Consilience Mapping: Revisiting Friedman and Walker
Introduction
Leadership in anxious times demands more than technical competence; it calls for a deep interior posture that resists the gravitational pull of fear and reactivity. Edwin Friedman’s concept of the well-differentiated leader and Simon Walker’s vision of undefended leadership converge on this point: the leader’s capacity for internal regulation amid external turbulence is the fulcrum of transformative leadership.
Friedman’s Non-Anxious Presence and Self-Differentiation
Friedman defines a well-differentiated leader as one who possesses clarity about personal life goals, remains connected without being enmeshed, and sustains a non-anxious presence even when others spiral into emotional reactivity (Friedman 2007, 23). This is not a static state but a directional posture for a leader who can “take a stand in an intense emotional system,” say “I” when others demand “we,” and resist polarization (Friedman 2007, 142). Such differentiation is emotional rather than merely cognitive, requiring clearheadedness and courage to “take maximum responsibility for one’s own emotional being and destiny” (Friedman 2007, 142).
Friedman’s insistence that “a leader’s major job is to understand his or her self” (Friedman 2007, 149) resonates deeply with my own experience. In moments of exhaustion, I notice my tendency to withdraw. It is a defensive maneuver that mirrors the very anxious climate Friedman critiques. His prophetic clarity about how an anxious civilization inhibits well-differentiated leaders feels piercingly relevant.
Preserving self, Friedman argues, is society’s greatest protection against regression (Friedman 2007, 129). This is a threshold concept for me: leadership is less about managing others and more about stewarding my own emotional presence.
Walker’s Undefended Leadership and Ego Structures
Walker approaches the same terrain through the lens of ego. He identifies four ego types. The Shaping Ego of over-confidence, the Defining Ego of drivenness, the Adapting Ego of anxiety, and the Defending Ego of suspicion (Walker 2007, 37). These defensive postures fracture integrity, creating front-stage/back-stage duplicity and fostering control. Against this, Walker proposes the radical alternative of undefended leadership: embracing the freedom to fail, the freedom to give, and leading with childlike wonder. This involves moral authority, vocational clarity, and the courage to lay down skills when necessary.
The resonance between Friedman and Walker lies in their shared emphasis on internal regulation despite external pressures. This is revealed in expectations, temptations, tribalism, and the relentless demand to conform. Both frameworks call leaders to inhabit a paradox: remaining connected without capitulating, present without defensive armour. Walker’s notion of “freedom to give” echoes Greenleaf’s servant-leader ideal: “The servant-leader is servant first” (Greenleaf 1977, 144). This freedom dismantles ego’s compulsions and reframes leadership as gift rather than grasp.
Patterns of Consilience
Integrating theology, psychology, and leadership theory reveals striking patterns of consilience. Theologically, the Imago Dei grounds the leader’s identity not in performance but in what Henri Nouwen calls ‘belovedness’ (Nouwen 1972). Psychologically, self-regulation emerges as the linchpin of resilience. Leadership theories, from Heifetz’s adaptive leadership to Palmer’s vocational pilgrimage, underscore that the leader’s inner journey is inseparable from outer effectiveness. Palmer writes, “Most of us arrive at a sense of self and vocation only after a long journey through alien lands…a transformative journey to a sacred center” (Palmer 2000, 18). This pilgrimage metaphor reframes leadership formation as spiritual practice rather than mere skill acquisition.
Threshold Concepts and Irreversible Shifts
Several threshold concepts have irreversibly altered my leadership lens. Friedman’s insistence that differentiation is “saying ‘I’ when others are demanding ‘we’” (Friedman 2007, 142) challenges my tendency to seek harmony at the expense of conviction. Walker’s exposure of ego defences confronts my own adaptive strategies, manifesting as withdrawal when weary or control when anxious. Heifetz’s counsel to “hold steady” and “anchor yourself” (Heifetz 1994, 146, 188) reframes receiving anger as a sacred task rather than a threat. Nouwen’s declaration “I am beloved” (Nouwen 1981) shifts my leadership identity from output-driven metrics to relational fidelity with God and others.
Intersecting with My Leadership Soul
These frameworks intersect with my anxieties and sources of courage in profound ways. When I feel worn down, my instinct is to retreat sounds like a defensive echo of Walker’s Adapting Ego. Yet Friedman and Walker invite me to inhabit a different posture: undefended, differentiated, and non-anxious. My true north remains, “I am first and foremost a follower of Jesus,” yet I confess that my leadership definition often defaults to productivity. This learning journey is reshaping my soul toward integration—toward leading from belovedness rather than performance, vocation rather than validation.
Summary
Friedman and Walker converge on a critical insight: leadership begins with the leader’s interior life. Their frameworks, enriched by voices like Heifetz, Palmer, Nouwen, and Greenleaf, form a consilient tapestry that integrates theology, psychology, and leadership theory. The threshold I have crossed is clear: leadership is not primarily about technique but about presence—undefended, differentiated, and anchored in the freedom of belovedness. This is the soul of leadership, and it is reshaping not only how I lead but who I am becoming.
