Advice to New & Old Leaders

As an executive coach, I have met leaders from many different companies, and from many different levels within a company. Some are experienced and some are beginners. Each one is seeking help and new insights about how to lead people through complex and adaptive, organizational change.

In the beginning, I have to remind all of them of something that Larry Perlman, retired Chairman & CEO of Ceridian, wrote many years ago: “Leadership is not about learning theory. It’s about finding out how you are going to bring yourself into your work and into your life to make a contribution.” While learning theory and understanding theory is important, there is a deeper level of work that needs to take place if one seeks to become a very good leader. This deeper level of work does not happen overnight. It is a long term commitment to core ideas, behaviors, and principals. It takes great discipline and effort. And, if one sticks to it, it is a marvelous journey with amazing outcomes at work and in life. 

To help new and old leaders on their journey, I routinely share with them four key quotes. Each reflects a critical idea about the work and the journey of leadership. What follows are these four quotes and some unpacking of what they mean from my perspective as someone who has been coaching leaders for 35+ years. 

Quote #1: “You can’t change the company without changing yourself.” - Charles Fishman

One of the first things leaders need to understand is that their desire to change the company is built on their ability to change themselves. One can not happen without the other. As Richard Farson noted many years ago, “Most often what gets organizations into trouble are faulty leadership styles, poor internal relationships, and managerial blind spots. The delusional hope of a troubled organization is that it will be saved without having to make changes in these highly personal areas.” And the first personal area that needs changing is us as leaders. 

Nevertheless, most leaders focus on external change, namely company systems, structure, or strategy. They do not choose to work at the internal personal level of change, namely their mindset, behaviors, or skills. What we have to understand is that the work on the former is important and often necessary, but the success of this work is predicated on the depth of the later work.

When we choose to do the internal work, we are seeking to improve and often transform our mindset, behaviors, and skills. This is deep work at the character level, or one’s essential being level. This is not an overnight transformation, but instead it is an on-going commitment. It is the movement from being unaware of our choices and mindset to an awareness, and ultimately and an understanding about how we live, work, and interact with others. It is disciplined work that requires allies and confidants to aid and assist us in the process. 

As one moves forward on this journey of internal work, I am reminded of something David White, an Irish poet, once wrote: “Our language is not large enough for the territory in which we have entered.” One of the biggest challenges is that we struggle to find the words to describe what is happening within us on this pathway to personal transformation. And, at the exact same time, we struggle to find the right words or concepts to describe what we want to do as a leader on the company level. This is where our allies and confidants, people who we trust and are experienced, can helps us. 

Recognizing the importance and the depth of the work it takes to change one’s self, I think we also must understand what a company is before we change it. In simple terms, a company is a collection of ideas, choices, and experiences, the sum of which can generate great outcomes, meaning, and clarity. At the heart of an effective company is an-going, and mission critical, interplay of dialogue and dialectic, where all involved seek to create a worthwhile balance between the possible and the potential, the mission and the vision. 

The success of this interplay between dialogue and dialectic happens when leaders understand the difference between these two key concepts. A dialogue is an on-going conversation between two or more people where an exchange of ideas and opinions takes place. One purpose of a dialogue is to share, define, and create clarity. It is a small group, safety zone built on a foundation of mutual respect. It is a time to slow down, listen, think, share, and reflect.

An effective dialogue is based on the recognition that words matter. They influence clarity and, ultimately, alignment within the company. Thus, during a time of dialogue, we need to explore and unpack the words and phrases we are using in order to create better understanding, and better choices over time. 

Furthermore, these meaningful conversations that take place during dialogue depend on our willingness to forget neat thoughts, clear categories, and narrow roles. Instead, we must accept that dialogue is messy, powerful, and requires all involved to focus on speaking clearly and listening respectfully. As the late Stephen Covey wrote many years ago, “Real listening shows respect. It creates trust. As we listen, we not only gain understanding; we also create the environment to be understood. And when both people understand, both perspectives, instead of being on opposite sides of the table looking across at each other, we find ourselves on the same side looking at solutions together.” The outcome of dialogue is understanding and healthier relationships. 

