Consilience Mapping: Revisiting Friedman and Walker, Reflection 1
Anxiety permeates our world. Whether it is unresolved hurts from the past causing leadership trauma (Rowe, Wise Rowe, 11) or a current crisis, leadership carries demands that could magnify the insecurities and emotional frailties that threaten the ability of a leader to be effective, unless, of course, she is well-grounded. More than technical competence, leadership requires a leader whose being is shaped by self-awareness; understanding who she is and whose she is. The perspectives of Edwin Friedman’s A Failure of Nerve and Simon Walker’s The Undefended Leader give current and emerging leaders a better understanding of how leaders can remain grounded under pressure and thrive.
Friedman’s premise lies in his theory that the primary crisis facing leaders is not a lack of information or skill but a failure of nerve (Friedman 2007, 2). He knows leadership within chronically anxious systems, including reactivity and emotional regression, can derail leaders. Informed by his mentor, Dr. Murray Bowen (ix), Family Systems Theory is interwoven into Friedman’s basic principle that the first responsibility of a leader is self-differentiation, to define one’s own goals and identity apart from the anxiety of the group (3). Differentiation enables a non-anxious presence: calm, steadiness, and thoughtful engagement that resists the need for togetherness at all costs (60). Friedman’s leader is not distant or aloof but grounded. She is able to stay connected without becoming fused and remaining principled without becoming rigid. Friedman reframes leadership as essentially about internal stance rather than external technique.
Simon Walker approaches leadership through the lens of faith and the language of undefendedness. While the term suggests weakness, Walker’s model reveals that undefended leadership is a form of profound strength. His depiction of power at the intersection of goals, leaders, followers, vision, movement, and trust (Walker 2007, 6) reframes leadership as relational rather than positional, which is preferable. The undefended leader operates without the added distractions of fear or the need to satisfy the projected expectations of followers (16–17). Rather than leaning on the false self or grasping for control, she leads “out of who she is.” While it sounds, for many, including me, it functions as a threshold concept. Once understood, it reshapes how leadership identity is understood. Undefendedness calls leaders away from striving to meet all the expectations of followers and serving their own ego, toward authenticity, disciplined self-awareness, and emotional humility.
Friedman and Walker offer complementary yet different pathways toward inner freedom and effective leadership. At first glance, they could appear very different: Friedman’s language carries an outward intensity, while Walker looks at the leader’s capacity for vulnerability. Yet beneath the surface, both call for courage, clarity, integrity, and a leader whose internal work precedes external impact. Both call leaders to fulfill their role without being consumed by others, to resist emotional drama, and cultivate presence over pretense. While their methods and words are different, they are both more concerned with who the leader is rather than what the leader knows. Personhood over skills matters.
Their models offer insight. Differentiation is concerned with how well the leader can handle the tension between individuality and togetherness. (Friedman 2007, 62). Walker, however, introduces the front-stage/back-stage model, which provides a practical way for leaders to care for their emotional and spiritual energy (Walker 2007, 33). Friedman emphasizes differentiation in the system; Walker emphasizes restoration behind the scenes. This tension invites a more holistic leadership practice: one that both resists fusion with the system and honors the leader’s need for replenishment.
These insights relate to other readings deepening the consilience. Nelson Mandela embodied a synthesis of undefendedness and differentiation. In the midst of apartheid’s violence, he demonstrated both emotional steadiness and moral clarity. While imprisoned, he maintained a differentiated presence, resisting hatred, exercising intentionality, and grounding his leadership in vision rather than reactivity. His assertion that their strongest weapon was dialogue shows a commitment to non-anxious leadership (Waldmeir 1997, 16). Yet he was also capable of forceful confrontation, as seen when he challenged de Klerk publicly. Mandela shows that undefendedness does not negate strength; differentiation does not eliminate passion. His life invites a more integrated understanding of leadership courage.
Other course readings echo these concepts. Heifetz’s adaptive leadership’s focus is on motivating others to make changes to address their challenges rather than worry about their own position (Heifetz 1994 via Northouse, 286). These leaders are not self-absorbed but have an approach that connects with Friedman’s non-anxious presence. Greenleaf’s servant leadership aligns with Walker’s undefendedness by locating legitimate power in humility and service (Greenleaf via Northouse, 254).
Walker and Friedman are giants in my mind. While their concepts could stand alone, the consilience among other disciplines highlights the depth and interwovenness of their work. Psychology highlights the emotional maturity required to lead without defensiveness. Systems theory equips leaders to understand group dynamics. Leadership studies, adaptive, servant, and relational provide practical frameworks for practicing presence and power ethically. Theology affirms that leadership is grounded in identity as beloved children of God. Together these fields create a fuller understanding of a leader who is spiritually grounded and functionally resilient.
