Consilience in the Inner Life of the Leader: Friedman and Walker in Conversation
Edwin Friedman’s A Failure of Nerve and Simon Walker’s The Undefended Leader offer complementary frameworks that present leadership as an internally formed reality rather than an externally performed role. Although they write from different traditions, they share a conviction that leadership’s effectiveness is inseparable from the inner life of the leader. What makes this convergence meaningful is that two very different traditions—systems theory and ego psychology—arrive at the same conclusion: leaders shape their contexts most powerfully through the quality of their inner life. Both authors contend that the leader’s emotional processes, self-awareness, and capacity for grounded presence constitute the primary foundation upon which all relational and organizational leadership rests.
Friedman Revisited: Self-Differentiation and Responsible Presence
What stands out most in Friedman’s work is his commitment to the idea that leadership begins internally—with the leader’s own emotional maturity and clarity of conviction. He famously observes that “the way out… requires shifting our orientation…from one that focuses on techniques that motivate others to one that focuses on the leader’s own presence and being.”[1] Self-differentiation remains the cornerstone of his framework: leaders must define themselves without cutting off from others, maintaining connectedness while resisting the emotional pressures of anxious systems.
Friedman addresses boundaries not as rigid lines but as the leader’s capacity to remain a self within relationship—clear, connected, and responsible. He warns that anxious systems tempt leaders toward reactivity, herding, blaming, and quick-fix thinking.[2] As Peter L. Steinke observes in the Foreword to A Failure of Nerve, “we need to prepare ourselves for increasing our maturity, which means taking responsibility for our own emotional functioning”[3] a statement that captures the heart of Friedman’s project. The leader, for Friedman, becomes a kind of immune system—providing integrity not through control but through well-regulated presence.
Walker Revisited: Undefendedness, Ego, and Power
Walker likewise anchors leadership in the interior life, but he approaches it through the lenses of ego, power, and vulnerability. Undefended leaders are those who have “fought and won the war within themselves,”[4] becoming free enough to use power transparently rather than defensively. Walker’s four ego patterns—Adapting, Defending, Shaping, and Defining—expose the subtle ways leaders protect themselves, often without realizing it.
Where Friedman stresses emotional process, Walker emphasizes the psychological strategies leaders use to manage insecurity or seek approval. Power, for Walker, is unavoidable; the question is whether leaders overpower, under-empower, or genuinely empower those they serve. His insight that “leadership is about who you are, not what you know”[5] echoes Friedman’s focus on presence, but deepens it by showing how inner insecurity can distort leadership even when outward behaviors appear competent.
Intersections, Divergences, and Threshold Concepts
Both authors converge around a threshold concept: leadership is fundamentally an interior task. Growth in emotional maturity (Friedman) and freedom from defensive ego scripts (Walker) forms the foundation for trustworthy, resilient leadership. Their shared emphasis on presence—non-anxious for Friedman, undefended for Walker—suggests that leaders lead most powerfully through who they are, not what they do.
They diverge, however, in emphasis. Friedman writes as a systems theorist: he attends to emotional process, triangles, sabotage, and chronic anxiety. Walker writes as a psychologist: he attends to attachment needs, ego scripts, and the temptations of power. The tension between their frameworks enriches the reading. Friedman pushes leaders toward clarity and responsibility; Walker pushes them toward vulnerability and self-awareness. Together they offer a fuller picture of internal formation.
Complementary Insights: Healing, Trust, and Influence
While Friedman and Walker anchor this reflection, the complementary insights from Rowe and Rowe, Cockram, and Schein demonstrate how their themes resonate across broader conversations in theology, psychology, and leadership studies. Rowe and Rowe’s Healing Leadership Trauma extends this shared foundation by showing that the inner work Friedman and Walker demand rarely begins on neutral ground. Leaders often carry unhealed wounds, and “trauma causes people to remain stuck in interpreting the present in light of an unchanging past.”[6] Healing becomes essential if leaders hope to regulate anxiety or release defensive patterns. Their work affirms that undefendedness and self-differentiation both require deep emotional repair.
Steve Cockram adds another dimension through relational trust. Trust requires that leaders consistently empower rather than overpower, functioning as “Liberators” in the lives of others.[7] Cockram’s categories of personality power, positional power, and personal presence clarify how Friedman’s and Walker’s internal postures inevitably shape relational dynamics. A reactive or defended leader distorts these powers; a grounded one stewards them well.
