Revisiting The Paradox of Leadership: Non Anxious Presence and Undefended Openness
Friedman’s Call to Self‑Differentiation
Edwin Friedman’s Failure of Nerve insists that self‑differentiation is the cornerstone of effective leadership. Leaders must maintain a clear sense of identity and purpose without being consumed by the anxiety of the systems they serve. His concept of the non‑anxious presence resonates deeply in today’s climate of organizational volatility (Friedman, 2017, 4). Friedman’s radical claim is that leaders are not primarily problem‑solvers or consensus‑builders, but stabilizing presences who resist reactive patterns. In anxious systems, the leader’s capacity to stand firm—without defensiveness or withdrawal—becomes decisive in whether the system matures or regresses (Friedman, 2017, 14–15).
Walker’s Vision of Undefended Leadership
Simon Walker’s The Undefended Leader explores ego structures and the call to lead without the armor of self‑protection. His framework challenges the instinct to guard reputation, authority, or image (Walker, 2007, 5). Walker shows how leaders use power—through control, manipulation, or service—and how ego distorts these dynamics. True resilience, he argues, comes not from defending the self but from trusting vulnerability as strength (Walker, 2007, 32). In contrast to Friedman’s emphasis on differentiation, Walker presses leaders to dismantle defenses that block authentic connection.
Points of Intersection and Divergence
Both Friedman and Walker insist that leadership is about presence rather than technique. They resist managerial quick‑fixes and emphasize the leader’s inner posture. Yet they diverge: Friedman stresses standing apart from the system, while Walker emphasizes openness within it. Friedman warns against being absorbed by others’ anxiety; Walker warns against being shielded by ego defenses. Together, they form a paradoxical tension: clarity of identity alongside surrender of self‑protection.
Threshold Concepts That Reshape Leadership
Threshold concepts from both authors have permanently altered my understanding. Friedman’s insight that anxiety is contagious and must be met with non‑anxious presence reshapes how I interpret conflict (Friedman, 2017, 78). Walker’s recognition that ego structures shape power makes me more attentive to subtle dynamics of control and vulnerability (Walker, 2007, 133). These ideas redefine leadership as relational presence rather than positional authority.
Dissonance as a Source of Growth
The dissonance between their models deepens understanding. Friedman’s differentiation can sound like detachment, while Walker’s openness can sound like exposure. The tension between standing apart and standing open forces leaders to inhabit paradox: distinct yet connected, resilient yet vulnerable. Growth occurs not by resolving these tensions but by living faithfully within them.
Connections to Other Leadership Thinkers
Their ideas connect richly with other readings. Ronald Heifetz’s adaptive leadership echoes Friedman’s call to resist technical fixes and hold steady in disequilibrium (Heifetz, 1994, 23). Robert Greenleaf’s servant leadership resonates with Walker’s vision of power exercised through vulnerability (Greenleaf, 1997, 23). Parker Palmer’s Let Your Life Speak parallels Walker’s undefended openness, while Martin Buber’s I‑Thou philosophy illuminates the relational depth both authors seek (Buber, 1970, 62). Together, these voices converge on a vision of leadership as deeply human, grounded in presence and authenticity.
Consilience Across Disciplines
Patterns of consilience emerge where theology, psychology, systems theory, and leadership studies converge. Friedman’s systems theory draws from family therapy and organizational psychology, while Walker’s exploration of ego structures draws from theology and psychoanalysis. Friedman’s non‑anxious presence echoes biblical calls to courage, while Walker’s undefended leadership mirrors Christ’s kenotic self‑emptying. Psychology explains anxiety and ego, systems theory clarifies organizational dynamics, and leadership studies provide practical frameworks. The convergence reveals leadership as holistic and multidimensional.
Shaping My Current Understanding
These integrated insights have profoundly shaped my current understanding of leadership presence, power, and resilience. Presence is no longer charisma or authority but the capacity to remain grounded amid anxiety and undefended amid vulnerability. Power is no longer control but stewardship of influence, exercised with clarity and openness. Resilience is no longer toughness but paradoxical strength from both differentiation and vulnerability. Friedman teaches resistance to systemic anxiety; Walker teaches resistance to ego defenses. Together, they call leaders to courage, humility, and authenticity.