Dialectic, on the other hand, is a systematic discussion where opposed or contradictory ideas are explored and resolved in order to find common ground and/or a common truth. For example,  one could state the following: “It is spring and it is snowing.” Both can be true and contradictory at the exact same time. During dialectic interactions, we learn how to focus on the “Genius of the AND”, referencing a term by Jim Collins and Jerry Porras in their book, Built To Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies (HarperBusiness, 1994). As they note, for example, “A visionary company doesn’t simply balance between idealism and profitability; it seeks to be highly idealistic and highly profitable.” This is where and why the dialectic interaction is as important as a time of dialogue. Both generate clarity and the capacity to change the company. 

However, the first step is that we need to be willing and able to do the internal, personal and professional work of changing ourself. As Kevin Cashman noted years ago, “Leader get what they exhibit and what they tolerate.” We need to role model personal and professional change as we engage in the interplay of dialogue and dialectic on the company level. 

Quote #2: “We don’t see things as they are. We see things as we are.” - Anais Nin

Each of us, as a leaders, believes that we see things as they are, and that we are objective. However, the truth of the matter is that we do not have a clear and objective understanding of the reality around us, and we are not free from biases, conscious or unconscious. Instead, we have to recognize that our perspective on issues and problems influences our understanding. Furthermore,  our history, our weaknesses, our strengths, our defaults, and our biases are impacting everything we do. Thus, we must not believe everything we think, even if we think we are right and totally clear. 

For that reason, our first choice is to embrace something William Shakespeare wrote many years ago: “The eye sees all, but the mind shows us what we want to see.” Therefore, we must start with an internal awareness of what we believe, what we feel, and what we think before moving to an external choice based on what is happening around us. Self-awareness is always the precursor to right action. 

Furthermore, we must focus on what is actually happening around us rather than what we want to be happening. We must come to understand that people are doing the best they can with the information they have. Thus, we must be more empathic and seek to understand better what and how other people are seeing things, understanding things, and defining things. Then, we must be open to changing our mind, not just changing their minds. This is the challenge of leadership, and it is the foundational work we must do as a leader in order to help people achieve positive outcomes. 

Quote #3: “Sometimes just getting up and carrying on is brave and magnificent.” - Charlie Mackesy

When it comes to leading people through “the geography of change,” a term first coined by the Irish poet, John O’Donohue, most leaders have forgotten one important fact, namely that not everyone is starting at the same place and with the same level of engagement and urgency. In reality, most people are not aware that organizational change is taking place. They are just going to work each day and doing their jobs. Other people are aware of change and are beginning to move in that direction, but it will be quite awhile before they will fully engage in it. And there is a third group of people who have entered the geography of change. The interesting thing about this group is that many are completely lost and bewildered by this new land. For them, the geography of change feels like a trough of chaos. In short, everyone is busy and moving, but not always in the same direction and at the same time. 

In addition, most leaders forget that these same people have whole lives, not just work lives. And what is happening in the rest of their life is just as important to them as what is happening in their work life. For some of these people, just getting up in the morning and going to work can be difficult and complicated. Still, if they do show up at work on time, it is a reflection of their commitment to keep moving forward even if the rest of their life is a struggle. 

When good leaders understand this, they realize that the first step in any journey through the geography of change is to go where the people are, and to see the world from their perspective. Rather than proclaim “follow me” and start the process where they, the leader, are standing, good leaders start the journey where the followers are, and then proceed forward. For these leaders, they understand  something Stephen Covey also wrote years ago: “… the journey and the destination are one.” For in the complex and dynamic geography of change, all involved are seeking two things, a sense of meaning and a sense of belonging. When the leader gets this, they realize that just getting up in the morning and carrying on with life is a brave and magnificent action. 

Quote #4: “Life is a question and how we live it is our answer.” - Gary Keller

Every day, leaders deal with problems. Some are technical and some are adaptive. Some are even based on a crisis level situation. As soon as one problem gets solved, another problem shows up. They just keep coming and coming with no end in sight. 

