The Truth is Trouble

Most misunderstandings in the world could be avoided if people would simply take the time to ask, "What else could this mean?

- Shannon L. Alder

As we venture into our second release of Provocations, we seek to further examine the complex fantasies projected in the workplace. In the previous release, we deconstructed the myth of the “Grand Plan”. We drew upon the work of Ralph Stacey and Patricia Shaw, exploring how organisations are not predictable machines but living webs of human conversation and endeavoured to ask if the “Zone of Complexity” - that exciting yet volatile space where low agreement and high uncertainty render traditional, rigid planning obsolete - is the place we live, what can we do? 

We see that in abandoning the illusion of total control, another predictable yet equally complex human response - profound anxiety - takes its place.

When the five-year strategy cannot guarantee success, how do leaders navigate the rugged ground that follows? The main instinct is to rush in, fix every problem, and rescue every project single-handedly. Now, however, we see that leadership in complexity requires a discipline that might seem counter-intuitive: the capacity to “sit with” that same anxiety. To understand how anxiety contorts leadership, let’s look at two anonymous organisational dynamics where Thinking Partners recently intervened.

Scenario A: Syncing Errors

A newly promoted female executive had built her career on single-minded execution. She performed under one maxim: “Non-performers out”. This had served her well in getting thus far but, in her new role, she was suddenly confronted with a change in mandate. She was being asked to be collaborative and build deeper relationships; to be softer. The focus was no longer on making the numbers. Meanwhile, she reported to a leader who was almost her exact opposite in temperament and leadership style. A more timid individual, her manager struggled with difficult conversations, and withdrew at the hint of conflict. 

When confronted with relational friction, both leaders defaulted to the defense mechanisms they were familiar with. The newly promoted executive pushed back against the shift toward collaboration, demanding more rigid execution from her team. Her manager, when told of the mounting friction, stalled, struggling to initiate the difficult conversation required to address the issue.

Here we see two different presentations of anxiety. She managed her fear of the new “soft” expectations by doubling down on aggression while he managed his fear of conflict by retreating.

In The Relational Matrix (2018), Simon Cavicchia and Maria Gilbert posit that leadership does not happen in a vacuum. It occurs within what they called a shared “relational field”. During a period of change, when uncertainty is high and answers are few, the anxiety generated by the system often falls onto the shoulders of leaders.

If a leader has not developed the capacity for containment - the ability to tolerate uncomfortable feelings without immediately acting on them - they fall back on defensive behaviors. In this scenario, both leaders struggled with containment. The woman converted her anxiety into immediate, aggressive action while her manager converted his anxiety into avoidance.

We use relational coaching to guide the conversation towards the relationship itself rather than the superficial problems of performance. Now, we are working with the executive to develop her capacity for softness while her boss is sharpening his ability to directly confront performance issues.

When leaders cultivate the ability to balance on the edge of uncertainty, they are often faced with the next challenge of complexity - making decisions when there is no clean, one-size-fits-all solution. 

We turn to Michael Carroll and Elisabeth Shaw (2013) whose work on Ethical Maturity is vital in providing perspective. Ethical maturity involves possessing capacity to navigate complex trade-offs and accepting their consequences. 

In her review of Michael Carroll and Elisabeth Shaw’s work, Dr. Carolyn Noble describes ethical maturity as a dynamic, reflective process to help professionals navigate challenges and moral dilemmas in both life and work. Noble notes that while traditional codes of ethics are necessary to guide practice and prevent harm, true ethical maturity requires professionals to engage in deep learning to build a resilient moral character. 

Carroll and Shaw break this development down into six interconnected components. First, leaders must cultivate ethical sensitivity and mindfulness, followed by the development of robust decision-making frameworks and learning to handle the pitfalls of implementing those choices. It further demands true personal and professional accountability. 

To work with ethical maturity means learning to live with the consequences of our choices - making peace through self-compassion and forgiveness when outcomes are unsettling  while also continuously integrating these experiences to refine the ever-evolving moral compass.

Scenario B: The Big Pond

Another one of our clients is a highly competent technical specialist. He was recently promoted to a leadership role. Here, our newly appointed leader was confronted with the sheer enormity of the job. The anxiety spikes. Of course, as they always do, problems arose. However, instead of delegating, he stepped in to do the work of his direct reports. 

This is a classic growing pain on the path to ethical maturity. By rescuing a project to self-soothe, he robs his team of the opportunity to learn, fail, and grow. Moreover, a complex human system becomes a technical problem with a single right answer. 

A salient aspect of ethical maturity asks a leader to accept that their primary job is no longer to solve the problem, but to support the team as they solve it. It often means accommodating the change in pace in favour of building long-term team proficiency.

Moving Forward

Merging these cases through the lens of relational coaching and ethical maturity, a clearer image emerges. 

We must move past the posturing; it does us no good. Holding complexity comes only when we stop reaching for the impulses of aggression, avoidance, or rescuing. In our work, we help leaders surface the tensions that arise in the corporate landscape and we see how they tie into what is happening at both the personal and organisational levels. 

When leaders first step into this, they often feel their new choices are counter-intuitive but, as they learn, they also notice that treating networks of humans as predictable machines has caused them harm too - it has prevented them from forming true connections with the people they work alongside. Moreover, the image of a leader who knows it all, does it all, is ruthless and uncompromising is a fantasy. It’s an ideal that no one can live up to. That is its purpose. 

In embracing ethical maturity and participating actively in the development of the shared relational field, we’ve seen leaders develop their own, unique forms of true collaboration; long-term capability embeds itself in their spirit and the entire organisational ecosystem is all the better for it! No longer bound to the idealised fantasy of leadership, they stand as genuine, embodied truths in their own unique forms.

Bibliography

1. Carroll, M. and Shaw, E., 2013. Ethical maturity in the helping professions: making difficult decisions. London: Psychotherapy Excellence.

2. Cavicchia, S. and Gilbert, M., 2018. The relational matrix: provenance, practice and supervision in Gestalt psychotherapy and systemic contexts. Abingdon: Routledge.

3. Noble, C., 2012. Book review of Michael Carroll and Elisabeth Shaw's 'Ethical maturity in the helping professions: Making difficult life and work decisions'. Psychotherapy and Counselling Journal of Australia, 1(1). Available at: https://pacja.org.au/article/71128-book-review-of-michael-carroll-and-elisabeth-shaw-s-ethical-maturity-in-the-helping-professions-making-difficult-life-and-work-decisions.pdf.