From a broader perspective, these integrated insights reshape how leadership presence, power, and resilience are understood. Leaders formed in relationship with God are no longer tied to outcomes, roles, or success. Their deeper truth is God-given, not performance-based (Psalm 139:14) I praise you for I am fearfully and wonderfully made) perspective that allows a leader to navigate power and responsibility with grace and confidence, accountability, vision, and courage all the while leaning into the arms of the Almighty God.
About the Author
Diane Tuttle
12 responses to “Consilience Mapping: Revisiting Friedman and Walker, Reflection 1”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hi Diane, love how you describe Friedman and Walker as offering complementary pathways toward inner freedom. In your own leadership, where do you most often feel the tension between differentiation and undefendedness, and which practice, frontstage/backstage or non-anxious presence, has been hardest to embody consistently?
Hi Glyn, thanks for the question. I don’t know that one has been harder than the other. They are just different. However, I do think that the practices Walker suggests for the front & back stages are helpful to anyone also living a differentiated life. By using the backstage for the leader to allow God to be the most important support, the leader can be both. Stepping away in the middle of tense situations to go to do that is the hard part.
Diane,
You state “Anxiety permeates our world,” I feel anxiety permeates these last assignments.
Looking back on Eve Poole’s Leadersmithing, what threshold concept(s) did you learn over your years that has impacted your leadership the most and you would want your successor to know and understand sooner than later?
Thanks for the question, Jeff. Revisiting Leadersmithing several times throughout this journey, what really struck me was the theme of character and personal awareness that is intertwined with so many of our authors. Poole’s diamond section on Uncertainty was eye-opening for me. If the leader knows an answer to a problem, get moving to solve it. But some problems are not solvable. Sounds like wicked problems, right? The synergy is prevalent. But even Poole, whose discussion in Robot Souls did not excite me, quoted the serenity prayer to accept things that can’t be changed, the courage to change things that can be, and the wisdom to know the difference (Poole, 2017, 82).
Thanks Diane. Great post. How do individual leadership styles and personalities impact our ability to be differentiated and undefended?
Ryan, thanks for the question. A leader whose style is more directive might have a hard time not assuming all the responsibility for whatever is going on, and thus taking success or failures personally, defensively, or haughtily. On the other hand, a leadership style that is inclusive and supportive is more likely to be practiced by someone who already has a strong awareness of self, so sharing knowledge, authority, and credit is easier.
Your weaving together of Walker and Friedman with psychology, systems theory, leadership studies, and theology resonates deeply. By grounding identity in God rather than performance, you highlight a freedom that resists both defensiveness and the being consumed.
How do you see this shaping not just individual resilience, but the culture of a whole community or organization?”
Thanks for the question Graham. I think those being led are often more aware than a leader realizes, especially if the leader is not doing it well. So, my answer would be that the way to shape an organization is to combine stated expectations with behavior that supports them. The leader needs to set the example.
Diane,
how might you be coaching the new leader stepping into your role regarding these concepts? How do you coach undefendedness?
Adam, that’s a good question. As I have been thinking more about it because it relates to my NPO, I am taking practices that guide people in those directions. For instance, giving recommendations for self-reflection, staying grounded in prayer, and being sure to pay attention to their personal life. Essentially, it is having a good balance of prayer, family, work, play, and rest. When those pieces are in place, the person is less likely to need validation from those they are leading.
Hi Diane, As you are soon stepping into a new season. If you are comfortable sharing, where are you finding the most tension in your leadership identity and role(s)? What is helping you work through this?
Hi Kari, Thanks for asking. I have said for years my identity is in being a Christian first, family person second, and then work. The tension lies in the reality that I do want the organization to thrive and get even better after I leave but I have a lot of connections and people have made comments about sticking around because I am there. I don’t want that and have been asking people to commit to at least another year to give the new person and Angelwood a chance to thrive with new leadership. I never wanted it to be about me. I have also started to stay away from the office more by working from home several days a week to start becoming less visible. Because we have program and admin space in the same building it will help the people we serve not to go “cold turkey”. Personally, I know not being part of this community will be difficult but there are two things that I am looking forward to: 1. I want to have a period of rest. I know I will work but my body and soul will benefit from a couple months of not being employed. 2. I am excited about some of the possibilities that are being discussed locally related to doing something different but degree related. I want to remain open to where God leads.