And we as leaders must prioritize the problems we confront. We also must figure out which problems may or may not be causing some other problems. Our analysis of causality is in constant flux as we receive new information, or determine that we are lacking accurate and timely information. 

Moreover, all of these problems often get shared with us via a question. For example, some may ask us: What should we do about this?, How shall we proceed?, What is our strategy?, etc.  Each of these questions reflect people’s understanding of the problems before them. Each of them, in one way or another, needs to be answered. 

Likewise, we will have our own questions given their questions: What are the salient factors that need to be taken into consideration given what is happening?, What is the correct decision architecture to deploy?, What is our strategic intent?, What is the impact and  precedent we may be setting because of our choices?, etc. In the end, we must come to understand that most decisions and our subsequent choices to solve these problems are all being impacted by multiple variables over which we have little, if any, influence or control. 

As a result of all these problems and their related questions, there are days when decision fatigue is inevitable. Still, we must learn to live with the questions and with the problems. They are all part of life’s journey, at work and at home.

For in the end, I think there is one question, offered by Margaret Wheatley, that  rises above all the other questions which a leader needs to answer: “Am I becoming someone I respect?” This is the question that transcends work and instead encompasses all of life. How we choose to live the answer is our legacy to those we work with, and to those we love and live with outside of work. The questions and problems will not go away. The answer to this one question is an important choice and we can make it each and every day. 

Geery Howe, M.A. Executive Coach in Leadership, Strategic Planning, and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257

The Trough of Chaos

Recently, when visiting with a new member of my kitchen table cabinet, we discussed the inter-relationship between trauma, PTSD, and post traumatic growth. In particular, I shared how many people want to get beyond dealing with the impacts of primary and secondary trauma. They also want to get beyond the chronic and persistent nature of PTSD. In essence, they want to move from post traumatic growth into just living and growing like everyone else. 

He listened well to this line of thought and then responded. “I don’t think this is a helpful framework, Geery. It boils the whole thing down to a binary situation, namely trauma or no trauma, PTSD or no PTSD, growth or no growth. I understand the desire of someone wanting to be done with the primary and secondary impacts of trauma, and the related PTSD, but a framework based on either/or is not very helpful. It does not acknowledge that certain events or interactions can trigger someone and result in them having to deal with the chronic nature of PTSD. We can never control or predict the triggering, but we can deal with the outcome of the trigger in a way that is better than done vs not done.

A more helpful framework to situations of this nature is to assess the situation by the following three criteria: intensity, duration, and interval. First, how intense is the intensity of the reaction to the trigger? What is the depth of feeling and/or feelings around it? Second, what is the duration or length of time spent dealing with this intensity? Third, what is the interval or length of time between these episodes?”

As we unpacked this more holistic perspective about about dealing with the impact of trauma and PTSD, I said to him, “This is a brilliant framework. Bravo for figuring this out! I also wish I had learned this 10-15 years ago. It would have helped me in teaching people about The Trough of Chaos.”

Routinely, during my executive coaching session, we explore the Trough of Chaos, a normal six to nine month period of organizational change where people move from denial to resistance to exploration and ultimately to commitment. The journey through the Trough of Chaos is dynamic, not linear with different people being in different stages at the exact same time. And the work of the leader is an iterative and adaptive process. 

For me, his brilliant framework focused on intensity, duration and interval is so powerful, because the most common question I get asked during executive coaching sessions is “When will we be done with the Trough of Chaos and just get back to doing the work of the business?” 

Now, the question is a good one, but it is based on a binary premise of done vs.  not done. It does not recognize that inherent in the definition of operational excellence, i.e. doing the work of the business, is a commitment to continuous improvement. Highly successful companies, who perform well over time, understand that the needs of the customer are constantly evolving, and thus the company must also evolve.

Furthermore, these exact same companies understand that the strategic environment within which they operate is also changing. New competitors are showing up with new and different products, services, and solutions. Supply chains are evolving, and society as a whole is changing too.  

