We use the term daily, even proudly. Head of Department. Head of Strategy. Head of People. As a harmless shorthand for hierarchy or scope. A neutral designation of responsibility, but language is never neutral. Titles are metaphors of identity. They signal what we believe leadership is and what it is for.

When we call leaders Heads, we reveal something telling. We place leadership firmly in the realm of cognition. We elevate thought above feeling. Planning over presence. Control over connection. We imply, that to lead is to think, to decide, to know. And that others, those not “at the top”, may be permitted to feel.

In many organizations, where the higher one rises, the more one is subtly expected to suppress what is tender, conflicted, or uncertain. Until only the “rational” remains. Where emotion is a liability, vulnerability a threat, and empathy… well, something HR can handle.

The danger is that we produce disconnected leaders. Disconnected from themselves, their teams, the complexity of the work. Leadership, is not just thinking. It is holding, feeling, staying…

The best leaders I’ve known work with their whole self. They listen with their nerves. They stay with discomfort. They know that clarity often emerges after confusion, not before. And they create spaces where others feel met.

So I wonder…. What would happen if we stopped calling them Heads?

What if we began to honour leadership as an act of courage, intimacy, emotional availability… not only intellect? Maybe then we would choose titles and practices that invite wholeness, not fragmentation? Maybe then our organisations would feel less like machines and more like communities? Maybe then leadership would be less about rising above, and more about standing with?