Schein and Schein complement these insights by showing how the leader’s inner life shapes organizational culture. Their claim that “leadership is always a relationship”[8] affirms the emotional and psychological dimensions highlighted by Friedman and Walker. Cultures marked by openness, trust, and collaboration emerge only when leaders embody the internal maturity needed to create psychological safety. Their emphasis on building “something new and better”[9] reinforces that technical fixes alone cannot transform a system; relational integrity must lead the way.
Conclusion: Inner Work as Leadership Work
Leadership is exercised publicly, but it is sustained internally. Friedman captures this with his claim that “mature leadership begins with the leader’s capacity to take responsibility for his or her own emotional being and destiny,”[10] a line that crystallizes the shared conviction of both him and Walker: leaders cannot offer clarity, courage, or steadiness unless they are first attending to the emotional patterns within themselves.
Walker’s undefended leader embodies this inner freedom—able to use power responsibly because they are no longer driven by fear, ego, or the need for approval. Rowe and Rowe show why this is so difficult, demonstrating how unhealed pain can lock leaders into reactive cycles. Cockram and Schein extend this insight by emphasizing that the health of a group or culture ultimately reflects the inner life of those who guide it.
Taken together, these voices press the same point: inner work is not preparation for leadership; it is leadership. Systems will not move toward trust, openness, or resilience unless the leader first embodies those qualities. External techniques may support growth, but it is the leader’s internal formation that makes genuine transformation possible.
[1] Edwin H. Friedman, A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix (New York: Seabury Books, 2007), 2, Kindle.
[2] Friedman, A Failure of Nerve, 47, Kindle.
[3] Peter L. Steinke, foreword to Edwin H. Friedman, A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix (New York: Seabury Books, 2007), 9, Kindle.
[4] Simon P. Walker, Leading Out of Who You Are: The Undefended Leader (Carlisle: Piquant Editions, 2007), 23–24, Kindle.
[5] Walker, Leading Out of Who You Are, 17, Kindle.
[6] Nicholas and Sheila Rowe, Healing Leadership Trauma (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2023), 11, Kindle.
[7] Steve Cockram, “Dealing with the Past,” Relational Intelligence at Work (GiANT Worldwide newsletter, January 9, 2024), accessed November 20, 2025, https://www.giantworldwide.com/newsletter/dealing-with-the-past.
[8] Edgar H. Schein and Peter A. Schein, Humble Leadership: The Power of Relationships, Openness, and Trust (Oakland: Berrett-Koehler, 2018), ix, Kindle.
[9] Schein and Schein, Humble Leadership, 4, Kindle.
[10] Friedman, A Failure of Nerve, 273, Kindle.
About the Author
Elysse Burns
14 responses to “Consilience in the Inner Life of the Leader: Friedman and Walker in Conversation”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hi Dr. Elysse,
Being in a foreign land, being a minority and having to mingle within a culture that made contradict your belief, how do you personally practice containing anxiety in your leadership, rather than rushing to resolve it?
Hi Shela,
You ask a good question—one that has been quite challenging for me. Something I feel the Lord has made clear during my journey is that it is not my responsibility to fix this country or to fix people. That kind of transformation is something only He can do. So, I’ve learned to release that to Him.
What I can control is how I enter into a space and how I continue to mature—particularly through the lens of self-differentiation and the posture of an undefended leader.
Confession: I am not there yet. There is sanctifying work the Lord is still doing within me.
Nicely done, Elysse. I like your back and forth with Friedman and Walker, then the discussion on where they diverge and complement each other, then at the end, the realization that leadership is exercised publicly but sustained internally. Have you found a particular practice or habit that resonates with you that helps you grow in undefendedness and self-differentiation?
Hi Diane,
You ask a good question. This is still something I’m actively figuring out and seeking to grow in. I’ve come to recognize that I tend to become defended and self-protective when I’m exhausted. This has been a particular challenge in places like Mauritania, where the rhythm often feels like feast or famine—either I don’t have enough to do, or I don’t have enough hours in the day.
I’m learning to be content in both seasons and to intentionally create space to draw near to the Lord, allowing myself to rest in Him.