Thus, maintaining status quo is a dangerous strategic and operational choice. Therefore, it is better to continue changing and/or evolving the business in order to preserve its short and long term viability. The best leaders recognize that there will always be a Trough of Chaos happening on one level within the company. But with the aforementioned framework, a leader can begin to understand this normal time period as not done vs not done, but more through the lens of intensity, duration, and interval.  

For example, some Troughs of Chaos may not be so intense because the people moving through them are experienced and understand why change is taking place. In the beginning, they are not in denial as much as lack of orientation. Next, they are not resisting change as much as dissatisfied with the work required. Then, they move into the exploration stage with acceptance rather than frustration. Finally, they end moving through the Trough of Chaos committed, but even more so focused on executing better and better. 

In short, they move through the normal stages, but the overall duration of the Trough of Chaos may be only four to six months in length rather than the typical six to nine months in length. As a result, the Trough of Chaos is less intense and shorter in duration. Plus, at the same time, the interval between the time periods of when the company, department or team are in the Trough of Chaos, can lengthen.

If a leader is able to zoom out and look at the company both strategically and operationally over time, say for instance a five to ten year time period, they may notice that the nature of their Troughs of Chaos has evolved and the capacity of the company as a whole has improved to a point where being in the Trough of Chaos is not as disruptive as in the earlier years and has become a part of normal operational growth. 

As we wrapped up our visit on the inter-relationship between trauma, PTSD, and post traumatic growth, I realized how grateful I was to be spending time with this person. His ability to help me see trauma, and as a result the Trough of Chaos, from a different perspective was exciting and energizing. It was clearly the start of a great and helpful, new level of dialogue about a variety of important subjects. 

Geery Howe, M.A. Executive Coach in Leadership, Strategic Planning, and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257

Communication Is Not Connection

During executive coaching sessions, people in leadership positions often talk to me about their problems around communication.  Routinely, I hear the following statements:

- “I told them, and they did not listen.”

- “I clarified my expectations, and they did not follow them.”

- “Why do I have to keep repeating myself? Once should be enough.”

In these and many other conversations, I have pointed out that there is a major difference between communication and connection. The former is about speaking, and the later is about the creation of understanding and clarity. 

Too often, we believe that the spoken word should be instantly understood by everyone around us. We have even higher expectations with the written word. Due to the speed of software, we expect instant clarity, and then effective execution. But, be it through speaking or technology, we as leaders have to recognize that sending a message is not the same as the creation of a connection, which is the foundation for comprehension, understanding, and ultimately clarity. 

I think there are three major problems with leadership communication. The first major problem starts with issues related to input comprehension. Drawing from the field of teaching ESL, i.e. English as a second language, there is a term called “comprehensible input.” In simple terms, it is defined as a “language input that can be understood by listeners despite them not understanding all the words and structures in it.” In ESL, it is an instructional technique in which teachers provide input that allows students to understand most, but not necessarily all, of the language. The key is to provide meaningful language which students can understand within the context of what is happening. 

When we unpack this important concept, the key words for me are meaningful, understanding, and context. First, effective communicators spend a great deal of time choosing words that are meaningful to the listener, not just to the speaker. They want to make sure that the meaning of the words are comprehensible to the person who is listening.

Second, they focus on placing those words within the context of what is happening, i.e. they zoom out rather than zoom in, in order for the listener to understand the bigger picture, not just that the message being sent. We do not listen in a vacuum. Everything is put within a larger context. If I don’t understand the context, I more likely will miss the meaning of what is being said. 

Finally, these same communicators focus on creating a common understanding, more than awareness. In particular, this happens when the listening environment, within which the communicating is taking place, is safe and interactive. Rather than focusing on just outcomes, they focus on clarity and connections. As Donald Sull, Rebecca Homkes, and Charles Sull in their article, “Why Strategy Execution Unravels - and What to Do About It” from the March 2015 issue of the Harvard Business Review, write: “Part of the problem is that executives measure communication in terms of inputs (the number of e-mails sent or town halls hosted) rather than by the only metric that actually counts - how well key leaders understand what’s communicated.”

