Too often we tolerate people who's attitudes, behaviour, or relational failings are negatively impacting the entire group. It's so tempting to keep trying to nudge them into line or justify the need to wait just a little longer before making the move, especially if they are otherwise productive. Some blend of compassion, confusion, and cowardice extends the situation and increases the damage.

What if we reframe the dynamic?

For some people, moving any block from the stable tower (even if the tower is becoming outdated and declining in results) puts the whole tower at risk. They can't discern which pieces are load bearing and they are afraid everything that has been accomplished could be destroyed by moving the wrong block.

Understanding that healthy is not truly a binary reality: neither leaders nor organizations can be fairly typed as definitively healthy or unhealthy; there are still some strong tendencies that are worth considering.

It's funny and fascinating to me that the entire planet has somehow agreed that finishing first, second, or third is deserving of a precious medal and historic acclaim, but fourth is essentially meaningless. It's interesting that the current system didn't start at the first modern Olympics in 1896, but eight years later. I can't find any explanation of why there are three winners instead of just one, or four, or seven. And yet it's absolutely ingrained into the collective conscious of humanity.

I've had several coaching sessions in recent weeks where we talked through specific, current situations where no matter what path a leader or organization chooses there are sure to be some stakeholders who are not going to be able to agree. There is no fully peaceful path.

So what does a wise leader do?

Offend on purpose.

Maybe your experience is less dramatic, but most of us can relate to the sense of our identity being too closely tied to our performance and the approval of others. If we don't get a handle on that insecurity it can all too easily lead us astray; with potentially devastating effects.

The thing about loyalty (as I've written before) is that it comes at the cost of trust and time, and must be earned, not imposed.

Loyalty to any country, cause, creed, organization, or individual should involve a degree of critical assessment, an unflinching reality check to see the best and worst of what it offers. Blind or compelled loyalty is at best idealistic and always dangerous.

Turning weaknesses into strengths takes a huge effort and rarely pays off. Ignoring weaknesses to prioritize strengths leaves dangerous vulnerabilities. So instead let's figure out what level of development we need to achieve so that our weaknesses don't undermine the things our strengths (along with hard work, team, and luck) otherwise make possible.

If every decision requires your personal approval.

If you find yourself redoing your subordinates assignments.

If you've been accused of micromanaging.

If in your heart you secretly feel like it would all collapse without you.

If you can't take a day off, let alone a two week vacation, without checking in frequently and worrying the whole time.

You have a trust issue.

I am grateful for those leaders who are gifted and committed to building healthy organizations that are ready to thrive after they move on. But I have a growing appreciation for the reality that there are other ways to succeed as a leader. The failure comes when we misunderstand or never explore what we really care about.

I often share the phrase 'Anything worth doing is worth doing poorly" as a reminder to myself and others that the important things in life are rarely east from the beginning. We need to be willing to do things at which we aren't particularly talented alongside our areas of uncommon skill. Sometimes it leads to discovery of an untapped excellence, but often it may simply be a pleasant curiosity that gives us some perspective and fun.

In a conversation with a skilled spiritual director I described the feeling of helplessness I can experience when I can't handle the variety and weight of need I'm exposed to. With compassionate wisdom she encouraged me to sit with that sense of helplessness and see if there's a lesson for me in it.

I think there is.

In healthy organizations the mission is understood to flow between departments as information, resources, and support is exchanged. That kind of flexibility and priority adaptation makes for a highly productive and engaged staff. We can evaluate teams, but the standard is how they contribute to the overall goals of the bucket, not how they're doing on their own.

It seems like a dramatic shift is happening in the charitable sector in how we tell stories. No too many years ago I remember hearing advice about finding the most heartrending images to use in fundraising efforts because they bring in the most money. That may still be true, but those increased donations come at a cost to the dignity and privacy of people who may never have the opportunity Gavin had to call me out on breaking his trust.

In typical years we can manage our energy with varying amounts of effort. We can seamlessly shift from a comfortable, sustainable pace to something just a little more intense for a limited time to accomplish a particular goal and then ease off a little. We usually have all kinds of range between just getting by and going full out. But that's not the case right now.

These are emotional times for everyone and leaders are not always comfortable expressing emotion as part of our leadership. That may be because we are not very well in tune with our own emotions. It may be because we have accepted a myth that leadership is a stoic exercise where feelings are a sign of unwelcome weakness. Or it may be because we have seen too many poor and suspect examples of leaders misusing emotion in ways that erode trust and credibility.

So, what is the place of expressing emotion in leadership?

Under the pressures we are facing this year there are many temptations to address problems in ways that prioritize something different than the values we promote. When we take those options we reveal that we aren't truly committed to the cost of our values. We also set a precedent for future compromises.

Leaders are champing at the bit to start preparing for that emergence. We are eager to put plans in place, make adjustments, and get moving on all the many old and new initiatives that will mark whatever the new normal becomes. Our followers are looking to us for both assurance that the light at the end of the tunnel is getting closer and that we will be ready when we get there.

But many people have no capacity to invest in that future right now and may even push back against plans that they will eventually happily support.

Doc had a spotlight installed in the practice gym, not to illuminate the many championship banners hanging on the walls, but to shine on the empty space at the end of the row. The place where the next banner would hang.

For those who find themselves among the faithful remnant to a cause there is a nobility in fighting to the bitter end. They become increasingly distinct from the surrounding culture, increasingly distrusting of outsiders, increasingly certain of their own righteousness. At some point there is no longer an option to exit.