Elysee, thanks for sharing and i appreciate how you blended Friedman and Walker throughout your post. you highlighted Walker’s four ego patterns of Adapting, Defending, Shaping, and Defining as how leaders protect themselves.Which best describes you?
Hi Daren,
Judging from the highlights in my book, I believe I most resonate with the Defending ego. Walker writes, “Defenders fear that this is a great risk that leaves them exposed and vulnerable, but over time, as they discover that other relationships can be relied on, they will find that they are more able to take the risk of not withdrawing.” He continues, “Choose to overlook the times when you have been let down and instead think the best of other people. As you discover what it is like to be trusted, in a trustworthy relationship, so all kinds of other trusting relationships will grow up around you.”
These words really spoke to me, especially in light of my own tendencies toward withdrawal as a form of self-protection. They’re both challenging and encouraging reminders of what trust and growth in relationship can look like.
I’m curious—what ego posture do you most resonate with?
Hi Elysse, you’re right that it leadership effectiveness is dependent upon the leader’s inner life. Since trauma impacts a leader’s ability to practice a non-anxious presence and undefended leadership, it seems like we should give more attention to the inner healing of a leader’s life. Why do you think some are resistant to this?
Hi Christy,
Thank you for your question. From my own experience, I’ve realized two things:
1) It’s easy to believe we’re the exception—that we’re relatively whole and don’t require deep healing.
2) Once we recognize that something within us needs attention, the actual process of healing can be difficult and disruptive.
There are still days when I find myself resisting that work. Facing our own patterns takes honesty and persistence. But I’m learning that growth begins with acknowledging what needs to change and being willing to engage that process—even when it’s uncomfortable.
Dr. Burns,
Great post, as always! I appreciate reading your writing. : -)
Im wondering, in the context of Rowe and Rowe, what specific internal work must a leader undertake to ensure their self-differentiation (Friedman) is not merely a trauma-based cutting-off from others?
Hi Debbie,
You ask a really good question—one that I continue to wrestle with. I think much of the difference between healthy self-differentiation and trauma-based cutoff comes down to honest self-examination.
There are situations where I’ve created distance and felt at peace with the decision. But there are others where I still have a strong, visceral reaction. That tells me the issue isn’t just about the relationship—it points to something in me that still needs attention.
For me, the internal work is learning to pay attention to those reactions, not justifying them or dismissing them, but asking what they reveal. That’s part of how I begin to tell whether I’m acting out of clarity or unresolved pain.
I’m not perfect at this. It’s ongoing work, and I still have blind spots. But I see this kind of reflection as essential to leading from a place of integrity rather than reaction.
Elysse, you have done a great job modeling this in your life: “Inner work is not preparation for leadership; it is leadership.” Thank you for demonstrating great leadership in your own inner work. Why do you think so many leaders are resistant to this?
Hi Kari,
I’ll answer in a similar vein to how I responded to Christy’s question. From my experience, two things often keep leaders from doing the necessary internal work:
1) It’s easy to believe we’re the exception—that we don’t need deep healing.
2) When we do recognize something needs attention, the process itself is often disruptive and uncomfortable.
There are still days I resist that work. It takes honesty and persistence to face our own patterns. But growth begins with naming what needs to change and staying engaged in the process.
Another challenge is making space for this work. Leadership tends to crowd out margin, but without intentional time for reflection and healing, we risk leading from reaction rather than from clarity.
Nice Work, Elysse. I will miss reading your posts. Your reflections are always spot on, and your syntopical work is excellent.
What practices should leaders be developing so that they function as liberators rather than unintentionally overpowering others?
Hi Graham,
Thank you for your kind words. I’ll miss reading your posts as well. One theme that keeps coming up in our conversations is the importance of creating margin and space to do the internal work—addressing the parts of ourselves that still need attention and healing.
I’ve always appreciated how you make this a priority—it’s evident in how you lead and reflect. I also think it’s important that this work doesn’t happen in isolation.
Daren asked me which of Walker’s ego types I resonate with most. I said the Defending ego—where the default is to withdraw and mistrust others. I’ve been learning, slowly, to extend trust and to recognize that others are often willing to walk with me in this process.
So along with making space for reflection, having trusted voices who can offer honest, wise input is key to growing as a self-differentiated, undefended leader.