The second major problem is best summarized by Martine Haas and Mark Mortensen in their article, “The Secrets of Great Teamwork” from the June 2016 issue of the Harvard Business Review. As they write, “Distance and diversity, as well as digital communication and changing membership, make them [teams] especially prone to the problems of “us versus them” thinking and incomplete information.” They continue, “The solution to both is developing a shared mindset among team members - something team leaders can do by fostering a common identity and common understanding.”

Too many times, leaders focus on functional communication. The goal is not the building of a shared mindset based on a common identity and common understanding. Instead, the goal is to get information from one place to another place, or from one person to another person. The result is functional trust, namely the ability to get things done, but not always done well or done in accordance with the mission, vision and core values on the company. 

However, when leaders choose to build a shared mindset, the union of a common identity and common understanding, then they engage in communication at a different level, and, as a result, they generate healthy trust. What we have to realize is that the distance between I communicated to you, and I connected with you is quite large. The former focuses on function while the later focuses on emotion and trust. Furthermore, the former focuses on making sure something gets done, and the later focuses on me knowing you before I focus on execution. 

Given these two major problems, and in order for a healthy connection to happen, leaders need to work on three specific things, namely reliability, accountability, and integrity. Brene’ Brown in her book, Rising Strong: The Reckoning. The Rumble. The Revolution (Spiegel & Grau, 2015), defines reliability in this manner: “You do what you say you’ll do. At work, this means staying aware of your competencies and limitations so you don’t overpromise and are able to deliver on commitments and balance competing priorities.” Next, she defines accountability: “You own your mistakes, apologize, and make amends.” Finally, she defines integrity: “You choose courage over comfort. You choose what is right over what is fun, fast, or easy. And you choose to practice your values rather than simply professing them.” 

In each of these key words, the responsibility for what we say and how we behave sits when the leader, not with the person with whom we are communicating. From my perspective, it is based on a clear understanding that our spoken or written words are the second form of communication. The first form of communication is how we behave and how we treat people. This information always precedes what we say or what we write. And what the best leaders understand is that you can not talk your way out of problem that you are behaving your way into each and every day. In short, Kevin Cashman was right so many years ago when he wrote, “leaders what they exhibit and what they tolerate.” It is time we connect with people and know them as people, not just a person who does a job over time. 

The third major problem is a simple one with profound implications, namely the translation of choice into commitment. I remember one day being in a meeting when the CEO asked a person on her team a question about improving her communication and her connections with her team. “Can you do this?”, she asked the individual. 

“Yes, I can,” came the reply.  

“Good,” she responded. “Now, will you do this?”

There was a long pause before the person in question responded, “I hope so.”

The CEO paused and then said, “Hope is not a strategy. In this situation, action is more important than words. Being hopeful is helpful to a degree, but a healthy relationship is based on trust, and, in particular, on being trustworthy. If we are going to create clarity and commitment amongst our people in order that they will rise to the challenges before us, then they need to know we care about them, are willing to listen to them, and that we respect their thoughts and ideas.”

There was another long pause, and then the team entered into a productive discussion about the interconnections between courage, choice, and commitment. All who gathered around the table recognized that communication was not connection. 

With these three major problems in mind, I have noticed something very unique about the best leaders/communicators that I have met over the course of 35+ years of coaching people. They regularly create and execute a relationship building strategy. Let me explain in greater depth. 

The best leaders recognize that organizational change is the sum of individual change. Yet, none of us work alone. We are always working in, with, and through relationships. Healthy relationships, which are always based on healthy connections, are the foundation for on-going organizational success. In reality, these leaders grasp that organizational change, in essence, is the sum of relational change. 

Therefore, the best leaders are relational change strategist. The way they do this is through creating connections, i.e. social and strategic level dialogue within safe relational spaces. In the world of fund-raising and philanthropic work, the most successful fundraisers understand that friend-raising comes before fund-raising. It is the same within the world of leadership, organizational change, and communication. Because we all know that people follow people before they will ever follow a plan or execute the goals within a plan. 

