) on leadership in uncertain times, from the military to business

You have just published a book (1) on the parallels between management in the Air and Space Force and management in business. What motivated you to write it?

Luc de Rancourt (2) : This initiative came about during a meeting, when I was Inspector General of the Armed Forces, with Franck Bancel, professor and director of a master's program in finance at ESCP. He is a member of the ADER network (Action, Development, Engagement, Reflection), a network of high-level citizen reservists approved by the Chief of Staff of the Air and Space Force. In accordance with the guidelines of the latter's strategic committee, ADER conducts strategic thinking and builds bridges between these worlds, which are often perceived as distant.

In December 2022, during the induction ceremony for new reservists, Franck Bancel floated an idea: to compare approaches to military and entrepreneurial leadership. This discussion gave rise to a project for a book combining in-depth interviews and summaries. Along with Henri Philippe, a partner at Accuracy and professor at HEC, and Thierry Picq, a professor at EM Lyon, we brought together officers, business leaders, and academics to contribute to the project.

The objective was threefold: to promote the Air and Space Force by showing how its methods can inspire the civilian world, to offer companies approaches that have been tested in an environment of constant uncertainty, and to enable academics to compare their theories with concrete feedback. I would like to add that all copyright royalties are donated to the Association Solidarité Nationale au Handicap et Militaires blessés (SNHMB).

How does “ambidexterity,” a concept that describes the dual ability to combine opposing approaches with equal effectiveness, respond to current management challenges, both in the military and in business?

Ambidexterity is not just a skill, it is a necessity in a world where uncertainty has become the norm. That is why we have made it the central theme of our latest book. In the Air and Space Force, we must constantly navigate between conflicting imperatives: anticipating the long term while responding to emergencies, managing risk without stifling initiative, and reconciling innovation with doctrinal orthodoxy. These tensions, far from being obstacles, are levers of resilience.

Take risk management: companies are facing an increasingly complex world, in which risks are multiplying and changing in nature. They are devoting increasing resources to this area, and when they fail to do so sufficiently, they enter cycles of uncertainty. However, they are often trapped by rigid processes or overly strict standards.

In the military, the mission comes first, but that obviously does not mean disregarding the rules. An approach focused on operational risk management is adopted, i.e., an attitude that, depending on the operational challenges and the risks involved, allows for expanding the framework without breaking it: companies could learn from this flexibility.

Ambidexterity is the art of bringing together two rhythms, two cultures, to better respond to the unpredictable.

You show that the company has become, willingly or unwillingly, a geopolitical player. What lessons can leaders learn from the military, where geopolitics “underpins all activities”?

Geopolitics is not a subject reserved for military headquarters. Today, a company that ignores international power relations, the risks of supply disruptions, or sovereignty issues is doomed to suffer crises rather than anticipate them. In the military, every decision—from the soldier to the general—is part of a geostrategic analysis. This culture of global context may be lacking in the private sector, whose analytical framework has long considered that the dynamics of intensifying trade and financial exchanges could ignore the logic of power.

In the Air and Space Force, the risk/benefit ratio is constantly evaluated, with a defined tolerance for error. Companies, on the other hand, can have a binary approach: either excessive risk aversion or uncontrolled risk-taking.

However, as our book shows, it is in the hybridization of practices that the most robust solutions are born. Leaders can benefit from adopting this “culture of context,” where each choice is informed by a detailed understanding of geopolitical balances and the players involved.

What are the most striking similarities between military leadership and corporate leadership?

What struck the interviewed leaders most was the power of collective meaning in the military. The mission is an absolute unifying force: every member, from soldiers to senior staff, knows that their actions contribute to a higher goal. In business, the raison d'être or CSR often struggle to play this unifying role. Yet it is this clarity that enables exceptional responsiveness and agility, what managers today call “commando mode.”

Another point of convergence is the importance of intergenerational transmission. In the military, young officers develop their skills by being exposed to operational responsibilities at an early stage, under the supervision of experienced seniors. Companies sometimes rely heavily on external expertise, underestimating the value of this internal dynamic. Conversely, the military could take inspiration from the private sector to better retain talent, given the increasingly nomadic nature of careers.

Finally, the ethical dimension has emerged as fertile ground for discussion. In the military, ethics is inseparable from action: it is not an added bonus, but a prerequisite for effectiveness. Companies are only just beginning to integrate this idea, particularly through CSR. But there is still a long way to go before it becomes a real lever for cohesion and performance.

You advocate for better integration of geopolitics in business schools. How can we train future leaders for our unpredictable world?

The first step is to give them the keys to deciphering complexity. A school like EDHEC has a crucial role to play: training managers who are able to read weak signals, understand power dynamics, and integrate these issues into their decision-making. We often talk about VUCA (volatility, uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity), but too rarely about the tools to deal with it.

We must cultivate what I call an intellectual and operational “backup fund.” This is based on three pillars: a geopolitical culture in order to identify the players, regional dynamics, and systemic risks; methodologies for “acting rather than reacting,” because uncertainty is not inevitable, and this involves learning to make decisions with incomplete information, to develop scenarios, and to accept that intuition, provided it is based on a solid geopolitical culture, has its place alongside analysis; a hybridization of knowledge by combining military, academic, and managerial approaches to enrich strategic thinking.

The goal is not to train experts in geopolitics, but leaders capable of engaging with it. Because, as our book shows, it is in the connection between worlds that the most powerful ideas are born.

References

(1) « S'adapter, décider et agir en avenir incertain - Quand le management s'inspire de l'Armée de l'air et de l'espace ». Thierry Picq, Franck Bancel, Henri Philippe, Luc De Rancourt. Dunod, October 2025. All copyrights are donated to war victims and wounded soldiers. - https://www.dunod.com/entreprise-et-economie/adapter-decider-et-agir-en-avenir-incertain-quand-management-inspire-armee

(2) Luc de Rancourt is an Air Force General (2S). He is Co-Director of the Geopolitics and Business Strategy Chair at EDHEC, created in June 2025. - https://www.edhec.edu/en/research-and-faculty/faculty/professors-and-researchers/luc-de-rancourt