Consilience Mapping: Revisiting Friedman and Walker
Introduction
In my earlier engagement with leadership literature, I tended to focus on methods: how to manage conflict, resolve resistance, and guide organizations toward change. Returning to Edwin Friedman and Simon Walker, however, has shifted my attention from technique to the inner life of the leader.[1] [2] What now stands out is their shared conviction that leadership begins with the self of the leader, not with strategy or skill. This realization has become a threshold concept for my own practice of leadership in church, Micronesian diaspora communities, and nonprofit spaces.
Thesis
This paper argues that the consilience between Friedman and Walker—supported by voices like Robert Greenleaf and Henri Nouwen—reframes leadership as an expression of who the leader is, particularly in relation to God and others. Theology, psychology, systems theory, and leadership studies converge on a central point: effective leadership flows from a well-formed, secure, and undefended self.
Friedman: Leadership in Anxious Systems
Friedman’s work on family systems theory describes leadership in the context of chronically anxious systems.[3] He does not simply offer tools for managing conflict; he calls for a certain kind of leader—self-differentiated, clear, and non-anxious. A self-differentiated leader can stay connected to others while refusing to be absorbed by the emotional climate of the system.
As I consider the systems I move in—local congregations, Micronesian communities in the diaspora, and nonprofit organizations—I recognize patterns of chronic anxiety. In these settings, Friedman’s insistence that the most powerful thing a leader brings is their own presence, not a method, takes on new significance. Leadership here is less about solving every problem and more about embodying a calm, steady, and principled presence amid reactivity.
Walker: The Undefended Self
Simon Walker deepens and complicates this focus on the self by emphasizing the inner world of the leader. His claim that leadership is “about myself, not what I have or what I know” redirects attention from public performance to the backstage of motives, fears, and wounds.[4] Walker describes how the leader’s early formation, experiences of power and powerlessness, and ego structures all shape present leadership.
His frontstage–backstage framework has helped me see that if my backstage life is neglected, it will eventually leak into the frontstage of my leadership. The masks I wear, the roles I rely on, and the ways I defend myself under pressure are not incidental; they are central. Walker’s language of the “undefended leader” names a way of being in which the leader’s security is not rooted in reputation, competence, or control, but in God.
Convergence: Leadership Begins with the Self
Friedman and Walker intersect most clearly in their conviction that leadership begins with the self. Friedman’s self-differentiated leader stays connected without being overwhelmed by the anxiety of the system. Walker’s undefended leader is grounded in a security that allows for weakness, shared power, and failure without collapse. Both resist the illusion that leadership is primarily about technique or role.
This has become a threshold concept for me. Before engaging their work, I tended to define leadership in terms of knowledge, strategy, and position. After Friedman and Walker, I can no longer do this with integrity. My way of being—my presence, my relationship with God, and my posture toward others—is not background; it is the core of leadership. This marks a clear “before” and “after” in my understanding.
Divergence: Secular Systems and Theological Depth
At the same time, Friedman and Walker diverge in important ways. Friedman writes primarily in a systemic and psychological key, focusing on emotional process, sabotage, and organizational dynamics. While he does not exclude spirituality, it is not his central lens. Walker, by contrast, offers an explicitly theological framing. He traces the undefended self into the spiritual realm, where ultimate security is found in God rather than in success, competency, or approval.
Rather than seeing this divergence as a problem, I experience it as a gift. Friedman helps me recognize the emotional processes at work in anxious systems. Walker helps me name the spiritual ground that makes a non-anxious, undefended presence possible. Walker, in this sense, provides the theological depth to the differentiated self Friedman describes.
Consilience with Other Voices: Greenleaf and Nouwen
Bringing in other voices reveals a broader pattern of consilience. Walker’s call to share power, tolerate failure, and lead from humility resonates strongly with Robert Greenleaf’s servant leadership. Greenleaf argues that the true leader is servant first and that leadership is measured by whether the people led grow, become freer, and flourish.[5] Walker’s undefended leader—who does not cling to power but shares it—embodies this same generous, sacrificial posture.
Henri Nouwen’s image of the “wounded healer” further aligns with Walker’s concern for backstage formation. Nouwen suggests that a leader’s brokenness, when held honestly before God, can become a place of ministry rather than disqualification.[6] This echoes Walker’s insistence that early wounds and vulnerabilities inevitably shape leadership. Theology, psychology, and leadership studies converge to say that the inner life of the leader is the crucial ground of faithful leadership.
Interdisciplinary Convergence: Theology, Systems, Psychology, Practice
Looking across these perspectives, a pattern of convergence emerges:
- Theology teaches that my identity is secure in God, not in success or public approval.
- Systems theory warns that anxious systems will always try to drag leaders into reactivity, over-functioning, or blame.
- Psychology reminds me that ego defenses, formed early in life, will show up in how I use power and respond to threat.
- Leadership theory (servant leadership, adaptive leadership, and others) calls me to steward power for the growth and flourishing of others, rather than for control.
When Friedman and Walker both begin with the use of self, not the use of technique, they participate in this wider convergence. Walker then makes explicit what is implicit elsewhere: the undefended self finally rests in God as the source of ultimate security.
Implications for Presence, Power, and Resilience
These integrated insights are reshaping three key areas of my leadership: presence, power, and resilience.
Presence. I now focus less on “managing the room” and more on how I am showing up: rooted, honest, connected to God, and less driven by the need to please or control. In anxious systems—especially in cross-cultural Micronesian contexts—this means staying relationally connected without being swallowed by the urgency and anxiety of others.
Power. I am learning to see power as something to steward rather than possess. Walker’s undefended leadership and Greenleaf’s servant leadership invite me to share power, empower others, and make space for their growth. I can relinquish center stage, trusting that God remains in control even when I am not.
Resilience. Resilience now looks less like fixing everything and more like faithful presence. In Friedman’s language, it is the capacity to maintain a non-anxious presence in the face of sabotage and resistance. In Walker’s terms, it is the freedom of an undefended self that entrusts unresolved outcomes to God. Practically, this means doing my part and learning to let go of what is beyond my control.
Conclusion
Revisiting Friedman and Walker has moved me across a threshold: from viewing leadership primarily as something I do to understanding it as an expression of who I am in relation to God and others. Their work, in conversation with Greenleaf, Nouwen, and others, has helped me map a consilient understanding of leadership in which theology, psychology, systems theory, and practice converge on the inner life of the leader. This consilience is not merely intellectual; it is shaping my formation as a leader who seeks to be more present, more generous with power, and more resilient in anxious systems—rooted not in technique, but in a transforming relationship with God.
[1] Edwin H. Friedman, A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix (New York: Seabury Books, 2007).
[2] Simon P. Walker, Leading Out of Who You Are: Discovering the Secret of Undefended Leadership (Carlisle, UK: Piquant, 2007).
[3] Friedman, Failure of Nerve.
[4] Walker, Leading Out of Who You Are.
[5] Robert K. Greenleaf, Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness (New York: Paulist Press, 1977).
[6] Henri J. M. Nouwen, The Wounded Healer: Ministry in Contemporary Society (New York: Image Books, 1979).
About the Author
Noel Liemam
2 responses to “Consilience Mapping: Revisiting Friedman and Walker”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Thanks for this post, Noel. As you think about these two authors, Friedman and Walker, do you find yourself relating to one more than the other, and if so, what draws you more to that one?
Hey Noel. Thank you for this as your posts are always insightful and draw us in closer to your culture and commmunity. Can you share one of the anxieties within the Micronesian community we may not be aware of?