“We are a nation of communicators,” writes Rachel Naomi Remen, M.D., “but communication is not always connection.” I think in our rush to make it through the last three years of a global pandemic, and all of the operational challenges that surfaced because of it, we have lost the memory of good connections and good communication. With careful thought and planning, plus self-reflection which generates clear intention, we can rebuild those connections and ultimately the capacity of the company as a whole to meet the new challenges of this new time period. The first step is to do our own homework and improve our own choices and behaviors. 

Geery Howe, M.A. Executive Coach in Leadership, Strategic Planning, and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257

Dealing With Difficult Situations

I was having breakfast with one of my kitchen table cabinet people recently, and we were discussing our life journeys and challenges when he asked me a question: “Why do people often make difficult situations more difficult?” I stopped eating, and thought to myself, now that is one great question. And I have no idea what the answer is at this moment. 

Later that day, I remembered a phrase which has been attributed to paster Rick Warren, minister Will Bowen, and rabbi Yehuda Berg: “Hurt people hurt people.” The opposite of this phrase, for me, is that respectful people respect people. However, I don’t think life is that binary in reality. 

Instead, I believe there is a continuum. Patrick Lencioni in his book, The Advantage: Why Organizational Health Trumps Everything Else in Business (Jossey-Bass, 2012) writes that there is a conflict continuum with one end being artificial harmony and the other end being mean-spirited personal attacks.  I have seen people on this continuum and neither end goes well for all involved.

This reminds me of what Stephen R. Covey once wrote, “When you pick up one end of the stick, you pick up the other. Therefore, if you decide to take responsibility for your circumstance, you automatically tap into the power of change.”

Upon reflection, I believe there is a difficulty continuum,. On one end, we have trauma, primary or secondary. On the other end, we have post traumatic growth. Each end of the continuum shapes us and our perception of ourselves and others. Both ends require a tremendous amount of work, focus and discipline. 

When we are dealing with a situation that is difficult and people are making it more difficult, we must first recognize that we have picked up both ends of the stick, referencing the earlier metaphor. Then, we have to understand this continuum and take responsibility for our role and choices in the continuum. 

Christopher Willard, PsyD in his book, How We Grow Through What We Go Through: Self-Compassion Practices for Post-Traumatic Growth (Sounds True, 2022), writes that there are four typical ways we respond to trauma and stress. I would say that these are also the four ways we typically deal with difficult situations. The first way is to fight. As he explains, “When we fall back on this response, we react with physical or relational aggression or irritability. Sometimes, when we blame ourselves, this flips into aggression toward ourselves in the form of self-harm or risky behavior.”

The second way is to flee. As he notes, “Over time, avoidance can hardwire itself into ongoing anxiety, panic, agoraphobia, and more. Avoidance may also manifest as running toward high-stimulation distractions, addictions and compulsions.”

The third way is to freeze. In this response, he says that one can choose to “hide or camouflage yourself, and try not to be noticed. Perhaps you play dead and give up, waiting for the attack to be over. Hypoarousal may become deliberate avoidance or unconscious dislocation over time. For many from marginalized groups, standing out may feel or be especially dangerous, and this kind of response is truly adaptive for physical, emotional, and financial safety.”

The fourth way is “faint or flop.” As he explains, “giving up protects us from lasting trauma in a different way, with ‘learned helplessness’ - a feeling that we have no control or power over our fate. This can wire our brains into depression, a slow giving-up on ourselves and the worlds, or avoidance strategies like blunting the experience with addiction.”

When it comes to people making difficult situations more difficult, I believe we have seen all four of these choices on a regular basis. Sometimes, we even choose them, consciously or unconsciously, ourselves. The difficulty continuum reflects the nexus of our past experiences of trauma and emotional pain, and our current reality. 

In my experience, when hurting people choose to hurt people, they may not be aware of how much they are hurting. They just feel things are chaotic and so, for them, the only logical choice is to respond by fighting and seeking control of the conscious or unconscious pain they are experience. As Margaret Wheatley shared so long ago, “When confronted with an unknown, we default to a known.” Their default choice is to fight and defend. 