Conclusion: Leadership as Inner Life
Revisiting Friedman and Walker reveal that leadership is not primarily about strategies or structures but about the inner life of the leader. Friedman’s non‑anxious presence and Walker’s undefended openness form a dialectic that continues to shape practice. Their frameworks intersect, diverge, and complement each other in ways that deepen understanding of leadership as paradoxical, relational, and resilient. Integrated with voices like Heifetz, Greenleaf, Palmer, and Buber, they reveal patterns of consilience across disciplines. These discoveries have altered how I understand leadership, equipping me to inhabit the tensions of presence, power, and resilience with greater courage and grace.
Edwin H. Friedman, A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix (New York: Seabury Books, 2007).
Friedman, 14–15.
Simon P. Walker, The Undefended Leader (Carlisle: Piquant Editions, 2007).
Walker, 32.
Friedman, 78.
Walker, 33.
Ronald A. Heifetz, Leadership Without Easy Answers (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994).
Robert K. Greenleaf, Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness (New York: Paulist Press, 1977).
Martin Buber, I and Thou, trans. Walter Kaufmann (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1970).
About the Author
Shela Sullivan
Born and raised on the vibrant Penang Island in Malaysia, I cherish the Malaysian greeting, “Mari Makan!!” which reflects the warmth of shared meals. Since 1996, I have called Oregon my home enjoying the raindrops and the serenity of its beaches. The ocean connects me to nature and energizes me. I am a Wife - Mentor - Traveling Pastor - Sourcing Manager Construction. Favorite Bible Verse: "Delight yourself in the Lord, and He will give you the desires of your heart." ~ Psalm 37:4~ I reside with my husband, David and our fur-baby Rolo. We share passions for travelling, culture, diverse cuisines, home improvements, classic cars and laughter.10 responses to “Revisiting The Paradox of Leadership: Non Anxious Presence and Undefended Openness”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Shela,
I also thought about relational presence rather than defined authority. How does that look in your current position? What does relational presence practically look like?
Thank you for your question, Adam.
In my current role, relationship is very crucial. Relationship allows for negotiations and for transparent discussions. Relational presence looks like slowing down in conversations to get clarify, to align with goals and expectations, listening deeply and taking notes, expressing realistic timeline and deliverables, most importantly an open communication. Creating space where my colleagues and I feel both heard, unpressured and ethically compliant when an issue(s) arises.
Hey Shela! I am praying for you as you navigate this challenging season. How have you been able to live in between the tensions you highlighted in Friedman and Walker?
Thank you, Daren, for your prayers. My lose comes in waves.
I have learned to hold Friedman’s differentiation and Walker’s openness together by staying grounded in my values while remaining vulnerable enough to invite authentic connection. Additionally, creating space where my colleagues and I feel both heard, unpressured and ethically compliant when an issue(s) arises.
Hi Shela, thanks for your post. I appreciate your thoughts on how leadership is more about influence through presence, openness, and resilience. How do you lead in this way when (I imagine) your company expects leadership techniques that produce financial results, not just the inner development of those you lead?
Thank you for your question, Christy.
Even when my company emphasizes measurable outcomes, employees’ performances are measured by company’s core values (example: integrity, stewardship, and so forth). Not only I lead by integrating inner development into performance but also with the presence of the Holy Spirit guiding me to do the right thing — showing that resilience and authenticity ultimately strengthen results.
Shela, thanks for this great article.
I’m wondering; How can a leader avoid confusing Walker’s undefended openness with organizational or emotional instability, especially in an environment seeking technical quick-fixes?
Thank you for your question, Debbie.
I avoid confusion by pairing openness with clarity of vision, ensuring that vulnerability is expressed as strength rather than instability in anxious environments. This means I communicate purpose and direction consistently, so colleagues understand that my openness is not indecision but an invitation to authentic dialogue. I frame vulnerability as a disciplined choice, sharing appropriately, modeling humility, and demonstrating resilience, which signals stability rather than fragility. By anchoring openness in a clear mission and steady presence, I help others see that undefended leadership is not about weakness, but about courage to lead without masks.
Shela, I like how you defined the two authors’ main ideas. Friedman’s definition of non-anxious leaders as “stabilizing presences who resist reactive patterns,” and Walker’s definition of undefended leaders as “[dismantling] defenses that block authentic connection.” Of these two, which do you find more easily able to implement in your own leadership journey and why do you think that is?
Thank you for your question, Kari.
Friedman’s non‑anxious presence has been easier to implement because it gives me a clear anchor in anxious systems, though Walker’s openness challenges me toward deeper growth.