__________________
Bibliography:
Friedman, Edwin H. A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix. 10th Anniversary Edition. New York: Seabury Books, 2007.
Greenleaf, Robert K. Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness. New York: Paulist Press, 1977.
Heifetz, Ronald A., and Linsky, Marty. Leadership on the Line: Staying Alive Through the Dangers of Leading. Harvard Business Review Press, 2002. Kindle edition.
Nouwen, Henri J. M. The Wounded Healer: Ministry in Contemporary Society. New York: Doubleday, 1972.
Parker J. Palmer. 2000. Let Your Life Speak: Listening for the Voice of Vocation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Walker, Simon P. The Undefended Leader: Leading Out of Who You Are. Carlisle: Piquant Editions, 2007.
About the Author
Joel Zantingh
Joel Zantingh is a catalyst for peacemaking and intercultural teams, speaker, theologian and consultant. He is the Canadian Coordinator of the World Evangelical Alliance's Peace and Reconciliation Network, and the Director of Engagement with Lausanne Movement Canada. He has served in local and national roles within the Evangelical Missionary Church of Canada, and led their global mission arm. He has experience teaching in formal and informal settings with Bible college students and leaders from various cultures and generations. Joel and Christie are parents to adult children, as well as grandparents. They reside in Guelph, Ont., situated on the treaty lands and territory of the Mississaugas of the Credit, and home to many past, present and future First Nations peoples, including the Anishinnabe and Hodinöhsö:ni'.8 responses to “Consilience Mapping: Revisiting Friedman and Walker”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Rev. Dr. Zantingh,
Great post! And thank you for expanding my vocabulary with fulcrum—I’m definitely adding that to my “sound smarter” toolbox.
Your use of Palmer’s pilgrimage metaphor really stayed with me. It made me curious: what was the moment in your journey when you began to recognize the tendencies that were dimming joy, creating defendedness, or even inhibiting your forward movement?
And just as importantly, what helped you pivot toward a freer, more grounded way of leading?
Dr Burns. Funny intro. 🙂
So, this may be worth a longer conversation. As I shared from each of the authors in the Threshold Concepts section, I literally did a walk through my own leadership journey considering each critical moment related to this. They explore the themes that God revealed needed some care or attention. I was very insecure in my younger years, and then over-compensated, and was quite proud and self-reliant, and learned in the crucible of pastoral work how to pay attention to my own soul in the midst of leading, which is tough to navigate in the “fishbowl” of living your faith before others, creating the perfect condition for a separation of front-stage / back stage, and defensiveness.
So, let’s chat a bit more. I could send you the work I did on “my narrative” a few years back, which highlights a number of key moments.
Joel, I enjoyed your thoughts on Walker and Friedman. Concerning your threshold “leadership is not primarily about technique but about presence—undefended, differentiated, and anchored in the freedom of belovedness,” where do you see the most growth in your leadership throughout your time in the DLGP?
Dr. Kari, I love this question. Like many others in the class, the imposter syndrome has been a reality to face, but I would say that about last year this time, in the aftermath of my “Design” workshop, when people were responding to my NPO and offering clarity on direction, there was a moment of growth. I had to re-center on being undefended, secure in who I was, and then allow their wisdom to look at how to address my NPO without being too “precious” about any given idea. I shared the surprise I felt as an option that was not in my view moved more and more to the centre, and had to work through defended ego dynamics to embrace it, even though I didn’t want to.
Hi Joel,
Will you say more about saying “I” is the best leadership approach that “we”? Are their times when “we” is best? I’m pretty sure I have been doing to much we-ing lately. 🙂
What a great challenge to my people-pleasing tendencies. I see the “I” vs “We” as holding personal conviction even when it against the tide.
But this has a caveat for me. Discernment must be employed to know what hills to die on, and how to be generous to others for the sake of compromise and the art of collaboration. There are times for “we” but first, the freedom to fully express the “I” perspectives when they are at odds with the majority. This is not easy in the climate of polarization.
I teach depolarization with my work in the Peace and Reconciliation Network that trains one to first state someone else’s opposing position as best as possible, and offer ways we know they might question our position, in order to earn the right to share your own perspective, and then to offer questions or concerns about theirs. This order is crucial, for the “we” precedes but doesn’t eliminate the need for sharing “I”. I trust that all inspires you in your sharing of deep conviction, especially in the face of opposing ideas. Open to chatting further…
Joel, you draw a compelling thread between Friedman’s anxious systems and Walker’s ego structures. Where do you see the most significant overlap between those two realities in actual ministry leadership, and how might a leader discern which one they’re dealing with in the moment?
Because both authors have experience in counselling and psychology, there is an overlap of clinical assessment of leaders anxieties which require them to self-regulate (Walker) or become non-anxious (Friedman).
In actual ministry settings, this is, in my estimation, what shows up as performance anxiety, front stage pressure to perform at a “10”, and the pressure to be all things to all people (that’s the “we” vs “I” as well). Leaders must become self-aware as step one of emotional intelligence. That is the discerning moment.
How do you understand it?