But, I believe there is a deeper element that is going on underneath this default choice, namely the presence of perfectionism, shame, and vulnerability. Brene’ Brown in her book, Daring Greatly: How the Courage to Be Vulnerable Transforms the Way We Live, Love, Parent, and Lead (Avery, 2012), defines perfectionism as a “self-destructive and addictive belief system that fuels this primary thought: If I look perfect and do everything perfectly, I can avoid or minimize the painful feelings of shame, judgement, and blame.” As she continues, “Perfectionism is self-destructive simply because perfection doesn’t exist. It’s unattainable goal. Perfectionism is more about perception than internal motivation, and there is no way to control perception, no matter how much time and energy we spend trying.” In short perfectionism is a defensive move to minimize the pain of blame, judgement and shame. 

Shame, on the other hand, notes Brene’ Brown, “is universal and one of the most primitive human emotions that we experience. The only people who don’t experience shame lack the capacity for empathy and human connection.” As she continues, “… shame is the fear of disconnection…. Shame is the intensely painful feeling or experience of believing that we are flawed and therefore unworthy of love and belonging.”

Finally, Brene’ Brown defines “vulnerability as uncertainty, risk, and emotional exposure.” As a result, many people equate vulnerability as a sign of weakness. They “confused feeling with failing and emotions with liabilities.” 

Nevertheless, Brown explains that “vulnerability sounds like truth and feels like courage. Truth and courage aren’t always comfortable but they’re never weakness.” As she continues, “Yes, we are totally exposed when we are vulnerable. Yes, we are in the torture chamber that we call uncertainty. And yes, we’re taking a huge emotional risk when we allow ourselves to be vulnerable. But there’s no equation where taking risks, braving uncertainty, and opening ourselves up to emotional exposure equals weakness.” 

Given this thoughtful information on the interconnection between perfectionism, shame, and vulnerability, I believe many people choose to make a difficult situation more difficult, in part, because it protects them from dealing with these deeper issues and feelings. Their default choice provides them with the illusion of invulnerability and strength. 

Furthermore, from their perspective, they have protection from having to change. The only person who has to change is the other person in the difficult situation. They are the source of all the problems while the “protected” person is doing just fine. They see no need to be vulnerable, open, or receptive to what is happening around them or within them. 

Recognizing what is happening from a holistic and inclusive perspective, we have to think carefully about our own choices during a difficult situation. Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan, and Al Switzler in their book, Crucial Conversations: Tools For Talking When Stakes Are High (McGraw-Hill, 2002), write “that the only person you can directly control is yourself.” Therefore, we have to be highly mindful of our own choices. We can not be successful if we choose between silence or aggression, or between winning or losing. Neither pathway will help us achieve shared meaning, clarity and understanding. 

Nevertheless, we must acknowledge our own, conscious or unconscious, default choices. Doctors John and Julie Gottman point out that these choices often fall into four categories, namely criticism, defensiveness, contempt, and stonewalling. With criticism, we verbally attack or blame another person’s character. With defensiveness, we “victimize ourself to ward off a perceived attack or to reverse the blame.” With contempt, we attack another person’s “sense of self with insulting or abusive language that communicates superiority.” And finally with stonewalling, we withdraw “from interaction to avoid conflict and convey disapproval, distance, and separation.” These four possible default choices make compromise or progress impossible. They also make all involved very unhappy, and do not lead to respectful, compassionate, and honest dialogue. 

And this all brings us back to our own choices during a difficult situation. I have come to believe that our first choice must be resilience. It is a powerful choice and a complex one at the same time. 

Brene’ Brown in her book, Atlas of the Heart: Mapping Meaningful Connection and the Language of Human Experience (Random House, 2021), writes “Fifteen years ago, when we first introduced a curriculum based on my shame resilience research, we asked participants in the training workshops to list all of the emotions that they could recognize and name as they were experiencing them. Over the course of five years, we collected these surveys from more than seven thousand people. The average number of emotions named across the surveys was three. The emotions were happy, sad, and angry.”

When I first read this research, I was stunned, embarrassed, and blown away by the implications of it. As Brene’ Brown continues, “Language is our portal to meaning-making, connection, healing, learning and self-awareness…. Language show us that naming an experience doesn’t give the experience more power, it gives us the power of understanding and meaning.” 

Our language gives us the capacity to work through difficult situations. Our depth of emotional literacy and intelligence is vital to moving from trauma to growth. For when we comprehend this, we recognize that the capacity to be resilience is an outcome of important choices over time. 

One of the first choices is to cultivate inner stillness. In the middle of difficult situations, many frame up this choice as giving up. However, John Paul Lederach in his book, The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace (Oxford University Press, 2005), writes that “stillness is not inactivity, It is the presence of disciplined activity without movement…. Stillness requires a commitment of patience and watchfulness. Its guideposts are these: Slow down. Stop. Watch what moves around you. Feel what moves in you.”

When we choose to have regular, if not daily practice, of cultivating inner stillness, we can then tap into it during difficult situations. Ryan Holiday in his book, Stillness Is The Key (Portfolio/Penguin, 2019) writes, “We must cultivate mental stillness to succeed in life and to successfully navigate the many crises it throws our way.” When we do this, he explains that we connect with “the power of patience, alternating confidence and humility, foresight and presence, empathy and unbending conviction, restraint and toughness, and quiet solitude combined with wise counsel.” Then, like Lederach notes, we are able to slow down, think deeply, and choose consciously how to proceed. It gives us the capacity to act with courage and to be brave in the midst of difficulty. 

The second choice is build and maintain connections rather than to choose fear, rejection, or disconnection. As a workshop participant told me many decades ago when dealing with difficult life situations, “you need to make friends before you need them.” When we choose to build and maintain this network of connections, it gives us support, perspective, and insights during challenging times. Brene’ Brown explains, “Connection is why we’re here. We are hardwired to connect with others, it’s what gives purpose and meaning to our lives, and without it there is suffering.”

The third choice is to recognize that most people are doing their best with the information and experiences they have lived through over time. When we start from a foundation of this truth, we can choose to do the work of forgiveness and compassion. As Fred Rogers in his book, The World According to Mister Rogers: Important things to Remember (Hyperion, 2003), writes, “The first time we required forgiveness, we probably did something we shouldn’t have when our closet grown-ups thought we should have known better. We made someone angry. We were to blame. What did the first brush with blame begin to teach us? If we were fortunate, we began to learn that ‘to err is human.’ Even good people sometimes do bad things. Errors might mean corrections, apologies, repairs, but they didn’t mean that we, as a person, were a bad person in the sight of those we loved. The second thing we learned (if we were fortunate) was that having someone we loved get mad at us did not mean that person had stopped loving us; we had their unconditional love, and that meant we would have their forgiveness, too.” When we choose forgiveness and compassion, we are choosing not to create more trauma and difficulty, but instead to choose a pathway to building understanding, grace and forgiveness. 

Still, we must remember that during difficult situations, we can not move away from uncertainty, risk, and feelings of vulnerability. They are all normal outcomes of life. We also need to remember a key insight shared by Brene’ Brown in her book, Daring Greatly: “We can’t give people what we don’t have. Who we are matters immeasurable more than what we know or who we want to be.” Both of these are important insights and require tremendous discipline to keep them in mind as one moves through challenges of various proportions. 

Finally, I am reminded of something Mr. Rogers wrote many years ago: “In times of stress, the best thing we can do for each other is to listen with our ears and our hearts and to be assured that our questions are just as important as our answers.” During difficult situations where people are choosing actions that result in the situation becoming more difficult and more complex, there will be many questions, and, at times, limited answers or solutions. Still, when we choose to cultivate inner stillness, when we choose to build and maintain our connections, and when we recognize that most people are doing the best they can with the information and experiences they have lived through over time, we then can come into a difficult situation with an open mind and an open heart, willing to listen and be present to the other person, making our choices from a conscious and thoughtful place, rather than a reactive place. As Rachel Naomi Ramen, M.D. wrote years ago, “Suffering - whether physical, emotional, spiritual, or as often the case, all three - can be a doorway to transformation.” Let’s walk together through the doorway to transformation and discover what is on the other side. 

Geery Howe, M.A. Executive Coach in Leadership, Strategic Planning, and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257